# data[].attributes.body
The latest research to improve the beef industry combatting climate issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leveraging Beef Genetics as a Climate-Smart Sustainability Practice – Beef Improvement Federation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 1975, the industry has increased beef production while cow inventory has reduced. Acknowledging and appreciating the sustainability improvements the beef industry has already made is how Dr. Robert Williams, Trust in Food Sustainable Livestock Technical Manager, kicked off his presentation during the Advancements in Efficiency and Adaptability breakout session. The session part of the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Symposium June 11, 2024, in Knoxville, Tennessee.

# data[].attributes.body
Feeding about 1.8 million head of cattle per year while striving to make sustainability a way of life.

# data[].attributes.body
Great way to serve up a budget friendly meal the whole family can enjoy!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're looking for a filling and budget-friendly meal that'll please everyone at your table, you've come to the right place. This recipe for beef tips in gravy is not only easy to make with inexpensive ingredients, it's incredibly delicious and satisfying. You'll come back to this beef tips recipe again and again.

What Are Beef Tips?

Technically, beef tips come from the tip cut of the tenderloin. However, many people use "beef tips" to refer to a dish that consists of cubed meat simmered slowly in a savory gravy until it's tender. Cubed stew meat is used in this recipe.

How to Cook Beef Tips

You'll find the full, step-by-step recipe below - but here's a brief overview of what you can expect when you make this beef tips recipe:

Saute onions in oil, then brown the stew meat on all sides. Add 2 cups of water, soy sauce, Worcestershire sauce, garlic powder, salt, and pepper to the skillet and bring to a boil. Reduce the heat and continue cooking until the meat is tender. When the beef tips are nearly finished, add the gravy mix and remaining water. Bring to a boil and cook until the sauce is thickened.

How Long to Cook Beef Tips

You should cook the beef in the sauce until it's tender, about 90 minutes to two hours. When the beef tips are done, an instant read thermometer inserted into the thickest part of the meat will read at least 145 degrees F.

What to Serve With Beef Tips

Beef tips are traditionally served over cooked egg noodles, rice, or even mashed potatoes. As far as sides go, add a little color to your plate by pairing this dish with a simple side salad or steamed vegetables, such as broccoli or asparagus.

How to Store Beef Tips

Store your leftover beef tips in an airtight container in the refrigerator for up to three days. Reheat gently on the stove, in the oven, or in the microwave.

Allrecipes Community Tips and Praise

"I tried this and thought it was wonderful," says one Allrecipes community member. "My beef tips always seemed to be lacking something, but this is what I have been looking for. Definitely a keeper!"

"This was super easy and tasted delicious over egg noodles," according to ALEXES. "The meat was SOO TENDER! Although this recipe is great as-is, next time I might add a little cream cheese or sour cream."

"I made this exactly as the recipe states and it was delicious," raves Niki Margeson. "I put it over homemade garlic toast. I think it would also be amazing as a base for stew and am going to try that next."

Editorial contributions by Corey Williams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Juicy, tender beef tips are slow-simmered to perfection in a soy and Worcestershire sauce. They're perfect for serving over egg noodles or white rice.

# data[].attributes.body
These short ribs are not short on flavor!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Braise Short Ribs in Balsamic and Brown Sugar for a One-Pot Meal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let Balsamic and Brown Sugar Short Ribs with Cipollini, Celeriac, and Carrots cook in your Dutch oven and your kitchen will smell incredible. The short ribs cooking alongside winter vegetables make a hearty and comforting dinner with fall-off-the-bone-tender meat to enjoy on cold winter nights.

# data[].attributes.body
Quick to Prep in the morning and ready to grill when you come home!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This grilled balsamic beef is prepared with a perfectly-balanced aged balsamic vinegar-based marinade, then grilled over high heat to create a beautiful sear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Science or Science-Fiction? An Open Letter to the Museum of Science Boston — Global Food Justice Alliance

# data[].attributes.body
There are important questions to ask about fake meat that are not being shared in the narrative.

How much energy will it take?
Are you being sustainability on the right information?
Is it nutrient dense?
Is it economically viable?

Learn more in this Open letter to the Museum of Science Boston.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science or Science-Fiction? An Open Letter to the Museum of Science Boston — Global Food Justice Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Museum of Science Boston seems to have an unbalanced promotion of lab meat. If they are going to highlight lab meat, I urge them to also have some nutritionists, livestock scientists and local farmers to the museum to talk about the many benefits of meat and livestock to our food and ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science or Science-Fiction? An Open Letter to the Museum of Science Boston — Global Food Justice Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Museum of Science Boston seems to have an unbalanced promotion of lab meat. If they are going to highlight lab meat, I urge them to also have some nutritionists, livestock scientists and local farmers to the museum to talk about the many benefits of meat and livestock to our food and ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science or Science-Fiction? An Open Letter to the Museum of Science Boston — Global Food Justice Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Museum of Science Boston seems to have an unbalanced promotion of lab meat. If they are going to highlight lab meat, I urge them to also have some nutritionists, livestock scientists and local farmers to the museum to talk about the many benefits of meat and livestock to our food and ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quick Summary

Cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment.

Leaping from "pharma to food" product is a significant technological challenge.

Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it's predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle. But in a preprint not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or "cultivated" meat's environmental impact is likely to be "orders of magnitude" higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

"If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential," said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. "If this product continues to be produced using the "pharma" approach, it's going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production."

The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.

A more climate friendly burger in the future?

One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat's global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from "pharma to food" still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea," said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. "It's possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media."

Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

Developing the technology that would allow the leap from "pharma to food" is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.

Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn't result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

"It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example," said Risner. "My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment."

Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lab-Grown Meat's Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn why UC Davis scientists say lab-grown or cultivated meat is likely worse for the climate than beef.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quick Summary

Cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment.

Leaping from "pharma to food" product is a significant technological challenge.

Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it's predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle. But in a preprint not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or "cultivated" meat's environmental impact is likely to be "orders of magnitude" higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

"If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential," said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. "If this product continues to be produced using the "pharma" approach, it's going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production."

The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.

A more climate friendly burger in the future?

One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat's global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from "pharma to food" still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

"Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It's not a panacea," said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. "It's possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media."

Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

Developing the technology that would allow the leap from "pharma to food" is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.

Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn't result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

"It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example," said Risner. "My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment."

Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lab-Grown Meat's Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn why UC Davis scientists say lab-grown or cultivated meat is likely worse for the climate than beef.

# data[].attributes.headline
California Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture reflects on attending the COP28 meeting

# data[].attributes.subject
California Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture reflects on attending the COP28 meeting

# data[].attributes.body
https://plantingseedsblog.cdfa.ca.gov/wordpress/?p=27032&fbclid=IwAR2v9yHkOalJ2GS5Smks-omTe9kxXB3NaEjgBMUKhckpQkC1IiSj7h2L8vg_aem_Ac9-KkrRXFQNeMfVo5sBsJaPVHr_z396I5ZV9zF1zmGYAd8WIKXTFhG-C57jhVbZmlw

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
FAO report clears path to food security, climate solutions for animal agriculture

# data[].attributes.headline
The CLEAR Center at UC Davis stays on top of the climate conversation

# data[].attributes.subject
The CLEAR Center at UC Davis stays on top of the climate conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I had the pleasure of speaking at COP28, and I was on the ground as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization released its latest report, Pathways towards lower emissions - A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems . A good deal of press leading up to COP28 reported the FAO planned to call for reductions in consumption of animal-source foods in developed regions as a way to limit emissions from our livestock sector.

And it doesn't stop there. We are working on rumen manipulations with feed additives, carbon sequestration, manure management and better nutrition. This work is exciting, promising and ongoing. Scientists around the world are studying ways to have cows produce less methane so that we can curtail global warming without cutting back on our food supply. In the history of the world, have we ever been faced with two more critical goals?

Thanaway Tiensen, director of the FAO's animal production and health division, states it beautifully in a "Sustainable livestock systems can contribute to climate action in several ways. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving resource efficiency, enhancing carbon sequestration and minimizing environmental impacts ... Sustainability is imperative [but] it is equally essential to recognize the role of livestock in meeting our dietary needs."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FAO report clears path to food security, climate solutions for animal agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Frank Mitloehner Political leaders, industry workers, activists and academics gathered in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates recently for the United Nations' annual climate change conference - COP28 - an event where big climate ideas were championed, and smaller ones were reinforced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Monthly Meat Demand Monitor [Survey Data]

# data[].attributes.body
Sign up to get email reports of current meat usage trends and demand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Meat Demand Monitor (MDM) project is funded in-part by the beef checkoff and the pork checkoff. Monthly reports and supporting documentation are available here.
Meat Demand Monitor Dashboard (National Maps & State-Level Summaries)

Monthly Meat Demand Monitor

Methods and Supporting Information

Academic Papers using MDM Data

Use in Government Testimony

Media Coverage

Media Coverage

For additional coverage, please find cross-linked media on Twitter using #MDM and via @TonsorGlynn .

AgriTalk September 17, 2021 https://www.agweb.com/agritalk

MarketWatch July 19, 2021 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-vegetarians-are-winning-the-inflation-battle-11626195770

Oklahoma Farm Report June 16, 2021 http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/beefbuzz/2021/06/02565_GlynnTonsorMDMIncreasedMeatDemand06162021_084540.php#.YWXwFxrMKUk

Marketplace June 10, 2021 https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/food-prices-are-rising-is-that-a-problem/

RFD TV June 8, 2021 https://www.rfdtv.com/story/44057996/meat-demand-monitor-onestopshop-for-consumer-trends

Oklahoma Farm Report April 19, 2021 http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2021/04/01011_MeatDemandMonitor04192021_143227.php#.YWWlfdrMKUl

Cattle Current April 5, 2021 https://cattlecurrent.com/cattle-current-daily-april-5-2021/

PORK March 11, 2021 https://www.porkbusiness.com/news/industry/bacon-maintained-star-status-during-pandemic

VOX Feb 19, 2021 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287530/chicken-beef-factory-farming-plant-based-meats

USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum February 18, 2021 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Tonsor_Glynn_Pres.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monthly Meat Demand Monitor [Survey Data]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Meat Demand Monitor (MDM) project is funded in-part by the beef checkoff and the pork checkoff. Monthly reports and supporting documentation are available here. Meat Demand Monitor Dashboard (National Maps & State-Level Summaries) Media Coverage For additional coverage, please find cross-linked media on Twitter using #MDM and via @TonsorGlynn .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Meat Demand Monitor (MDM) project is funded in-part by the beef checkoff and the pork checkoff. Monthly reports and supporting documentation are available here.
Meat Demand Monitor Dashboard (National Maps & State-Level Summaries)

Monthly Meat Demand Monitor

Methods and Supporting Information

Academic Papers using MDM Data

Use in Government Testimony

Media Coverage

Media Coverage

For additional coverage, please find cross-linked media on Twitter using #MDM and via @TonsorGlynn .

AgriTalk September 17, 2021 https://www.agweb.com/agritalk

MarketWatch July 19, 2021 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-vegetarians-are-winning-the-inflation-battle-11626195770

Oklahoma Farm Report June 16, 2021 http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/beefbuzz/2021/06/02565_GlynnTonsorMDMIncreasedMeatDemand06162021_084540.php#.YWXwFxrMKUk

Marketplace June 10, 2021 https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/food-prices-are-rising-is-that-a-problem/

RFD TV June 8, 2021 https://www.rfdtv.com/story/44057996/meat-demand-monitor-onestopshop-for-consumer-trends

Oklahoma Farm Report April 19, 2021 http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2021/04/01011_MeatDemandMonitor04192021_143227.php#.YWWlfdrMKUl

Cattle Current April 5, 2021 https://cattlecurrent.com/cattle-current-daily-april-5-2021/

PORK March 11, 2021 https://www.porkbusiness.com/news/industry/bacon-maintained-star-status-during-pandemic

VOX Feb 19, 2021 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287530/chicken-beef-factory-farming-plant-based-meats

USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum February 18, 2021 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Tonsor_Glynn_Pres.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monthly Meat Demand Monitor [Survey Data]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Meat Demand Monitor (MDM) project is funded in-part by the beef checkoff and the pork checkoff. Monthly reports and supporting documentation are available here. Meat Demand Monitor Dashboard (National Maps & State-Level Summaries) Media Coverage For additional coverage, please find cross-linked media on Twitter using #MDM and via @TonsorGlynn .

# data[].attributes.body
Advocating for nutrient dense meat, milk and eggs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Global Food Justice Alliance advocates for the right of all people to choose nutrient-dense foods such as meat, milk, and eggs, which are critical for nutritious, environmentally sustainable, and equitable food systems that can sustain both human life and the planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Janette Barnard of Prime Future gives Natureal fibers file for thought

# data[].attributes.subject
Janette Barnard of Prime Future gives Natureal fibers file for thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States - Nature Food

# data[].attributes.headline
Minimal cost adequate nutrition  requires animal protein - Nature Food researched the question 

# data[].attributes.subject
Minimal cost adequate nutrition  requires animal protein - Nature Food researched the question 

# data[].attributes.body
Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States | Nature Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nature Food 1, 376-381 (2020) Cite this article

927 Accesses

14 Citations

64 Altmetric

Metrics

Abstract

The amounts of animal-sourced foods required to achieve a least-cost nutritious diet depend on the food prices prevalent in each country. Using linear programming, we determine least-cost dietary patterns in the United States and the constituent amounts of animal-sourced foods. We considered local foods and prices from 2009-2010, and the average energy and nutrient requirements of adults. Nutrient-adequate food patterns were estimated at US$1.98 per day and included animal and plant products. Limiting nutrients were α-linolenic acid, potassium, choline, and vitamins C, D, E and K. The prices of animal-based foods had to be increased by 2-11.5 times to be excluded from the modelled food pattern, with the least cost of a plant-only diet at US$3.61. Given relative food prices in the United States, we show that animal-based foods are needed to secure adequate nutrition at the lowest cost, underscoring the role of price and market mechanisms in the choice of nutrient-adequate, sustainable diets.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Subscribe to Nature+

Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals

Subscribe to Journal

Get full journal access for 1 year

$119.00

only $9.92 per issue

All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Additional access options:

Data availability

All data used and generated during the current study are available from an online resource ( https://gitlab.com/thetasolutionsllc/naturefood-19100372).

Code availability

The computer code required to reproduce the findings of this study is available from an online resource ( https://gitlab.com/thetasolutionsllc/naturefood-19100372).

References

1. Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets: United Against Hunger (FAO, 2010).

2. Drewnowski, A. in Sustainable Nutrition in a Changing World 25-34 (Springer, 2017).

3. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 28 (USDA, 2016); http://www.ars.usda.gov/nea/bhnrc/mafcl.

4. Dantzig, G. B. Linear Programming and Extensions (Princeton Univ. Press, 1963).

5. Cleveland, L. E., Escobar, A. J., Lutz, S. M. & Welsh, S. O. Methods for identifying differences between existing food intake patterns and patterns that meet nutrition recommendations. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 93, 556-560, 563 (1993).

6. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Sodium and Potassium (National Academies Press, 2019).

7. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (National Academies Press, 2002).

8. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements (National Academies Press, 2006).

9. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate (National Academies Press, 2005).

10. Nicklas, T. A., O'Neil, C. E. & Fulgoni, V. L. III The role of dairy in meeting the recommendations for shortfall nutrients in the American diet. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 28, 73-81 (2009).

11. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USHHS, USDA, 2015).

12. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ° C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

13. Willet, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT- Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447-492 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

14. Adesogan, A. T., Havelaar, A. H., McKune, S. L., Eilitta, M. & Dahl, G. E. Animal source foods: sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob. Food Secur. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325 (2019).

15. Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT- Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, 59-66 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

16. Poverty Thresholds (US Census Bureau, 2010); https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/data/tables.2010.html.

17. Moughan, P. J. Holistic properties of foods: a changing paradigm in human nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8997 (2018).

18. Gephart, J. A. et al. The environmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimize footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 553, 120-127 (2016).

ADS CAS Article Google Scholar

19. Code of Federal Regulations: Title 21-Food and Drugs Vol. 2, Section 101.12 (US FDA, 2017); https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.12.

20. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride (National Academies Press, 1997).

21. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline (National Academies Press, 1998).

22. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids (National Academies Press, 2000).

23. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc (National Academies Press, 2001).

24. Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D (National Academies Press, 2011).

25. Kuczmarski, R. J. et al. 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital Health Stat. 246, 1-190 (2002).

Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported was supported in part through funds from the National Dairy Council and Global Dairy Platform.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Riddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Sylvia M. S. Chungchunlam & Paul J. Moughan

2. Theta Solutions, Atascadero, CA, USA

Daniel P. Garrick

3. AL Rae Centre for Genetics and Breeding, School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Hamilton, New Zealand

Daniel P. Garrick

4. Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, Washington, DC, USA

Adam Drewnowski

Contributions

S.M.S.C. and P.J.M. were responsible for the design and analysis of the study. D.P.G. was responsible for the linear programming modelling and analysis. A.D. was responsible for the provision of databases and consulting on the linear programming models. S.M.S.C. prepared the first draft of the manuscript. P.J.M revised the first draft of the manuscript. All authors participated in interpretation of the results and have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia M. S. Chungchunlam.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Sensitivity analysis, with the shadow prices for all constraints sitting at either minimum or maximum, for linear programming analysis 1 and linear programming analysis 3.

About this article

Cite this article

Chungchunlam, S.M.S., Moughan, P.J., Garrick, D.P. et al. Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States. Nat Food 1, 376-381 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0096-8
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Further reading

Mariana Lares-Michel

Fatima Ezzahra Housni

Madeline de Jesús López Larios

European Journal of Nutrition (2022)

Nature Food (2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States - Nature Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Affordability of dietary patterns varies across countries, thereby affecting the levels of animal- and plant-based foods required to satisfy nutritional demands. Using an optimization model, Chungchunlam et al. reveal the components of the least-cost nutritious diet in the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainable for wildlife because of cattle - stewardship is a serious part of ranching operations 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainable for wildlife because of cattle - stewardship is a serious part of ranching operations 

# data[].attributes.body
By saving endangered species, this Bay Area cattle rancher also saved his family farm - Story Studio – SFGATE.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
By saving endangered species, this Bay Area cattle rancher also saved his family farm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tim Koopmann was desperate. The year was 1991, and Koopmann’s father, Herman Jr., had suddenly died before the two could set up a formal plan of succession for the Alameda County ranch that had bee…

# data[].attributes.headline
Meat Intake Research for Life Expectancy

# data[].attributes.subject
Meat Intake Research for Life Expectancy

# data[].attributes.body
Meat intake shows to improve human longevity in several countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Life expectancy at birth is the measure synthetically describing mortality in a population. It is estimated that 20-30% of human life expectancy is determined by genetic factors, and 70-80% is determined by environmental factors. Life expectancy at 5 years of age is similarly influenced by genetic factors, while it excludes neonatal, infant and early childhood mortality that depends heavily on environmental factors, especially hygiene and infection controls. These percentages, however, have not received a general scientific consensus. What is clearer is the genetic/environmental interplay that informs human health. Nutrition offers the means to improve health and well-being and acts as a significant predictive factor of healthy aging, so it appears as one of the major determinants of life expectancy.

Extensive studies regarding the role of conventional meat containing diets and vegetarian diet (excluding meat) in increasing our life expectancy have been controversial and circumstantial. Since the early Paleolithic period, meat consumption (understood as intake of parts of any animal bodies) has constituted a proportion of the hominin diet. It has been argued that consumption of meat, as a high-quality component of the hominin diet, allowed increases in body and brain sizes while at the same time permitting reduction of the size of the gastrointestinal tract producing typically human increased brain weight/body weight ratios.

The effects of meat eating on human health have been debated in nutrition and diet research for a long time. Over the last 50 years, although the associations between meat eating and illness are circumstantial and controversial to some extent, they have prompted the spread of vegetarianism and veganism, based on the assumption that non-meat diets provide more health benefits than diets that include meat. Moreover, it has been argued that vegetarianism and veganism form a part of "trendy" Western consumerist lifestyles - only accessible to privileged "white" people. Vegetarianism that has been prevalent in Western countries has been subject to prejudice, low self-esteem, and low psychological adjustment.

To date, there has been prevailing research stating that vegetarians tend to have greater life expectancy compared with non-vegetarians in some populations, particularly among Seventh-day Adventists. However, lack of population representativeness and failure to remove the influence of lifestyle in these studies have been heavily criticised. Thus, the suggestion that vegetarian diet improves longevity is questionable. For example, several studies with large sample sizes conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom did not show that meat eating correlated negatively with life expectancy after controlling for health-related elements of lifestyles.

Meat intake has been associated with adverse health issues, but the evidence in support of this hypothesis is limited and reliant on epidemiologic associations as opposed to clinical trials, which are supposed to reveal a cause-and-effect relation. For instance, epidemiological studies in humans could not reveal a direct relationship between nitrite and/or nitrate, which has been assumed as the major carcinogenic factor derived from meat consumption, and cancer development.

Before agriculture was introduced (circa 11-9000 years ago), human ancestors could not grow, harvest and store the majority of plant-based products as the staple food. Plant foods are mostly accessible only in particular seasons of the year. Contrariwise, animals, including large game, small animal, fish and some insects, could constantly provide humans with meat as the staple food.

Although modern agriculture diversifies our diet components and offers us many food choices, meat is still one of the significant food components worldwide. Modern nutritional science has revealed that meat provides complete nutrition. Modern food technology is capable of producing artificially all meat components, so that in special situations complete meat contents can be introduced into a diet without including actual muscle tissue of animals. This, however, does not argue against the benefits of eating meat. On the contrary, it supports that meat contents are necessary for good human nutrition. Availability of artificially produced meat may provide a solution for people who are ethically opposed to killing animals.

This population-based study, using data collected by the United Nations and its agencies, tests the hypothesis that, worldwide, populations with more meat consumption have greater life expectancies.

Materials and Methods

Data Selection Criteria and Data Sources

The data for this study were selected in consideration of the following criteria:

a) Listed all the countries/territories of the world (research subjects) with data on meat intake, and then collected other variables that were matched with this list. A set of data consisting of 175 populations with all required information available was obtained for this study. This covers approximately 90% of the world.

b) Considered the 3 years' delayed presentation of effects of meat intake on metabolic/physical changes possibly affecting health adversely.

c) Included the major potential confounding factors, such as total calories consumed, wealth measured by the gross domestic product (GDP PPP), urbanization, obesity and education levels.

A whole set of data is attached to this article ().

1) The independent variables are the cross-population food supply data on food groups of total meats ("flesh of animals used for food, The FAO 2018"), cereals, starchy roots, sugar and sweeteners (sugars). These variables are expressed in grams per person per day in each population. In order to avoid random errors occurring during the data collection and integration, each variable was averaged for the years 2011-2013. These most up-to-date data were captured from the Food Balance Sheet published by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

Cereals, starchy roots and sugars are primarily energy sources that do not provide a large nutrient range. They have been clustered and new variable "carbohydrate crops" was created as the independent contrast variable to meat. Another reason for clustering is that meat used to provide over 50% energy needs before the introduction of agriculture circa 11-9000 years ago, while carbohydrate foods eventually became a source of over 50% of current human energy needs.

Additionally, we extracted the world meat intake data (g/day/capita) for all the years with the available FAO data (1961-2013) as the independent variable to correlate with the worldwide longitudinal life expectancy for the same years.

In terms of meat source included in this study, it is necessary to highlight that, in order to reflect the real meat consumption in human diet, we included total meat intake, instead of a particular animal meat or a particular group of animal meat as the predicting variable. As per the FAO, meat is defined as "flesh of animals used for food", and total meat includes beef and veal, buffalo meat, pig meat, mutton and lamb, goat meat, horse meat, chicken meat, goose meat, duck meat, turkey meat, rabbit meat, game meat and offal.

2) The dependent variables in the analysis were the population level life expectancy at birth (e₍₀₎), and at 5 years (e₍₅₎) for both sexes calculated for the period of 2010-2015 by region, subregion and country published by the United Nations. The child mortality rate before age 5 years (average of years 2011-2013) was also extracted from the World Bank data as another dependent variable.

3) The potential confounding variables are population-specific data on:

i) Total calories intake (kcal/capita/day) which was the average for the 3 years (2011-13) as per FAO Food Balance Sheet

The relationship between total energy intake, rather than that of particular nutrients in the diet, and life span has been debated in animal and human models so it needed to be controlled for.

ii) GDP PPP, purchasing power parity in 2011 US dollars for comparability among countries as per the World Bank data

Income and wealth, as a measure of socioeconomic status, have been less frequently used but are an important variable along with education and occupation in affecting human health and life span.

iii) Urbanization, the percentage of the population living in urban areas as determined by the United Nations (UN) Population Division's World Urbanization Prospects

Urbanization implies considerable changes in the living habits of extant humans, easy access to health care, how they earn their livelihoods, dietary regimes, and the wide range of environmental factors to which humans are exposed. Consequently, some researchers have assumed that urban populations are healthier than their rural counterparts.

iv) Obesity levels as measured by the prevalence of adult individuals with the body mass index (BMI) equal to or exceeding 30 kg/m ² were obtained from WHO. Obesity is a result of metabolic imbalances and is considered as a risk factor for a number of non-communicable diseases.

We have also used information on the percentage of vegetarians in countries (N=30) that had this information available and on the level of education as measured by the percentage of adults (>25 years old) with completed primary school education (World Development Indicators). These latter data were available only for 103 countries, and the rationale for exploring the relationship between the level of education and e₍₀₎ is that education may affect eating habits and domestic food preparation.

Data Analysis

Our data analysis proceeded in five steps to examine the association between meat intake and life expectancies and child mortality at the population level:

1. Scatter plots were produced with the cross-population data (not transformed) in Microsoft Excel ® to explore and visualize the strength, shape and direction of worldwide cross-sectional association between meat intake and life expectancy and mortality variables.

To highlight the hypothesis and facilitate the readership to understand the meaning of this study, the correlation between total meat intake and e₍₀₎ was explored in each WHO region with the scatterplots.

2. Bivariate (Pearson's r and Spearman's rho) correlations were performed to evaluate the direction and strength of the correlations between all the variables across all countries. Log transformed data were used to improve homoscedasticity of data distributions. "Curve estimation" function of the SPSS was used to explore shape of relationships between logarithmed data. In all cases linear relationships were better or equal to the long list of possible other relationships including logarithmic, inverse, quadratic, cubic, compound, power, growth, S-curve, exponential and logistic. Distributions of residuals around linear regression lines were close to normal (). Thus, linear relationships were consistently used in our analyses of log-transformed variables.

Nonparametric correlation analysis was conducted to examine whether the Pearson's correlations between logarithmed values of life expectancy/mortality and all variables differ due to potentially non-homoscedastic distributions of variables.

3. Partial correlation of Pearson's moment-product approach was performed to identify the worldwide correlations between meat intake and life expectancy/mortality independent of the potential confounding variables, energy intake, urbanization, GDP PPP and obesity.

4. Standard multiple linear regression was conducted to identify and rank the variables that had the greatest predicting effects on life expectancies and mortality.

Since life expectancies and mortality measures are strongly correlated ( Table 1), most further analyses were carried out only for the life expectancy at birth.

Table 1 Pearson's r (Above the Diagonal) and Nonparametric "rho" (Below the Diagonal) Coefficients of Correlation Between All Variables Studied (Log-Transformed Variables)

To compare the magnitudes of contribution of meat intake and carbohydrate crops to life expectancy stepwise linear regression analysis was repeated twice when meat intake and carbohydrate crops were excluded, respectively. The decrease of R ² due to exclusions of meat intake and carbohydrate crops was respectively calculated and compared.

5. Countries grouped for the association analysis.

Human diet patterns, varying in different food components, may be affected by the food availability type in a particular region, socio-economic status and by cultural beliefs. In order to demonstrate that a correlation exists between meat availability and life expectancy regardless of these factors, countries were grouped for correlation analyses. The criteria for grouping countries were:

1) Developed and developing world defined by the United Nations;

2) Six regions grouped by WHO: African Region (AFRO), Region of the Americas (AMRO), South-East Asia Region (SEARO), European Region (EURO), Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO), and Western Pacific Region (WPRO);

3) Countries sharing specific characteristics such as geography, culture, development role or socio-economic status, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Arab World, Latin America (LA), and Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD). All the population listings were sourced from their official websites for matching, except LA which is self-classified based on the region primarily speaking romance languages.

4) In particular, two country clusters that are associated with overall health benefits are created for exploring the relationships between the level of total meat intake and e₍₀₎:

A list of countries that have the percentage of vegetarian population segment was accessed through the extensive internet search. Its summary can be accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#cite_note-2. This list was matched to the populations with the data on life expectancy.

Countries primarily on the Mediterranean diet were grouped. The Mediterranean diet is a way of eating that is based on the traditional cuisines of Greece, Italy and other countries that border the Mediterranean Sea. It includes meat but also primarily plant-based food, such as olive oil, grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts and herbs. Due to the combination of food components, the Mediterranean diet is considered a comprehensively healthy diet and has been associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in most of observational studies. However, it is not clear if a portion of a particular food component, such as total meat can improve its health effect leading to greater life expectancy. We extracted the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea and matched them to the list of countries with available data on e₍₀₎ for creating a country group, Mediterranean diet.

5) Countries above and below the average meat intake The FAO 2018.

The population list was also stratified into two population groupings based on our calculated mean daily meat intake. The high meat intake group was comprised of populations with more than 138.82 g/day/capita meat consumption on daily basis; and the low meat intake group included those populations with less than 138.82 g/day/capita on daily basis. The relationships between meat eating and life expectancies were examined in these two population groups, respectively.

Bivariate correlations, partial correlation of Pearson's moment-product and multiple linear regression analysis were conducted with SPSS v. 25 on the log-transformed variables. Microsoft Excel ® was used for scatter plots of raw data (not log transformed). The significance of association was kept at the 0.05 level, but 0.01 and 0.001 levels were also reported. Standard multiple linear regression analysis criteria were set at probability of F to enter ≤0.05 and probability of F to remove ≥0.10.

Results

Figure 1 shows, globally, the cross-sectional association between meat intake and life expectancies and child mortality. Life expectancies show linear positive regression on meat consumption, while child mortality is negatively exponentially related to meat intake. All regressions show strong correlations - meat intake explains at least 50% of variance in life expectancy and mortality.

Figure 1 The worldwide cross-sectional association between meat intake and life expectancy at birth, at 5 years of age and child mortality below the age of 5 years.

Notes: Data sources: Meat consumption is expressed in g/capita/day and extracted from the FAO website. Life expectancy data are measured with at birth and 5 years old respectively and extracted from the United Nations. Mortality rate was extracted from the World Bank website.

The relationship trend was observed in the WHO regions except in SEARO ( Figure 2).

Figure 2 The relationship between meat intake and life expectancy at birth in each WHO region.

Notes: The cross-sectional association between predicting variable (meat intake) and dependent variables (life expectancy at birth) was graphed for each WHO region in the scatterplots above, respectively. Data sources: meat consumption is expressed in g/capita/day and extracted from the FAO website. Life expectancy is measured at birth. Unit of axis: the X-axis - Meat consumption (kg/person/year); the Y-axis - Life expectancy at birth (year).

Table 1 presents, worldwide, that, in Pearson's r analysis, e₍₀₎ shows significant and strong correlation with meat intake ( r=0.710, p<0.001) and weak and negative correlation with carbohydrate crops intake ( r=−0.111, p=0.150). Other measures of life expectancy and mortality show similar relationships. Nonparametric correlations indicate similar relationships between variables studied ( Table 1).

Table 2 indicates that in partial correlation analysis life expectancies and child mortality correlate significantly with meat intake when controlling for carbohydrate crops intake, urbanization, GDP PPP, calories, and obesity. However, with meat intake and the same potential confounding factors being kept constant, carbohydrate crops do not correlate with life expectancy and child mortality at all. This may imply that meat intake correlates with life expectancy not because of its energy contribution, but rather due to other nutrient effects.

Table 2 Pearson's r, and Partial Correlations Between Meat Intake and Life Expectancies and Child Mortality

Table 3 shows that meat intake is identified as the one of the variables that have a significant influence on life expectancies and child mortality when all the six variables, GDP PPP, calories, meat, urban, obesity and carbohydrate crops are included as predictors in multivariate linear regression analysis.

Table 3 Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analyses to Identify Significant Predictors of Life Expectancy e₍₀₎, e₍₅₎ and Child Mortality (n=171-175)

When meat is excluded as one of the predicting variables respectively in linear regression, adjusted R ² decreases by about 0.03. Carbohydrate crops are not a significant predictor of life expectancies/mortality in either model regardless of whether meat is included as one of the predicting variables or not. Statistically, this means that carbohydrate foods do not contribute to the change of life expectancy nor child mortality. This finding corresponds to the lack of correlation of carbohydrate intake with life expectancies in Pearson's r correlation, Spearman's rho and partial correlation analysis.

Table 4 shows that, in general, meat intake is correlated with life expectancy in different population groupings regardless of cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, meat intake level and geographic locations of the clustered countries.

Table 4 Correlation of Meat Intake to Life Expectancy e₍₀₎ in Different Country Groupings

Meat intake correlates with life expectancy in population groupings with high meat intake ( r=0.442, p<0.001, n=83), low meat intake ( r=0.436, p<0.001, n=88), high socioeconomic status ( r=0.555, p<0.001, n=45) and low socioeconomic status ( r=0.620. p<0.001, n=126).

Based on the WHO region classifications, the correlation is observed in all regions except in SEARO. This may be due to similar diet patterns in SEARO countries with little difference in the amount of meat intake and similar life expectancies. This is statistically presented with the smallest standard deviations of meat intake (SD=13.21) and e₍₀₎ (SD=3.50) compared to other WHO Regions.

The correlations between meat intake and life expectancy are also observed in country groupings of the Arab World (geographically scattered in Asia and Africa, r=0.760, p<0.001), LA ( r=0.504, p<0.05) and LAC (located in Americas only, r=0.469, p<0.001) featured with the similar cultures, respectively. The trends are also present in functional alliances, albeit some comprise developed countries only and others comprise both developing and developed countries ( Table 4). Education has two possible effects on longevity and nutrition. It potentially improves health care, especially care for child health, and it may influence the food preparation in households and individual food choices that are partially informed by understanding the physiological role of nutrients. Since we could obtain uniform data for education levels for a smaller number of countries than those included in main analyses, we have conducted some analyses separately. We have chosen the percentage of adults who completed full primary education as the index of education in the country. This has been done in preference to other education indices that separate females from males or use higher levels of educational achievement because these characterise only parts of the entire population. In the partial correlation analysis keeping all other variables statistically constant, education correlates significantly (p=0.001) but weakly ( r=0.334) with life expectancy and at a similar level ( r=0.237, p=0.021) with meat consumption.

In the regression analysis ( Table 5), education is an important contributor to life expectancy similar to caloric consumption while meat consumption has a significant effect on life expectancy at age 5 years.

Table 5 A Multiple Regression Analysis to Identify Significant Predictors of the Life Expectancy at Birth (e₍₀₎) in a Set of 103 Countries for Which Information About the Education Level Was Available

Interestingly, among countries with available percentages of vegetarians, meat intake still has a moderately strong correlation with e₍₀₎ ( r=0.667, p<0.001, n=30, Table 4). Unsurprisingly, populations with lower percentage of vegetarians have greater life expectancy, though the relationship is only marginally significant likely due to small sample size ( r=−0.303, p=0.0518, n=30).

In the Mediterranean diet country grouping, the strong relationship trend was observed that high total meat intake is associated with greater e₍₀₎ ( r=0.860, p<0.001, n=21, Table 4). This may suggest that, regardless of suggested beneficial health effects of Mediterranean diet, more total meat intake may benefit e₍₀₎ in the populations primarily on this diet.

Discussion

This ecological study examined the relationship between meat intake and life expectancy at birth e₍₀₎, at age 5 years e₍₅₎ and child mortality at a population level. Our statistical analysis results indicate that countries with the greater meat intake have greater life expectancy and lower child mortality. This relationship is independent of the effects of caloric intake, socioeconomic status (GDP PPP), obesity, urbanization (lifestyle) and education. Of course, nutritional variations among countries include many more variables than those included into this study. Diet composition, food preparation methods, cultural dietary constraints, availability of some nutrients and a number of other variables should have been considered to obtain a complete picture of meat's importance in human diet. However, even with these possible analytical inadequacies, our statistical analyses indicate a significant role that meat plays in influencing variation of survival and mortality.

Meat has advantages over food of plant origin in containing complete protein with all essential amino acids, is rich in vitamins, in particular vitamin B ₁₂, and all essential minerals. It has a significant role not only for maintenance of health, development and proper growth but also has played an important evolutionary role in ancestral hominins for approximately 2.6 million years.

Benefits of meat eating include better physical growth and development, optimal breastfeeding of neonates, and offspring growth. Human adaptation to meat eating and mechanism to digest and metabolise meat have been supported by studies in human dietary evolution. This may also be reflected in the importance of meat eating for human's whole life span. Culturally, meat production and eating have also been integrated into human societies.

A study of more than 218,000 adults from over 50 countries around the world suggests that consuming unprocessed meat regularly can reduce the risk of early death and can increase human longevity. A recent dietary advice published by Lancet Public Health advocates an increase of dietary meat in order to benefit our heart health and longevity. This study also highlights that saturated fat in meat may be cardio protective, as well as, that meat contains many vitamins and the essential amino acids for human health and well-being.

Recent epidemiological literature highlights that increasing meat consumption, especially in its processed forms, may have adverse health effects, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. However, there has been no clinical trial evidence to consolidate the putative negative effects of processed meat consumption for human health. The aforementioned epidemiological literature is not reflected in the healthy food guidelines published by the government authorities for general public. These guidelines always include meat as a major human dietary component. One reason for their position could be a lack of evidence-based research that demonstrates negative aspects of meat consumption in the general human population. Statistically, the finding of this study unequivocally indicates that meat eating benefits life expectancy independently.

Meat contains high protein with all the essential amino acids, and is a good source of minerals (iron, phosphorus, selenium and zinc) and vitamins (B ₁₂, B ₆, K, choline, niacin, riboflavin). Simply put - a human animal consuming a body of another animal gets practically all constituent compounds of its own body. Recently, massive agricultural production and advanced food manufacturing technologies have made it possible to replace the beneficial nutrients of meat with other agricultural industry products and/or synthetic chemicals. For example, proteins are easy to obtain by incorporating nuts and beans into diet. Vitamin B ₁₂ can be absorbed adequately from cheese, eggs, milk, and artificially fortified pills, and iron can be found in legumes, grains, nuts, and a range of vegetables. Relying on meat nutrient replacements and available food products, well-planned vegetarian diets, including vegan diets, are nutritionally adequate and are appropriate for various individuals during all stages of life, but it is only because their nutritional composition adequately imitates and replaces what is commonly provided by meat. These technological developments provide an opportunity for individuals to select their dietary behaviours based on religious and ethical concerns. Traditionally, meat has been included in many human diets in order to provide humans engaged in high physical activity levels with substrate for muscle tissue synthesis and recovery support, increased bone density, and oxygen transport. Currently, however, dieticians are able to construct sport-specific diets for athletes based on vegetarian foods.

Since many beneficial nutrients found in meat can now be replaced by vegetarian sources, increasing numbers of people have questioned whether meat consumption is necessary. Over the past decades, a number of studies have advocated that vegetarian or plant-based diets may contribute to low mortality rate, and high life expectancy. These studies have received criticism due to questionable study designs:

1) Health effects of a vegetarian diet may be only a perceived benefit. The correlation identified between vegetarianism and high life expectancy may not necessarily depend on their diets, but rather on the lifestyles that vegetarians maintain. It is important to acknowledge that vegetarians (especially in western countries) tend to be more "health-conscious", with overall healthier lifestyle patterns than other people. Two studies conducted among British people have shown that vegetarians and non-vegetarians had very little and even no difference in life expectancy if other healthy lifestyle factors were considered. A study on the cohort consisting of 243,096 adults in Australia revealed that the protective effects of variations of vegetarian diets (semi-vegetarians or pesco-vegetarians) on life expectancy depended on multiple potential confounding factors, such as age, smoking and alcohol consumption, history of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, it is apparent that the advocacy of vegetarianism to increase longevity may have been biased.

2) Vegetarianism study designs were flawed in that research subjects were not representative of the general population. With the exception of India and some Buddhist cultures, vegetarianism is practiced by a small percentage of world population. On this note, the Seventh-day Adventist cohort has been over researched in order to demonstrate the relationship between vegetarianism and life expectancy. However, studies in non-Adventist vegetarians have shown nil or very weak correlation between vegetarian diet and longevity. Importantly, the Seventh-day Adventist population engages in a beneficial life-style, which includes non-smoking, marital maintenance, regular exercise and maintaining normal body weight.

Furthermore, a study conducted by Singh et al. showed that vegetarians did not benefit from their meat-free diet. However, Singh et al. have proposed that low meat consumption increases life expectancy in humans. This claim does not concur with our finding, which argues that more meat eating may increase human life expectancy. This discrepancy may arise due to several biases in Singh et al's study: 1) The cohorts recruited for the study were not representative of global ethnicities. All the cohorts were derived from developed countries only (the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States). A majority of individuals in these countries did not succumb to mortality due to nutritional deficiency from low meat consumption, as they had access to nutrition supplements and good-quality Medical services. 2) More potential confounders of the relationship between meat intake and life expectancy, such as total diet intake and urban lifestyle, could have been included for data analysis (with the exception of aging). 3) Levels of meat intake were only considered as three categories: zero, very low and low. This reduced the accuracy of the correlation due to the limited variation of meat intake quantity as the independent variable.

People on vegetarian diets may be able to maintain "health" because they avoid potential meat-related nutrient deficiencies through one or more of the following ways:

1) Taking meat nutrient replacements to meet essential nutrient needs.

2) Eating a vegetarian diet and identifying as vegetarian are two different things. Ruby (2012) and Rosenfeld and Burrow have concluded that the majority of self-identified vegetarians may still eat meat occasionally. This would allow them to absorb the unique nutrients from meat.

3) Many vegetarians do not follow meat-free diets from birth. Instead, many have decided to avoid eating meat at some point during their adult lives. Thus, their dietary limitations missed the period of critical growth and development - childhood and early adolescence.

4) Many vegetarians include dairy products in their diets (eg, Hindus). These contain animal proteins and minerals in proportions similar to meat.

Saturated fat in red meat has been associated with the onset of atherosclerosis. However, this hypothesis has been based on observational or animal studies, instead of randomised controlled trials, a standard study designed to identify the causal relationship. Therefore, this conclusion has been subject to debate. Studies have revealed that low-fat diets reduced serum cholesterol, but they did not reduce cardiovascular disease incidence or mortality. The healthy diet recommendation advises people that their diet should have less saturated fat, but more polyunsaturated fat. Interestingly, when saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat in diet, cardiovascular events or mortality are not convincingly reduced. We are advancing the correlation between total meat, instead of red meat, and life expectancy. This hypothesis is supported by a systematic review concluding that total meat consumption did not facilitate the onset of atherosclerosis.

Another finding in this study is that carbohydrate crops correlate with life expectancy weakly and negatively. This finding is supported by several ethnological and archaeological studies, which concluded that the transition to cereal-based diets caused a reduction in life expectancy because cereals tend to have lower nutritional value.

The correlation between meat and life expectancy was observed in all country groupings except in SEARO where small variation of meat consumption and life expectancies reduces covariance. It is worth noting that, in this study, countries on the Mediterranean diet have greater e₍₀₎ if there is more total meat in their diet. This finding may be sufficient to form the contrast to either beneficial or detrimental health benefit of the Mediterranean diet. Socioeconomic level is associated with mortality and e₍₀₎ due to a variety of reasons. However, the majority of countries bordering Mediterranean Sea are developing economics, and have high mortality rates for chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers. The correlation between the Mediterranean diet and low incidence or low prevalence rates of chronic diseases might be sporadic in the studies in the populations surrounding the Mediterranean Sea because their high mortality rates or low e₍₀₎ have eliminated the patients with chronic diseases.

Previous studies controversially showed the health effects of selected meat groups, in particular red meat, on human health. However, a series of rigorous systematic reviews which were simultaneously published, concluded that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to show that red meat and processed meat contributes to cardiovascular diseases, cancer mortality and incidence and all-cause mortality. Although the red meat and processed meat have been associated with negative health outcomes, meat eating people are still determined to be omnivores due to their values and preferences. Therefore, dietary guidelines recommendation published in a reputable nutrition and diet journal advised that adults can maintain their current level of intake of red meat and processed meat.

Contrary to the majority of studies that have focused on health effect of red meat, this study argues that total meat consumption, in general, benefits people health, which leads to greater longevity. This hypothesis is supported by a study conducted by Campbell advocating that total meat consumption may offset the detrimental effect of red meat on people's health.

Several strong points in this study need to be noted:

1) Independent variable, total meat (animal flesh), instead of different categories of meat was selected for the correlation analysis, which allows us 1) To reflect that human ancestors ate any available meat, and also various modern populations consume all sorts of meat in broad circumstances. 2) To remove the potential and conflicting influence of different food cooking methods on health. 3) To eliminate the bias from processing aids, preservatives and additives in ready-to-eat meat, which may pose adverse health effects to humans.

2) Populations across the globe (representing about 90% of extant humans) were considered in this study as units. Data included in this study were aggregated at the population level, so that they include information relevant for all people in each population. Thus, we did not study a "sample" but practically the whole population. This had the advantage in overcoming the common biases in studies of limited sample size.

3) Data representativeness determines who the study results are targeted at. Apparently, data representativeness must be considered for all studies in order to avoid a defect in the study design. The argument that vegetarians have long life spans is questionable since most of the studies supporting this statement were conducted within the specific groups of people, such as Seventh-day Adventists. This argument may also be biased due to the "healthy cohort effect", which drives health conscious people to be more likely to be recruited and remain in the study cohort than non-health conscious people.

4) Reporting bias in nutrition studies has been a constant issue as food intake data must be reported by volunteers accurately and truthfully. However, a number of studies have shown that people tend to underreport energy intake and overreport healthy food consumption.

5) Cross-sectional data at a population level used in this study may offer more accurate estimates of e₍₀₎ and meat intake than individual-based data adopted in nutrition studies. Data on e₍₀₎ and meat intake in this study were collected by observing all the populations at the same period of time, which provides general comparability.

6) Compared to previous sample-based studies (ecological studies posited on collecting relevant data), more potential confounders have been included in this study for analysing the relationship between meat intake and e₍₀₎.

Study Limitations and Strengths

Firstly, the intrinsic limitation conceptualized as the "ecological bias" or "ecological fallacy" exists in this ecological analysis. Population level data have been applied for analysing the correlation between meat intake and e₍₀₎. Therefore, this correlation might not necessarily be valid at an individual level.

Secondly, the nature of the relationship between meat intake and longevity is longitudinal. However, the method adopted in this study is cross-sectional data analysis, which may not necessarily reflect the actual longitudinal relationship in particular populations.

However, the constant and significant correlation between meat intake and e₍₀₎ may increase the possibility of the true correlation at an individual level. The relationship identified in this study may have shed light at further studies within the cohorts with large sample size, high representativeness and long life period at an individual level.

It is necessary to analyse the strengths of this study as well.

Firstly, an ecological study approach offers the advantage of including more data for correlation analyses between meat intake and e₍₀₎ in different modelling. Furthermore, the data included in this study tend to avoid the bias in the previous studies at the individual levels.

Secondly, other variables, which were not included in this study, such as dietary patterns determining differences in quantities of meat intake, may have confounded the relationship between meat intake and e₍₀₎. However, their potential influence could not be analysed and removed owing to the lack of the availability of such data. Like in other correlation analyses, the influence of variable residuals, which were controlled for in this study, might have not been eliminated completely.

Thirdly, GDP PPP may be a comprehensive life expectancy contributor. For instance, populations with greater GDP PPP may have higher meat affordability, better medical service and better education level. Each factor may contribute to life expectancy in its unique way, but it is impossible to collect all these data and include them as the potential separate confounders in the data analyses to remove their competing effects on life expectancy.

Finally, ideally, the food group variables included in this study should be the true consumed quantities, rather than their supply quantity as food wastage was not considered during data collection.

Conclusions

This study has shown that meat intake is positively associated with life expectancy at national level. The underlying reasons may be that meat not only provides energy but also complete nutrients to human body. From the evolutionary point of view, meat has arguably been an indispensable component in human diet for millions of years, which is evidenced, genetically, by meat digesting enzymes and digestive tract anatomy. The complete nutritional profile of meat and human adaptation to meat eating have enabled humans to gain many physical benefits, including greater life expectancy. Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy.

Abbreviations

WHO, World Health Organization; FAO, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; UN, The United Nations; GDP PPP, Gross domestic product at Purchasing Power Parity; BMI, body mass index; SES, socioeconomic status.

Data Sharing Statement

All data for this study are freely available from the United Nations agencies' official websites. The aim for using the data in this study complies with the terms and conditions set by the relevant UN agencies. Therefore, there is no need to apply for formal permission before using the data in this study. The data sources have been detailed in the "Materials and Methods".

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Human data involved in this research carry only negligible risk and are existing in the format that contains only non-identifiable data about human beings. Therefore, the Human Research Ethics Committee the University of Adelaide has exempted from ethical review (Reference 35404).

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Hjelmborg J. Genetic influence on human lifespan and longevity. Twin Res Human Gene. 2007;10(Supplement):34.

2. Cannella C, Savina C, Donini L. Nutrition, longevity and behavior. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49:19-27. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2009.09.008

3. Ruby MB. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 2012;58(1):141-150. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019

4. Lawrie RA, Ledward DA. Lawrie's Meat Science. 7th ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2006.

5. Leonard WR, Robertson ML. Evolutionary perspectives on human nutrition: the influence of brain and body size on diet and metabolism. Am J Hum Biol. 1994;6(1):77-88. doi:10.1002/ajhb.1310060111

6. Aiello LC, Wheeler P. The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in human and primate evolution. Curr Anthropol. 1995;36(2):199-221. doi:10.1086/204350

7. Henneberg M. Evolution of the human brain: is bigger better? Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1998;25(9):745-749. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1681.1998.tb02289.x

8. You W, Henneberg M. Prostate cancer incidence is correlated to total meat intake-a cross-national ecologic analysis of 172 countries. APJCP. 2018;19(8):2229. doi:10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.8.2229

9. You W, Henneberg M. Meat consumption and prostate cancer incidence - global and regional associations. BJU Int. 2016;118:6-20.

10. Li T-C, Chijiwa K, Sera N, et al. Hepatitis E virus transmission from wild boar meat. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(12):1958. doi:10.3201/eid1112.051041

11. Waters AE, Contente-Cuomo T, Buchhagen J, et al. Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US meat and poultry. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(10):1227-1230. doi:10.1093/cid/cir181

12. Singh PN, Sabaté J, Fraser GE. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3):526S-532S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.526S

13. Le LT, Sabaté J. Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients. 2014;6(6):2131-2147. doi:10.3390/nu6062131

14. Orlich MJ, Singh PN, Sabaté J, et al. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1230-1238. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6473

15. MacInnis CC, Hodson G. It ain't easy eating greens: evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2017;20(6):721-744. doi:10.1177/1368430215618253

16. You W, Symonds I, Henneberg M. Low fertility may be a significant determinant of ovarian cancer worldwide: an ecological analysis of cross-sectional data from 182 countries. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):68. doi:10.1186/s13048-018-0441-9

17. Beeson WL, Mills PK, Phillips RL, et al. Chronic disease among Seventh‐Day Adventists, a low‐risk group. Rationale, methodology, and description of the population. Cancer. 1989;64(3):570-581. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19890801)64:3<570::AID-CNCR2820640303>3.0.CO;2-4

18. Mihrshahi S, Ding D, Gale J, et al. Vegetarian diet and all-cause mortality: evidence from a large population-based Australian cohort-the 45 and Up Study. Prev Med. 2017;97:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.044

19. Key TJ, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, et al. Dietary habits and mortality in 11 000 vegetarians and health conscious people: results of a 17 year follow up. BMJ. 1996;313(7060):775-779. doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7060.775

20. Appleby PN, Key TJ, Thorogood M, et al. Mortality in British vegetarians. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(1):29-36. doi:10.1079/PHN2001248

21. Rosenbaum PR. Observation and Experiment: An Introduction to Causal Inference. Harvard University Press; 2017.

22. Teicholz N. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. Simon and Schuster; 2014.

23. Celada P, Bastida S, Sánchez-Muniz FJ. To eat or not to eat meat. That is the question. Nutr Hosp. 2016;33(1):177-181. doi:10.20960/nh.29

24. WHO-IARC. IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. The International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2015.

25. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599-1600. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1

26. Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, et al. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(3):682-692. doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682

27. Richards MP, Hedges REM, Jacobi R, et al. FOCUS: gough's Cave and Sun Hole Cave human stable isotope values indicate a high animal protein diet in the British Upper Palaeolithic. J Archaeol Sci. 2000;27(1):1-3. doi:10.1006/jasc.1999.0520

28. Jaouen K, Richards MP, Le Cabec A, et al. Exceptionally high delta(15)Nδ 15 N values in collagen single amino acids confirm Neandertals as high-trophic level carnivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(11):4928-4933. doi:10.1073/pnas.1814087116

29. Eaton SB, Cordain L. Evolutionary aspects o f diet: old genes, new fuels. World Rev Nutr Diet. 1997;81:26-37. doi:10.1159/000059599

30. Eaton SB, Konner M. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(5):283-289. doi:10.1056/NEJM198501313120505

31. You W, Henneberg M. Meat consumption providing a surplus energy in modern diet contributes to obesity prevalence: an ecological analysis. BMC Nutr. 2016;2:1-1.

33. The, F.A.O. Products from slaughtered animals; 2018.

34. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World population prospects: life expectancy at birth (both sexes combined) by region, subregion and country, 1950-2100 (years); 2017.

36. Mair W, Piper MD, Partridge L. Calories do not explain extension of life span by dietary restriction in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(7):e223. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030223

37. McCay C, Crowell MF, Maynard LA. The effect of retarded growth upon the length of life span and upon the ultimate body size. 1935. Nutrition. 1989;5:155-171.

38. Sohal RS, Weindruch R. Oxidative stress, caloric restriction, and aging. Science. 1996;273(5271):59-63. doi:10.1126/science.273.5271.59

40. Duncan GJ, Daly MC, McDonough P, et al. Optimal indicators of socioeconomic status for health research. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(7):1151-1157. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1151

41. House JS, Kessler RC, Herzog AR. Age, socioeconomic status, and health. Milbank Q. 1990;68:383-411. doi:10.2307/3350111

43. Allender S, Foster C, Hutchinson L, et al. Quantification of urbanization in relation to chronic diseases in developing countries: a systematic review. J Urban Health. 2008;85(6):938-951. doi:10.1007/s11524-008-9325-4

44. Zhang X, Nicosia SV, Bai W. Vitamin D receptor is a novel drug target for ovarian cancer treatment. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2006;6(3):229-244. doi:10.2174/156800906776842939

45. Brett M. R, Jennifer B. P, Thomas A. S, Brett M. R, Jennifer B. P, Thomas A. S. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review. Cancer Biol Med. 2017;14(1):9. doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0084

46. Jordan SJ, Whiteman DC, Purdie DM, et al. Does smoking increase risk of ovarian cancer? A systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(3):1122-1129. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.08.012

57. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(10):e177-e232. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010

58. Dinu M, Pagliai G, Angelino D, et al. Effects of popular diets on anthropometric and cardiometabolic parameters: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Adv Nutr. 2020;11(4):815-833. doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa006

59. Baltic MZ, Boskovic M. When man met meat: meat in human nutrition from ancient times till today. Procedia Food Sci. 2015;5:6-9. doi:10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.002

60. Leonard WR. Food for thought: dietary change was a driving force in human evolution. Sci Am. 2003;13:62-71.

61. Leonard WR, Robertson ML, Snodgrass JJ, et al. Metabolic correlates of hominid brain evolution. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003;136(1):5-15. doi:10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00132-6

62. Smil V. Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

63. Psouni E, Janke A, Garwicz M. Impact of carnivory on human development and evolution revealed by a new unifying model of weaning in mammals. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e32452. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032452

64. Henneberg M, Sarafis V, Mathers K. Human adaptations to meat eating. Hum Evol. 1998;13(N3-4):229-234. doi:10.1007/BF02436507

65. Chivers DJ, Hladik CM. Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: comparisons with other mammals in relation to diet. J Morphol. 1980;166(3):337-386. doi:10.1002/jmor.1051660306

66. Sussman RW. Species-specific dietary patterns in primates and human dietary adaptations. The evolution of human behavior: primate models. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1987: 151-179.

67. Milton K. Primate diets and gut morphology: implications for hominid evolution. Food Evol. 1987;4:93-115.

68. Leonard WR, Robertson ML. Nutritional requirements and human evolution: a bioenergetics model. Am J Hum Biol. 1992;4(2):179-195. doi:10.1002/ajhb.1310040204

69. Rosenfeld DL, Burrow AL. The unified model of vegetarian identity: a conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite. 2017;112:78-95. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.017

70. Ehrlich PR. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Island Press; 2000.

71. Bulliet RW. Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships. Columbia University Press; 2005.

72. Twigg J. Vegetarianism and the meanings of meat. Sociol Food Eating. 1983;5:18-30.

73. Salim Y. Components of heart healthy diet may differ from what was previously thought, in European Society for Cardiology. Munich; 2018.

74. Mente A, Yusuf S. Evolving evidence about diet and health. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(9):e408-e409. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30160-9

75. Snowdon DA, Phillips RL, Fraser GE. Meat consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease. Prev Med. 1984;13(5):490-500. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(84)90017-3

76. You W, Henneberg M. Meat in modern diet, just as bad as sugar, correlates with worldwide obesity: an ecological analysis. J Nutr Food Sci. 2017;6(517):4.

77. Grantham JP, Staub K, Rühli FJ, et al. Modern diet and metabolic variance-a recipe for disaster? Nutr J. 2014;13:15. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-15

78. Henneberg M, Rühli FJ, Gruber P, et al. Alanine transaminase individual variation is a better marker than socio-cultural factors for body mass increase in healthy males. Food Nutr Sci. 2011;2(10):1054-1062. doi:10.4236/fns.2011.210141

79. Talaei M, Wang YL, Yuan JM, et al. Meat, dietary heme iron, and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(7):824-833. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx156

81. United States Department of Agriculture. Choose my plate; 2018.

82. Government of Victoria. Better health channel- fruit and vegetables; 2014.

84. Rogerson D. Vegan diets: practical advice for athletes and exercisers. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017;14(1):36. doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0192-9

85. Marsh K, Zeuschner C, Saunders A. Health implications of a vegetarian diet: a review. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2012;6(3):250-267. doi:10.1177/1559827611425762

86. Kwok CS, Umar S, Myint PK, et al. Vegetarian diet, Seventh Day Adventists and risk of cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2014;176(3):680-686. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.07.080

87. Phillips RL. Role of life-style and dietary habits in risk of cancer among seventh-day adventists. Cancer Res. 1975;35(11 Part 2):3513-3522.

88. Butler TL, Fraser GE, Beeson WL, et al. Cohort profile: the Adventist health study-2 (AHS-2). Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(2):260-265. doi:10.1093/ije/dym165

89. You W, Henneberg M, Tovée MJ. Relaxed natural selection contributes to global obesity increase more in males than in females due to more environmental modifications in female body mass. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199594. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199594

90. You W, Henneberg M. Cancer incidence increasing globally: the role of relaxed natural selection. Evol Appl. 2017;00::1-13.

91. You W-P, Henneberg M. Type 1 diabetes prevalence increasing globally and regionally: the role of natural selection and life expectancy at birth. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2016;4(1):e000161. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-000161

92. Budnik A, Henneberg M, Rosenfeld CS. Worldwide increase of obesity is related to the reduced opportunity for natural selection. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170098. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170098

93. Staub K, Henneberg M, Galassi FM, et al. Increasing variability of body mass and health correlates in Swiss conscripts, a possible role of relaxed natural selection? Evol Med Public Health. 2018;2018:116-126. doi:10.1093/emph/eoy012

94. Beardsworth A, Keil E. Vegetarianism, veganism, and meat avoidance: recent trends and findings. Br Food J. 1991;93(4):19-24. doi:10.1108/00070709110135231

95. Harcombe Z, Baker JS, Cooper SM, et al. Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2015;2(1):e000196. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196

96. Mozaffarian D. The great fat debate: taking the focus off of saturated fat. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111(5):665-666. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.03.030

97. Willett WC. The great fat debate: total fat and health. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111(5):662.

98. DuBroff R, de Lorgeril M. Fat or fiction: the diet-heart hypothesis. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26(1):3-7. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111180

99. Sacks FM, Lichtenstein AH, Wu JHY, et al. Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(3):e1-e23. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

100. Campbell WW. Animal-Based and Plant-Based Protein-Rich Foods and Cardiovascular Health: A Complex Conundrum. Oxford University Press; 2019:8-9.

101. O'Keefe JH Jr Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease resulting from a diet and lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st-century hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(1):101-108. doi:10.4065/79.1.101

102. Sands DC, Morris CE, Dratz EA, et al. Elevating optimal human nutrition to a central goal of plant breeding and production of plant-based foods. Plant Sci. 2009;177(5):377-389. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.07.011

103. Michael S. The Borderlands of Science, Where Sense Meets Nonsense. Oxford University Press; 2003:250.

104. Vernooij RW, Zeraatkar D, Han MA, et al. Patterns of red and processed meat consumption and risk for cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):732-741. doi:10.7326/M19-1583

105. Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Guyatt GH, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and risk for all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):703-710. doi:10.7326/M19-0655

106. Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Bartoszko J, et al. Effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes: a systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):721-731. doi:10.7326/M19-0622

107. Han MA, Zeraatkar D, Guyatt GH, et al. Reduction of red and processed meat intake and cancer mortality and incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):711-720. doi:10.7326/M19-0699

108. Valli C, Rabassa M, Johnston BC, et al. Health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption: a mixed-methods systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):742-755. doi:10.7326/M19-1326

109. Johnston BC, Zeraatkar D, Han MA, et al. Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):756-764. doi:10.7326/M19-1621

110. O'Connor LE, Kim JE, Campbell WW. Total red meat intake of≥ 0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systemically searched meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105(1):57-69. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.142521

111. The FAO. Products from slaughtered animals; 2018.

112. Tantamango-Bartley Y, Knutsen SF, Knutsen R, et al. Are strict vegetarians protected against prostate cancer? Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;103(1):153-160. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.106450

113. Kazerouni N, Sinha R, Hsu CH, et al. Analysis of 200 food items for benzo [a] pyrene and estimation of its intake in an epidemiologic study. Food Chem Toxicol. 2001;39(5):423-436. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00158-7

114. Knize M, Sinha R, Brown ED, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in restaurant-cooked hamburgers, steaks, ribs, and chicken. J Agric Food Chem. 1998;46(11):4648-4651. doi:10.1021/jf980639a

115. Knize M, Sinha R, Rothman N, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in fast-food meat products. Food Chem Toxicol. 1995;33(7):545-551. doi:10.1016/0278-6915(95)00025-W

116. Knize M, Sinha R, Salmon CP, et al. Formation of heterocyclic amine mutagens/carcinogens during home and commercial cooking of muscle foods. J Muscle Foods. 1996;7(3):271-279. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4573.1996.tb00603.x

117. Sinha R, Gustafson DR, Kulldorff M, et al. 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4, 5-b] pyridine, a carcinogen in high-temperature-cooked meat, and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(16):1352-1354. doi:10.1093/jnci/92.16.1352

118. Sinha R, Knize MG, Salmon CP, et al. Heterocyclic amine content of pork products cooked by different methods and to varying degrees of doneness. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36(4):289-297. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(97)00159-2

119. National Research Council (US) Committee on Diet, N., and Cancer. 8 Food Additives, Contaminants, Carcinogens, and Mutagens, in Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer: Directions for Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1983.

120. Mealing NM, Banks E, Jorm LR, et al. Investigation of relative risk estimates from studies of the same population with contrasting response rates and designs. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):26. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-26

121. Horner NK, Patterson RE, Neuhouser ML, et al. Participant characteristics associated with errors in self-reported energy intake from the Women's Health Initiative food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(4):766-773. doi:10.1093/ajcn/76.4.766

122. Miller TM, Abdel-Maksoud MF, Crane LA, et al. Effects of social approval bias on self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption: a randomized controlled trial. Nutr J. 2008;7(1):18. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-7-18

123. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16(1):61-81. doi:10.1146/annurev.pu.16.050195.000425

124. Siervo M, Montagnese C, Mathers JC, et al. Sugar consumption and global prevalence of obesity and hypertension: an ecological analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(3):587-596. doi:10.1017/S1368980013000141

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meat intake is associated with life expectancy | IJGM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life expectancy at birth is the measure synthetically describing mortality in a population. It is estimated that 20-30% of human life expectancy is determined by genetic factors, and 70-80% is determined by environmental factors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you have Meat Tunnel Vision?  A beef animal provides so much more!  

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you have Meat Tunnel Vision?  A beef animal provides so much more!  

# data[].attributes.body
After the 60%, the rest of the animal is put to good use.  The goal is to utilize as much as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Supporting an FFA or 4-H  student through a purchase or from a direct to consumer sale has the benefits of knowing where your food came from, but what can you expect as to amounts and cuts?  

# data[].attributes.headline
Purchasing Your Own Beef to Process?  What can you expect? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Purchasing Your Own Beef to Process?  What can you expect? 

# data[].attributes.body
Click the Drover’s box above for information from experts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Beef and quality protein are a part of the solution.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Beef and quality protein are a part of the solution.  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Beef's contribution to global food security | Alltech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The research behind food security suggests that only a handful of nations are protein-insecure. But is the data overlooking the importance of protein quality? Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the role digestibility plays in getting an accurate gauge of global protein security and the positive impact that cattle have on the health of people and the planet.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Dr. Vaughn Holder hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Google Podcasts.

Tom: I have a question here that, if you have the answer for it, I think the world will beat a path to your door, but let's go for it. Agriculture, food and climate join at the hip pretty much. How do we fix food insecurity while staying mindful of the climate crisis and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef's contribution to global food security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The research behind food security suggests that only a handful of nations are protein-insecure. But is the data overlooking the importance of protein quality? Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the role digestibility plays in getting an accurate gauge of global protein security and the positive impact that cattle have on the health of people and the planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
California Beef Production - Sustainability is a Way of Life 

# data[].attributes.subject
California Beef Production - Sustainability is a Way of Life 

# data[].attributes.body
California Cares about Sustainability - meet a few of the Ranchers that make this part of their every day way of operating.  

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Understanding Ag - Restoring Soil, Profits, Farms and Futures

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding Ag - soil health and regenerative agriculture 

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Ag - soil health and regenerative agriculture 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Ag - Restoring Soil, Profits, Farms and Futures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understanding Ag is restoring soil, profits, farms and futures. Focusing on regenerative agriculture and soil health. In Fort Payne, AL 35968.

# data[].attributes.headline
Every Bite Counts - Toolkit for Retail RD

# data[].attributes.subject
Every Bite Counts - Toolkit for Retail RD

# data[].attributes.body
Are you in the RD roll for a retailer? California Beef Council has a toolkit to help your share about beef! Download your free copy today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Affiliations

¹ Department of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.

² Department of Molecular Medicine, Lee Gil Ya Cancer and Diabetes Institute, College of Medicine, Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea.

Free PMC article

Randomized Controlled Trial

Free PMC article

Affiliations

¹ Department of Geriatrics, Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.

² Department of Molecular Medicine, Lee Gil Ya Cancer and Diabetes Institute, College of Medicine, Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea.

Abstract

Background: The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) published an "ounce equivalents" recommendation to help consumers meet protein requirements with a variety of protein food sources. However, the metabolic equivalency of these varied protein food sources has not been established.

Objective: We have investigated the hypothesis that the anabolic responses to consumption of ounce equivalents of protein food sources would be directly related to the essential amino acid (EAA) content of the protein food source.

Methods: Following 3 d of dietary control, a total of 56 healthy young adults underwent an 8.5-h metabolic study using stable isotope tracer methodology. The changes from baseline following consumption of 1 of 7 different protein food sources were compared with the baseline value for that individual (n = 8 per group).

Results: Consumption of ounce equivalents of animal-based protein food sources (beef sirloin, pork loin, eggs) resulted in a greater gain in whole-body net protein balance above baseline than the ounce equivalents of plant-based protein food sources (tofu, kidney beans, peanut butter, mixed nuts; P < 0.01). The improvement in whole-body net protein balance was due to an increase in protein synthesis (P < 0.05) with all the animal protein sources, whereas the egg and pork groups also suppressed protein breakdown compared with the plant protein sources (P < 0.01). The magnitude of the whole-body net balance (anabolic) response was correlated with the EAA content of the protein food source (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The "ounce equivalents" of protein food sources as expressed in the DGAs are not metabolically equivalent in young healthy individuals. The magnitude of anabolic response to dietary proteins should be considered as the DGAs develop approaches to establish healthy eating patterns.

Keywords: anabolic response; essential amino acids; net protein balance; ounce equivalent; stable isotope tracers.

Similar articles

Physiological Limitations of Protein Foods Ounce Equivalents and the Underappreciated Role of Essential Amino Acid Density in Healthy Dietary Patterns.

Gwin JA, Carbone JW, Rodriguez NR, Pasiakos SM. Gwin JA, et al. J Nutr. 2021 Nov 2;151(11):3276-3283. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab262. J Nutr. 2021. PMID: 34386826 Review.

Quality of meal protein determines anabolic response in older adults.

Kim IY, Shin YA, Schutzler SE, Azhar G, Wolfe RR, Ferrando AA. Kim IY, et al. Clin Nutr. 2018 Dec;37(6 Pt A):2076-2083. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.025. Epub 2017 Oct 6. Clin Nutr. 2018. PMID: 29066101

The Skeletal Muscle Anabolic Response to Plant- versus Animal-Based Protein Consumption.

van Vliet S, Burd NA, van Loon LJ. van Vliet S, et al. J Nutr. 2015 Sep;145(9):1981-91. doi: 10.3945/jn.114.204305. Epub 2015 Jul 29. J Nutr. 2015. PMID: 26224750 Review.

References

US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th ed. December 2015; [Internet]. [Cited Jan 2019]. Available from: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/.

Jager R, Kerksick CM, Campbell BI, Cribb PJ, Wells SD, Skwiat TM, Purpura M, Ziegenfuss TN, Ferrando AA, Arent SMet al. . International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017;14:article 20. - PMC - PubMed

Wolfe RR, Miller SL, Miller KB. Optimal protein intake in the elderly. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(5):675-84. - PubMed

van Zanten ARH, De Waele E, Wischmeyer PE. Nutrition therapy and critical illness: practical guidance for the ICU, post-ICU, and long-term convalescence phases. Crit Care. 2019;23:368. - PMC - PubMed

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2013. Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, 31 March-2 April2011, Auckland, New Zealand. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 92.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dietary proteins / administration & dosage*

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Metabolic Evaluation of the Dietary Guidelines' Ounce Equivalents of Protein Food Sources in Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "ounce equivalents" of protein food sources as expressed in the DGAs are not metabolically equivalent in young healthy individuals. The magnitude of anabolic response to dietary proteins should be considered as the DGAs develop approaches to establish healthy eating patterns.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainability - a Key Part of Raising Beef

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainability - a Key Part of Raising Beef

# data[].attributes.body
Beef Sustainability - a part of the industry

# data[].attributes.headline
Where the Old West Still Hangs Around ￼- Paso Robles and the Central Coast by Robert Flood

# data[].attributes.subject
Where the Old West Still Hangs Around ￼- Paso Robles and the Central Coast by Robert Flood

# data[].attributes.body
Paso Robles has a strong pioneer heritage and embedded horse culture that is authentic.  To the surprise of many, some of the largest cattle ranches in California lie half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles.  Go on a journey to enjoy stories of and around these historic ranches as related by author Robert Flood, who brings the roots of history into connection with life today.

# data[].attributes.body
As long as there have been cowboys, there have been talented and dedicated Black Cowboys.  Photographer Gabriela Hasbun has captured the continuing tradition the Black Cowboy at the Bill Picket Invitation Rodeo that takes place annually in Oakland California.  Not to miss, pick up a bit of the rich cultural history of the west as it is carried forth today.  The New Black West | GABRIELA HASBUN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BUY HERE As long as there have been cowboys, there have been Black cowboys.

One of the most enduring symbols of the American West, the cowboy evokes self-reliance, strength, and determination-qualities found at the Black rodeos held each year in cities across the United States.

Through the lens of Bay Area photographer Gabriela Hasbun, The New Black West documents the exhilarating atmosphere of the Bill Pickett Invitational Rodeo (BPIR)-the only touring Black rodeo in the country-and the showstopping style and skill of the Black cowboys and cowgirls who attend the event in Oakland year after year. Whether portraying the spectacle of the arena or the quiet moments before the competition, Hasbun's photographs capture an intimacy and camaraderie unique to the cowboy way of life. Quotes and stories from the performers and attendees accompany the images along with a foreword by Jeff Douvel, the regional manager of the Oakland rodeo. An artist's statement by Hasbun delves into the history and mission of the BPIR. What emerges from these pages is a vital perspective on on of the United States' oldest cultural traditions and a nuanced portrait of a community that continues to shape the American West.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BUY HERE As long as there have been cowboys, there have been Black cowboys. One of the most enduring symbols of the American West, the cowboy evokes self-reliance, strength, and determination-qualities found at the Black rodeos held each year in cities across the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Essential Micronutrients are not found in all diets 

# data[].attributes.subject
Essential Micronutrients are not found in all diets 

# data[].attributes.body
Frontiers | Priority micronutrient density in foods | Nutrition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The final version of the article will be published here soon pending final quality checks

Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Switzerland

Background: Despite concerted efforts to improve diet quality and reduce malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies remain widespread globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and among population groups with increased needs, where diets are often inadequate in iron, zinc, folate, vitamin A, calcium, and vitamin B12. There is a need to understand the density of these micronutrients and their bioavailability across diverse foods and the suitability of these foods to help meet requirements for populations with high burdens of micronutrient malnutrition.
Objective: We aimed to identify the top food sources of these commonly lacking micronutrients, which are essential for optimal health, to support efforts to reduce micronutrient malnutrition among various populations globally.
Methods: We built an aggregated global food composition database and calculated recommended nutrient intakes for five population groups with varying requirements. An approach was developed to rate foods according to their density in each and all priority micronutrients for various population groups with different nutrient requirements.
Results: We find that the top sources of priority micronutrients are organs, small fish, dark green leafy vegetables, bivalves, crustaceans, goat, beef, eggs, milk, canned fish with bones, mutton, and lamb. Cheese, goat milk, and pork are also good sources, and to a lesser extent, yogurt, fresh fish, pulses, teff, and canned fish without bones.
Conclusions: The results provide insight into which foods to prioritize to fill common micronutrient gaps and reduce undernutrition.

Keywords: Nutrient density, micronutrient deficiencies, Animal-source foods, Organs, Shellfish, fish, Dark green leafy vegetables, Ruminant meat, Eggs, Dairy

Received: 01 Nov 2021; Accepted: 15 Feb 2022.

Copyright: © 2022 Beal and Ortenzi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Ty Beal, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Geneva, Switzerland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background: Despite concerted efforts to improve diet quality and reduce malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies remain widespread globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and among population groups with increased needs, where diets are often inadequate in iron, zinc, folate, vitamin A, calcium, and vitamin B12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Explore Animal Health - Exploring The Use Of Antibiotics In Agriculture

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Dorman, Mom and Livestock Veterinarian shares perspectives on healthy animals are a part of a healthy food supply.  Learn from a veterinarian.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Farmers and ranchers are dedicated to contributing to global sustainability. Wondering how? Learn more in my latest blog. >> https://exploreanimalhealth.org/meat-milk-eggs-a-sustainability-success-story/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explore Animal Health - Exploring The Use Of Antibiotics In Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Farmers and ranchers are dedicated to contributing to global sustainability. Wondering how? Learn more in my latest blog. >> https://exploreanimalhealth.org/meat-milk-eggs-a-sustainability-success-story/

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Agriculture has an important roll for planet and human health

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Agriculture has an important roll for planet and human health

# data[].attributes.body
Explore Animal Health - Exploring The Use Of Antibiotics In Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Farmers and ranchers are dedicated to contributing to global sustainability. Wondering how? Learn more in my latest blog. >> https://exploreanimalhealth.org/meat-milk-eggs-a-sustainability-success-story/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explore Animal Health - Exploring The Use Of Antibiotics In Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Farmers and ranchers are dedicated to contributing to global sustainability. Wondering how? Learn more in my latest blog. >> https://exploreanimalhealth.org/meat-milk-eggs-a-sustainability-success-story/

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
New Podcast Episode: Livestock Guardian Dogs – California Cattle Council

# data[].attributes.headline
California Cattle Council - Livestock Guardian Dogs 

# data[].attributes.subject
California Cattle Council - Livestock Guardian Dogs 

# data[].attributes.body
Livestock guardian dogs are an important part of the care of the animals on many farms and ranches.  Learn about their roll and their loyalty to the herds they live with in this presentation from Dan Macon, presented by the California Cattle Council.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Podcast Episode: Livestock Guardian Dogs – California Cattle Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Livestock Guardian Dogs Episode Out Now!
For this episode, we traveled to Auburn, California to talk with Dan Macon, a Livestock and Natural Resources Advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension, about his own livestock operation and his utilization of livestock guardian dogs. We…

# data[].attributes.headline
Food for Thought - Animal Ag as Part of the Plant B asked Solution

# data[].attributes.subject
Food for Thought - Animal Ag as Part of the Plant B asked Solution

# data[].attributes.body
Animal Protein: Part of The Plant-Based Solution - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ah, January. A time for new beginnings, resolutions, and so many good intentions that we usually toss to the side by Valentine's Day. As a registered dietitian and personal trainer, I've bore witness time and again to the empty promises of "lose weight/transform your body/get abs in 30 days" schemes that now clog up our social media feeds this time of year.

The problem? None of these "solutions" are sustainable, and if you're seeing the term "plant-based" being thrown into the mix of bound-to-be-broken dietary promises, I'm here to tell you: proceed with caution, then "steak" your claim on the term (pun intended).

Yes, we've all gotten the memo: only one in ten of us are getting enough fruits and vegetables, and in many cases, consumption of produce is on the decline. Moreover, you've probably seen the term "plant-based" on everything from crackers to shampoo to dishwasher detergent.

If you're reading that last paragraph and thinking, "hmmm...something isn't adding up here...we're not eating enough fruits and vegetables, and yet I'm spoiled for choice in the cleaning aisle with plant-based options..." then good on you for seeing through the nonsense that has taken over in the supermarket aisles.

My advice? It's time to cut through the noise of "plant-based" eating and make it work for YOU to achieve YOUR optimal health. And I hope you're sitting down for this one: your secret weapon in adopting a "plant-based" diet that puts the focus on actual plants (most importantly, produce in all forms) is animal protein.

The problem with "plant-based" is that there is no hard and fast definition, and hence it is has been co-opted by animal rights and environmental extremist communities to push the narrative that animal agriculture and animal proteins are "bad." In reality, when we do some simple math, something as fool-proof as the dietary guidelines, specifically MyPlate, would qualify as plant-based: fill three-quarters of your plate with produce, legumes, and grains, and save that last quarter for lean protein. If we're including milk as a beverage on the side (which I strongly advise you do), the math still adds up to a meal that's around 60% derived from plants (if we're getting technical, animals eat plants to produce wholesome, nutritious, sustainable protein sources, making the plates 100% "plant-based").

Semantics aside, there's great value in utilizing your favorite proteins as a vehicle for increasing produce consumption. Sandwiches and burgers are an excellent vehicle, but we can take it back to the most basic of plant-based dishes: the salad. Why let your greens and other crudité be lonely when pairing them with chicken, steak, or even leftover pork will leave you feeling satisfied for hours? The more enjoyment and satisfaction we garner from our meals, the more likely we are to make them habits, and increasing produce consumption can begin to feel like a joy - not a chore.
All posts are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of the Animal Ag Alliance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Protein: Part of The Plant-Based Solution - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ah, January. A time for new beginnings, resolutions, and so many good intentions that we usually toss to the side by Valentine's Day. As a registered dietitian and personal trainer, I've bore witness time and again to the empty promises of "lose weight/transform your body/get abs in 30 days" schemes that now clog up our social media feeds this time of year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Protein - Part of the Plant Based Solution

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Protein - Part of the Plant Based Solution

# data[].attributes.body
Animal Protein: Part of The Plant-Based Solution - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ah, January. A time for new beginnings, resolutions, and so many good intentions that we usually toss to the side by Valentine's Day. As a registered dietitian and personal trainer, I've bore witness time and again to the empty promises of "lose weight/transform your body/get abs in 30 days" schemes that now clog up our social media feeds this time of year.

The problem? None of these "solutions" are sustainable, and if you're seeing the term "plant-based" being thrown into the mix of bound-to-be-broken dietary promises, I'm here to tell you: proceed with caution, then "steak" your claim on the term (pun intended).

Yes, we've all gotten the memo: only one in ten of us are getting enough fruits and vegetables, and in many cases, consumption of produce is on the decline. Moreover, you've probably seen the term "plant-based" on everything from crackers to shampoo to dishwasher detergent.

If you're reading that last paragraph and thinking, "hmmm...something isn't adding up here...we're not eating enough fruits and vegetables, and yet I'm spoiled for choice in the cleaning aisle with plant-based options..." then good on you for seeing through the nonsense that has taken over in the supermarket aisles.

My advice? It's time to cut through the noise of "plant-based" eating and make it work for YOU to achieve YOUR optimal health. And I hope you're sitting down for this one: your secret weapon in adopting a "plant-based" diet that puts the focus on actual plants (most importantly, produce in all forms) is animal protein.

The problem with "plant-based" is that there is no hard and fast definition, and hence it is has been co-opted by animal rights and environmental extremist communities to push the narrative that animal agriculture and animal proteins are "bad." In reality, when we do some simple math, something as fool-proof as the dietary guidelines, specifically MyPlate, would qualify as plant-based: fill three-quarters of your plate with produce, legumes, and grains, and save that last quarter for lean protein. If we're including milk as a beverage on the side (which I strongly advise you do), the math still adds up to a meal that's around 60% derived from plants (if we're getting technical, animals eat plants to produce wholesome, nutritious, sustainable protein sources, making the plates 100% "plant-based").

Semantics aside, there's great value in utilizing your favorite proteins as a vehicle for increasing produce consumption. Sandwiches and burgers are an excellent vehicle, but we can take it back to the most basic of plant-based dishes: the salad. Why let your greens and other crudité be lonely when pairing them with chicken, steak, or even leftover pork will leave you feeling satisfied for hours? The more enjoyment and satisfaction we garner from our meals, the more likely we are to make them habits, and increasing produce consumption can begin to feel like a joy - not a chore.
All posts are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of the Animal Ag Alliance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Protein: Part of The Plant-Based Solution - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ah, January. A time for new beginnings, resolutions, and so many good intentions that we usually toss to the side by Valentine's Day. As a registered dietitian and personal trainer, I've bore witness time and again to the empty promises of "lose weight/transform your body/get abs in 30 days" schemes that now clog up our social media feeds this time of year.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Roundtable For Sustainable Beef - bringing stakeholders from producer to retailer together in the sustainable beef discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB) is a multi-stakeholder initiative developed to advance, support and communicate continuous improvement in sustainability of the U.S. beef value chain. The USRSB achieves this through leadership, innovation, multi-stakeholder engagement, and collaborat…

# data[].attributes.body
Let’s talk about the great nutritional benefits of beef in the athletes diet!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
View this post on Instagram

A post shared by California Beef Council (@californiabeefcouncil)

# data[].attributes.headline
Not all Greenhouse Gasses are Alike Infographic from Global Food Justice 

# data[].attributes.subject
Not all Greenhouse Gasses are Alike Infographic from Global Food Justice 

# data[].attributes.body
Cows are a part of the plant and life cycle, with a limited lifespan of greenhouse gasses, which means those products will break down and return to feed plants.  Carbon fuel green house gasses continue to increase the load.  Thank you New Mexico Milkmaid for sharing this recommendation.

# data[].attributes.headline
American Dreams Media in cooperation with Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission - subscribe to this channel to learn the history and knowledge that help conserve the Nevada Public Rangelands 

# data[].attributes.subject
American Dreams Media in cooperation with Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission - subscribe to this channel to learn the history and knowledge that help conserve the Nevada Public Rangelands 

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtube.com/watch?v=poV3wheWoFk

# data[].attributes.headline
Some top topics on the minds of consumers need us to be ourselves first, and sprinkle in the facts. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Some top topics on the minds of consumers need us to be ourselves first, and sprinkle in the facts. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Center for Food Integrity | CFI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Redefining the Food System

There was a time in the United States when food security was national security. There is no question that everyone in the United States and around the world has benefited from U.S. agriculture's focus on productivity, efficiency and throughput. But today, engaged consumers, investors, policymakers and other key stakeholders have new priorities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was a time in the United States when food security was national security. There is no question that everyone in the United States and around the world has benefited from U.S. agriculture's focus on productivity, efficiency and throughput. But today, engaged consumers, investors, policymakers and other key stakeholders have new priorities.

# data[].attributes.body
Pistachio-Crusted Beef Rib Roast with Holiday Wine Sauce From the Beef Council!   Beef, it’s what’s for Christmas Dinner!

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
7 tips for advocating during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Tips for Advocating During the Pandemic 

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Tips for Advocating During the Pandemic 

# data[].attributes.body
With classroom and human time being so precious, finding new ways to work with educators and consumers is key to sharing your producer story.  Here are some tips from Progressive Dairyman contributor Derek Orth to keep you pointed in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although the last 18 months have been interesting, there are still ways we can advocate for agriculture and share our stories with consumers. Here are a few tips I've learned through the American Farm Bureau's Partners in Agriculture Leadership (PAL) class, other media training or tried myself. The PAL program will be starting a new two-year class in the spring of 2022 if you're looking to improve your advocacy skills! (Learn more here.)

Make connections

We in agriculture are good at "the echo chamber." We share stories, events and our daily duties on the farm with our friends and other people in agriculture, but how can we get out of our bubble and share with those outside? Think of people that you know outside of agriculture: church, school, parents of your children's friends or even online. Are you part of non-agriculture Facebook groups or follow people on Twitter or Instagram with no agriculture background? Ask them one simple question: "Hey, I'm working on a project. What is something that you'd like to know more about when it comes to farming and agriculture?" Then tell them by creating a video, picture or explanation. One simple question can make you "their farmer" or the expert who they reach out to every time they have a question about farming.

Connect with schools

Teachers are always looking for content to share with students. Reach out to a teacher and ask them to have their students "ask a farmer." The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture has a great program called Kids' Questions about Agriculture! Visit their website to learn more or find them on Facebook. You can get involved, share their answers or work with a local teacher to create your own videos for kids.

Create virtual tours

In the age of Zoom and distance learning, what better way to share about your farm than with a virtual tour? If you have a phone that can record videos, you can make this happen. Most phones and tablets today also come with free video editing apps like iMovie that you can use to create great videos that combine video clips, photos and audio into one easy flowing video that many will enjoy. You can see the virtual tour I created by going to YouTube and searching for me, Derek Orth.

Be vulnerable

This is tough for us. Agriculturalists are private people. Sometimes it's easy for us to show off a shiny new tractor, your latest excellent cow or a bumper crop you just harvested. But what about the other days? Sharing the flat tire, the field of hay ready to bale getting rained on or pouring your heart out over the dead calf that you've been waiting nine months for. This is a great way to make connections. We're not looking for pity or people to feel sorry for us. We need to show our struggles because we are human. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Comparison is the thief of joy." While on social media, we constantly see each other's bests, but being vulnerable and sharing our worst can help us connect inside and outside of our tribe.

Use positivity

That said, watch out for negativity. People react differently when you use positive language as opposed to negative language. It's very easy to say, "We don't ..." and point out a negative that we don't do on our farms. It's always better to look for the positive and use positive language. For example, "We treat our calves with care and kindness" is better than talking about not doing something bad. The two sentences say the same thing, but one of them makes us cringe and the other makes us smile. It's better to say what you do than what you don't do. When sharing a story, try to use the most positive words possible. No, not, none, no one, nobody, nothing, neither, nowhere and plenty others don't belong in our stories.

Share someone else's story

What if you're in agriculture but not a farmer? Do you have farmer friends? Share what they are doing on their farm with your friends and on social media. Maybe they have questions and you can be the bridge to a farmer they can learn from. Are you good at videography or editing? You could offer to take some videos on the farm and compile them to share with the world. They don't have to be perfect, either. Sometimes the most candid and amateur videos gain the most respect from those who watch them.

Inform, don't educate

Lastly, inform, don't educate. Our customers are smart, well-educated people. There is just so much misinformation and misunderstanding in the world, especially about what happens on our farms. We've all heard "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Humans are the same way. Take the time to lead and share your wealth of knowledge about farming, and hopefully someone listening will drink up the facts and stories you share. We're in this together, and we can be better advocates for agriculture and share the great stories of farming even when we are completely distanced.
Visit Derek Orth's website. This blog is adapated from a previous post that was published by Wisconsin Farm Bureau.
PHOTO 1: Orth says to take the time to share your wealth of knowledge, and hopefully someone will listen and be curious to engage more.

PHOTO 2: Wisconsin dairy farmer Derek Orth recommends making connections with non-agriculture groups through children's activities.

PHOTO 3: Orth says to look for ways to focus on the positive in posts on social media.

PHOTO 4: If you're not a farmer but on social media, consider sharing posts or offer to help with photography or videography. Photos by Derek Orth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 tips for advocating during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although the last 18 months have been interesting, there are still ways we can advocate for agriculture and share our stories with consumers. Here are a few tips I've learned through the American Farm Bureau's Partners in Agriculture Leadership (PAL) class, other media training or tried myself.

# data[].attributes.headline
Come and meet photographer and videographer  Clare McKay, working to tell the important story of beef and grazing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Come and meet photographer and videographer  Clare McKay, working to tell the important story of beef and grazing 

# data[].attributes.body
You can also follow her on FB at AmericanDreamsMedia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
USDA invests $10 million in "cultivated meat"

# data[].attributes.body
It’s not about nutrition or scientific facts.  Author Amanda Radke gives some insight in BEEF Magazine as to what is happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, there has been an agenda to eliminate meat from the dinner table. We've rang the siren over and over, but it seems like nobody wants to believe that meat, dairy, and eggs would ever be unattainable for the average American citizen.

Yet, let's look back on some moves our government has made over the last 40 years, and tell me if you see a trend.

Related: Forget "meatless Mondays" as more than 90% consumers eat meat

In 1980, the USDA and HHS introduced the US. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Since then, the recommendations have been updated every five years, and with each new edition, we have seen an emerging trend that pushes us to consume more plant-based foods and to avoid animal proteins and fats, or to only consume very lean, low-fat, or fat-free options.

In 2012, Meatless Mondays were endorsed by the USDA. In a newsletter to employees, the agency wrote, "One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the Meatless Monday initiative."

Related: Fake meats made from plants, cells & humans?

The agency later retracted this endorsement due to pushback. Yet, Meatless Mondays have been implemented in many public schools, universities, and other institutions since then.

For example, in 2019, New York City's 1,800 public schools moved to follow a Meatless Monday diet. The growing trend claims environmental benefits and places the burden on the Big Apple's young people.

Notably, 75% (780,000 children) in New York City qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. As a result, the school lunch may be their only decent meal in a day, and the politicians and government employees see it fitting to fight climate change by erroneously taking protein-rich foods like meat on the school lunch trays.

Shameful.

And when it comes to nutritional advice coming from government entities, we are seeing a shift away from simple nutrition-focused advice, and a greater emphasis on other topics outside of the scope of health and human nutrition. Suddenly things like animal welfare and climate change have become part of our dietary discussions, which I believe is easily corrupted by political ideologies and personal biases.

It's from this vantage point that I find it highly questionable about the USDA's most recent move.

The agricultural agency recently announced a five-year, $10 million grant given to Tufts University to further develop alternative proteins - meat derived from cells grown in bioreactors.

According to Isaac Nicholas and Mike Silver for Tufts University, "The team, led by David Kaplan, the Stern Family Professor of Engineering, and his team of graduate students, will combine the efforts of engineers, biologists, nutrition researchers, and social scientists at Tufts and other universities, in an effort to enhance food sustainability, nutrition, and security.

"Cultivated-meat production is emerging as an alternative source of sustainable protein to help address nutrition and food safety for consumer choices. Kaplan, who is a Distinguished Professor at Tufts and chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering, and his team have led some of the early work in the field.

"He says that this new industry could provide nutritious and safe foods while reducing environmental impact and resource usage-with a target of significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water use than traditional meat production.

"To achieve these goals, the interdisciplinary teams will also work together to evaluate consumer acceptance of cultivated meat, measure the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, assess the economic viability compared to farm production, and prepare the next generation of the industry's workforce."

Some may argue that fake meats - made from plants or in a petri dish - simply provide an alternative protein source to feed a hungry planet; however, from my vantage point, our government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. Nor, should fake meat companies be allowed to claim their products are more "sustainable."

Let's compare apples to apples when talking nutrition and environmental impact, and let's allow consumers to choose which products they like best. If the government gets out of our way, I'm betting all of my chips on the real deal - BEEF from the hoof.

What do you think about this new USDA initiative to further develop petri-dish proteins? Please, weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDA invests $10 million in "cultivated meat"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, there has been an agenda to eliminate meat from the dinner table. We've rang the siren over and over, but it seems like nobody wants to believe that meat, dairy, and eggs would ever be unattainable for the average American citizen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Animal Ag Allies - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Ag Allies - a training opportunity

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Ag Allies - a training opportunity

# data[].attributes.body
Are you needing good ways to address tough topics in Animal Agriculture? Enroll for the next session of this informational resource for producers and advocates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Animal Ag Allies is an initiative of the Animal Agriculture Alliance that empowers farmers, ranchers and practicing veterinarians to be outspoken advocates for agriculture online and within their communities. The Alliance is looking for emerging voices in the dialogue around modern animal agriculture to provide development opportunities and connect them with one another as well as industry experts. The program provides opportunities for networking, training and continuous development of issue expertise and communication skills. The Animal Ag Allies will be on the front lines of responding to emerging issues and sharing positive content about animal agriculture.

We're looking for farmers, ranchers and practicing veterinarians who want to make a difference in public perception of animal agriculture. The ideal participant has already demonstrated their commitment to engaging on relevant issues and is ready to take their efforts to the next level and possesses the following qualities:

Established public social media presence on at least one, ideally more, of the following platforms:
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest.

At least 1,000 existing followers on one or more of the above platforms.

Previous communications training experience through programs such as Masters of Beef Advocacy, Operation Mainstreet, and other state or national industry programs.

Prior experience with public speaking and working with media.

These are suggested guidelines, not set-in-stone requirements. If potential participants don't meet each of these exact criteria but still feel they are a good fit for the program they are encouraged to contact the Alliance.

The Animal Ag Allies program consists of two phases: online training and a private forum to discuss engagement strategies and emerging issues. The online training modules are all available online and may be completed at the participant's own pace. Modules include:

Overviews of each sector of animal agriculture

Where to find more resources on each sector

Hot topics and emerging issues facing animal ag

How to address contentious issues

Growing your social following and reaching outside the choir

Public outreach

Following the completion of the training modules, participants will be invited to a private Facebook group where they will have the ability to interact with one another as well as industry professionals from the Alliance and other select organizations. Participants will be encouraged to use the group to get advice on growing their online following, engaging on certain issues, responding to comments and messages, and any other relevant topics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Ag Allies - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal Ag Allies is an initiative of the Animal Agriculture Alliance that empowers farmers, ranchers and practicing veterinarians to be outspoken advocates for agriculture online and within their communities. The Alliance is looking for emerging voices in the dialogue around modern animal agriculture to provide development opportunities and connect them with one another as well as industry experts.

# data[].attributes.body
Producer, promoter and fashionista - a well rounded woman passionate about Beef!  She promotes special genetic sales and events through her work at thebullsalebulletin.com

Follow her on FB at https://www.facebook.com/celeste.settrini

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Take a virtual tour of the Flying Mule Sheep Company

# data[].attributes.headline
Targeted Grazing is important to Carbon sequestering and fire risk reduction

# data[].attributes.subject
Targeted Grazing is important to Carbon sequestering and fire risk reduction

# data[].attributes.body
Cattle are not the only species important to rangeland and open space management.  Learn about how sheep are an important part of the process because they will utilize plant life cattle won’t eat.  From California Rangeland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Take a virtual tour of the Flying Mule Sheep Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Ranchers Protect Clean Air and Clean Water

# data[].attributes.headline
The Importance of Rangeland for clean air and water cannot be overlooked

# data[].attributes.subject
The Importance of Rangeland for clean air and water cannot be overlooked

# data[].attributes.body
The Wood Ranch family have 6 generations with the 7th generation coming up of caring for the open space land.  Learn how these open spaces are important to California’s water.  From California Rangeland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ranchers Protect Clean Air and Clean Water

# data[].attributes.headline
An Industry Worth Fighting For - Derrick Jodi

# data[].attributes.subject
An Industry Worth Fighting For - Derrick Jodi

# data[].attributes.body
Social media livestock farming advocate Derrick Jodi, a fourth generation dairy farmer,  has written a book concerning the misinformation around the dairy aspect of livestock production.  Located in Tillamook Oregon, Derrick has been a voice that bring humor and reality to being the caretaker of livestock in a state that has a very active animal rights activist presence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Vegan Burgers Healthier than Real Meat? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Vegan Burgers Healthier than Real Meat? 

# data[].attributes.body
The Nutrition Facts and Ingredients are not the same!  Check out the differences compared side by side on this fact sheet!

# data[].attributes.headline
Animal Producers and Advocates to Follow

# data[].attributes.subject
Animal Producers and Advocates to Follow

# data[].attributes.body
There are wonderful producers from all animal production disciplines doing great work educating and properly informing on social media.  Check out this follow worthy list -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Agriculture Alliance on LinkedIn: Farmers to follow on social media - Animal Agriculture Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Farmers know people are hungry to know more about how food gets from farm to table. Here are dairy, pig, poultry, sheep and cattle farmers on social media...

# data[].attributes.headline
Improves Calculation of Warming - equivalent emissions for short lived climate pollutants

# data[].attributes.subject
Improves Calculation of Warming - equivalent emissions for short lived climate pollutants

# data[].attributes.body
Presented in Nature.com. Michelle Cain, et al. This updated calculation for the limited life methane component of the global warming calculation to be in line with current known science.

# data[].attributes.headline
Take a Virtual Tour of the Koopman Ranch- from California Rangeland Trust

# data[].attributes.subject
Take a Virtual Tour of the Koopman Ranch- from California Rangeland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Take a virtual tour of the Koopmann Ranch

# data[].attributes.body
Healthy Cows - the goal of every rancher and everyone involved in the process of converting grass to protein.

# data[].attributes.body
Information about the process of meat derived from animal cells and grown in a lab.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cultured meat is a meat produced by cell cultures of animal cells. It is a form of cellular agriculture.

Cultured meat is produced using tissue engineering techniques traditionally used in regenerative medicines. The concept of cultured meat was popularized by Jason Matheny in the early 2000s after he co-authored a paper on cultured meat production and created New Harvest, the world's first nonprofit organization dedicated to in-vitro meat research.

In 2013, professor Mark Post at Maastricht University pioneered a proof-of-concept for cultured meat by creating the first hamburger patty grown directly from cells. Since then, other cultured meat prototypes have gained media attention: SuperMeat opened a laboratory restaurant called "The Chicken" in Tel Aviv to test consumer reaction to its "Chicken" burger, while the "world's first commercial sale of cell-cultured meat" occurred in December 2020 at the Singapore restaurant "1880," where cultured meat manufactured by the US firm Eat Just was sold.

The production process is constantly evolving, driven by multiple companies. The applications of cultured meat have led to ethical, health, environmental, cultural, and economic discussions.

Between 2016 and 2019, clean meat gained traction. The Good Food Institute (GFI) coined the term in 2016, and in late 2018, the institute published research claiming that use of clean better reflected the production process and benefits. By 2018 it had surpassed cultured and " in vitro" in media mentions and Google searches. Some industry stakeholders felt that the term unnecessarily tarnished conventional meat producers, continuing to prefer cell-based meat as a neutral alternative.

In September 2019, GFI announced new research which found that the term cultivated meat is sufficiently descriptive and differentiating, possesses a high degree of neutrality, and ranks highly for consumer appeal.

In the 1950s, Dutch scientist Willem van Eelen independently came up with the idea for cultured meat. As a child during the Second World War, Van Eelen suffered from starvation, leading him to be passionate about food production and food security as an adult. He attended the University of Amsterdam. At one point he attended a lecture discussing the prospects of preserved meat. Coupled with the discovery of cell lines earlier in the century, this enriched the idea of cultivated meat.

In vitro cultivation of muscle fibers was first performed successfully in 1971 when pathology professor Russel Ross cultured guinea-pig aorta. He reported,

Smooth muscle derived from the inner media and intima of immature guinea pig aorta were grown for up to 8 weeks in cell culture. The cells maintained the morphology of smooth muscle at all phases of their growth in culture. After growing to confluency, they grew in multiple overlapping layers. By week 4 in culture, microfibrils (110 A) appeared within the spaces between the layers of cells. Basement membrane-like material also appeared adjacent to the cells. Analysis of the microfibrils showed that they have an amino acid composition similar to that of the microfibrillar protein of the intact elastic fiber. These investigations coupled with the radioautographic observations of the ability of an aortic smooth muscle to synthesize and secrete extracellular proteins demonstrate that this cell is a connective tissue synthetic cell".

In 1991, Jon F. Vein of the United States filed for, and ultimately secured, patent for the production of tissue-engineered meat for human consumption, wherein muscle and fat would be grown in an integrated fashion to create food products.

In 2001, University of Amsterdam dermatologist Wiete Westerhof, researcher and businessperson Willem van Eelen, and businessperson Willem van Kooten announced that they had filed for a worldwide patent on a process to produce cultured meat. In the process, a matrix of collagen is seeded with muscle cells, which are then bathed in a nutritious solution and induced to divide.

In 2003, Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr of the Tissue Culture and Art Project and Harvard Medical School exhibited in Nantes a "steak" a few centimeters wide, grown from frog stem cells, which was cooked and eaten. The goal of the exhibition was to start a conversation surrounding the ethics of cultured meat - "was it ever alive?", "was it ever killed?", "is it in any way disrespectful to an animal to throw it away?"

In 2008, PETA offered a $1 million prize to the first company to bring lab-grown chicken meat to consumers by 2012. The contestant was required to complete two tasks before receiving the prize: "Produce a cultured chicken meat product that was indistinguishable from real chicken," and "Produce the product in large enough quantities to be competitively sold in at least 10 states." The contest was later extended until 4 March 2014. Since the challenge was first announced in 2008, researchers around the world have made significant progress, although nothing has reached the mass market. The deadline eventually expired without a winner.

In 2008, the Dutch government invested $4 million into experiments regarding cultured meat. The In Vitro Meat Consortium, a group formed by international researchers, held the first international conference on the matter, hosted by the Food Research Institute of Norway in April 2008. magazine declared cultured meat production to be one of the 50 breakthrough ideas of 2009. In November 2009, scientists from the Netherlands announced they had managed to grow meat using cells from a live pig.

The first cultured beef burger patty was created by Mark Post at Maastricht University in 2013. It was made from over 20,000 thin strands of muscle tissue, cost over $300,000 and needed 2 years to produce. In 2019 it was estimated that the price would fall to $10 by 2021.

The burger was tested on live television in London on 5 August 2013. It was cooked by chef Richard McGeown of Couch's Great House Restaurant, Polperro, Cornwall, and tasted by critics Hanni Rützler, a food researcher from the Future Food Studio, and Josh Schonwald. Rützler stated, "There is really a bite to it, there is quite some flavour with the browning. I know there is no fat in it so I didn't really know how juicy it would be, but there is quite some intense taste; it's close to meat, it's not that juicy, but the consistency is perfect. This is meat to me... It's really something to bite on and I think the look is quite similar." Rützler added that even in a blind trial she would have taken the product for meat rather than the a soya copy.

It's just a matter of time before this is gonna happen, I'm absolutely convinced of that. In our case, I estimate the time to be about 3 years before we are ready to enter the market on a small scale, about 5 years to enter the market on a larger scale, and if you'd ask me: "When will [cultured meat] be in the supermarket around the corner?" That'll be closer to 10 than to 5 years, I think.

Between 2011 and 2017, many cultured meat startups were launched. Memphis Meats, a Silicon Valley startup founded by a cardiologist, launched a video in February 2016, showcasing its cultured beef meatball. In March 2017, it showcased chicken tenders and duck a l'orange, the first cultured poultry shown to the public. Memphis Meats was later the subject of the 2020 Meat the Future documentary.

Finless Foods, a San Francisco-based company aimed at cultured fish, was founded in June 2016. In March 2017 it commenced laboratory operations. Director Mike Selden said in July 2017 to expect cultured fish products on the market by the end of 2019.

In March 2018, Eat Just (in 2011 founded as Hampton Creek in San Francisco, later known as Just, Inc.) claimed to be able to offer a consumer product from cultured meat by the end of 2018. According to CEO Josh Tetrick the technology was already there. JUST had about 130 employees and a research department of 55 scientists, where lab meat from poultry, pork and beef was researched. JUST was sponsored by Chinese billionaire Li Ka-shing, Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang and according to Tetrick also by Heineken International and others.

There is a handful [of startups]. It's quite interesting to see, there are three hubs: one in Silicon Valley, one in the Netherlands and one in Israel. I think that's because these three places have firstly, a great agricultural university - we've got Wageningen; secondly, a great medical university - for us that's Leiden; and finally we've got Delft on the engineering side. Those three combined gives you a firm basis to [develop cultured meat], and that [combination] exists in Israel, the Netherlands and America.

Integriculture is a Japan-based company working on their CulNet system. Competitors included England based Multus Media and Canadian Future Fields.

In August 2019, five startups announced the formation of the Alliance for Meat, Poultry & Seafood Innovation (AMPS Innovation), a coalition seeking to work with regulators to create a pathway to market for cultured meat and seafood. The founding members include Eat Just, Memphis Meats, Finless Foods, BlueNalu, and Fork & Goode.

In 2019, the Foieture project was launched in Belgium with the goal of developing cultured foie gras (the name is a portmanteau of 'foie' and 'future') by a consortium of 3 companies (cultured-meat startup Peace of Meat, small meat- seasoning company Solina, and small pâté-producing company Nauta) and 3 non-profit institutes (university KU Leuven, food industry innovation centre Flanders Food, and Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant). Peace of Meat stated in December 2019 that it intended to complete its proof of concept in 2020, to produce its first prototype in 2022, and to go to market in 2023. That month, the Foieture project received a research grant of almost 3.6 million euros from the Innovation and Enterprise Agency of the Flemish Government. In May 2020, Peace of Meat's Austrian-born cofounder and scientific researcher Eva Sommer stated that the startup was then able to produce 20 grams of cultured fat at a cost of about 300 euros (€15,000/kg); the goal was to reduce the price to 6 euros per kilogram by 2030. Piece of Meat built two laboratories in the Port of Antwerp.

In January 2020, found around 30 cultured meat startups, and that Memphis Meats, Just Inc. and Future Meat Technologies were the most advanced because they were building pilot plants. According to New Scientist in May 2020, 60 start-ups were developing cultured meat. Some of these were technology suppliers. Growth media reportedly still cost "hundreds of dollars per litre, but for clean meat production to scale this needs to drop to around $1 a litre." In June 2020, Chinese government officials called for a national strategy to compete in cultured meat.

In the European Union, novel foods such as cultured meat products have to go through a testing period of about 18 months during which a company must prove to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that their product is safe.

Note: dates in italics refer to projected dates of achievement in the future; they may shift.

Aside from these companies, non-profit organisations such as New Harvest, the Good Food Institute and the Cellular Agriculture Society advocate for, fund and research cultured meat.

Cellular agriculture requires cell lines, generally stem cells. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells which have the potential to become many or all of the required kinds of specialized cell types. Totipotent stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into all the different cell types found within the body. Pluripotent stem cells can mature into all cell types save those in the placenta, and multipotent stem cells can differentiate into several specialized cells within one lineage. Unipotent stem cells can differentiate into one specific cell fate.

Favourable characteristics of stem cells include immortality, proliferative ability, unreliance on adherence, serum independence and easy differentiation into tissue. However, the natural presence of such characteristics are likely to differ across cell species and origin. As such, in vitro cultivation must be adjusted to fill the exact needs of a specific cell line. With regards to immortality, cells have a limit on the number of times they can divide that is dictated by their telomere cap - supplementary nucleotide bases added to the end of their chromosomes. With each division, the telomere cap progressively shortens until nothing remains, in which case the cell ceases to divide. By inducing pluripotency, the telomere cap can be lengthened such that the cell divides indefinitely. Insect cells used in entomoculture are naturally unreliant on serum-based culture media as well as adherence and so can consequently be cultured more densely in suspension cultures in comparison to mammalian cells.

Cell lines can be collected from a primary source, i.e., through a biopsy on an animal under local anesthesia. They could also be established from secondary sources such as cryopreserved cultures (cultures frozen after previous research).

Once cell lines are established, they are immersed in a culture media to induce them to proliferate. Culture media are typically formulated from basal media that provide cells with necessary carbohydrates, fats, proteins and salts. Once a cell consumes a sufficient amount, it divides and the population increases exponentially. Culture media can be supplemented with additives - for instance sera - that supply additional growth factors. Growth factors can be secreted proteins or steroids that are crucial in regulating cellular processes. Typically growth factors are added to the culture medium through the integration of Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) or another animal based serum or by recombinant protein production.

Once differentiation begins, muscle fibres begin to contract and generate lactic acid. Cells' ability to absorb nutrients and proliferate in part depends on the pH of their environment. As lactic acid accumulates within the media, the environment will become progressively more acidic and falls below the optimal pH. As a result, culture media must be frequently refreshed. This helps refresh the concentration of nutrients from the basal media.

In the case of structured meat products - products that are characterized by their overall configuration as well as cell type - cells must be seeded to scaffolds. Scaffolds are essentially molds meant to reflect and encourage the cells to organize into a larger structure. When cells develop in vivo, they are influenced by their interactions with the extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM is the 3-dimensional mesh of glycoproteins, collagen and enzymes responsible for transmitting mechanical and biochemical cues to the cell. Scaffolds need to simulate the characteristics of the ECM. Key properties:

Pores are minute openings on the surface of the scaffold. They can be created on the surface of the biomaterial in order to release cellular components that could interfere with tissue development. They also help diffuse gas and nutrients to the innermost layers of adherent cells which prevents developing a "necrotic center" (created when cells that are not in direct contact with the culture medium die due to a lack of nutrients).

Vascular tissue found in plants contains the organs responsible for internally transporting fluids. It forms natural topographies that provide a low cost way to promote cell alignment by replicating the natural physiological state of myoblasts. It may also help with gas and nutrient exchange.

A scaffold's biochemical properties should be similar to those of the ECM. It must facilitate cell adhesion through textural qualities or chemical bonding. Additionally, it must produce the chemical cues that encourage cell differentiation. Alternatively, the material should be able to blend with other substances which have these functional qualities.

Certain materials degrade into compounds that are beneficial to cells, although this degradation can also be irrelevant or detrimental. Degradation allows easy removal of the scaffold from the finished product leaving only animal tissue - thereby increasing its resemblance to in vivo meat. This degradation can be induced by exposure to certain enzymes which do not impact the muscle tissue.

If scaffolds are unable to be removed from the animal tissue, they must be edible to ensure consumer safety. It would be beneficial if they were to be made out of nutritious ingredients.

Since 2010, academic research groups and companies have emerged in order to identify raw materials that have the characteristics of suitable scaffolds.

Cellulose is the most abundant polymer in nature and provides the exoskeletons of plant leaves. Due to its abundance, it can be obtained at a relatively low cost. It is also versatile and biocompatible. Through a process called "decellularization", it is coated in a surfactant that creates pores. These pores release the plant's cellular components, and it becomes decellularized plant tissue. This material has been extensively studied by the Pelling and Gaudette Groups at University of Ottawa and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, respectively. Through cross-linking (forming covalent bonds between individual polymer chains to hold them together) the plant tissue's mechanical properties can be changed so that it more closely resembles muscle tissue. This can also be done by blending plant tissue with other materials. On the other hand, decellularized plant tissue typically lacks mammalian biochemical cues, so it needs to be coated with compensatory functional proteins. C2C12 growth was not shown to change significantly between the bare scaffold and the same scaffold with a coating of collagen or gelatin proteins, however seeding efficiency (rate at which cells attach to the scaffold) improved. An advantage of decellularized plant tissue is the natural topography afforded by the leaf vasculature. This helps replicate the natural physiological state of the myoblasts which promotes cell alignment. The other ways of doing this are usually quite a bit more expensive including 3d printing, soft lithography and photolithography. Vascularization can also help overcome the 100-200 nm diffusion limit of culture medium into cells that usually produce necrotic centres in muscle conglomerates. Another way to do this is by having a porous scaffold which supports angiogenesis (the development of new blood vessels). While this has been shown to work for Apple Hypanthium, not all plants are nearly as porous. The alternative to plant cellulose is bacterial cellulose which is typically more pure than plant cellulose as it is free from contaminants such as lignin and hemicellulose. Bacterial cellulose has more hydrogen bonding between its polymer strands and so it has greater crystallinity. It also has smaller microfibrils that allow it to retain more moisture and have smaller pores. The substance can be produced using waste carbohydrates (which may allow it to be produced less expensively) and it adds juiciness and chewiness to emulsified meat (which would mean that even if it can't be taken out of the final product, it will contribute to the texture profile).

Chitin is nature's second most abundant polymer. It is found in the exoskeletons of crustaceans and fungi. As cellular agriculture is attempting to end reliance on animals, chitin derived from fungi is of greater interest. It has mostly been studied by Pelling Group. Chitosan is derived from chitin in a process known as alkaline deacetylation (substituting out certain amino acid groups). The degree of this process determines the physical and chemical properties of the chitosan. Chitosan has antibacterial properties; in particular, it has bactericidal effects on planktonic bacteria and biofilms and a bacteria static effects on gram negative bacteria such as . This is important as it neutralizes potentially harmful compounds without using antibiotics, which many consumers avoid. Chitosan's resemblance to glycosaminoglycans and internal interactions between glycoproteins and proteoglycans make it highly biocompatible. It can easily blend with other polymers in order to select for more bioactive factors. One potential disadvantage of chitosan is that it degrades in the presence of lysozymes (naturally occurring enzymes). But, this can be resisted using deacetylation. This is not entirely negative, as the byproducts produced through degradation have anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial properties. It is important to match the level that cells rely on the matrix for structure with degradation.

Collagen is a family of proteins that makes up the primary structure of human connective tissue. It is typically derived from bovine, porcine and murine sources. Cellular agriculture overcomes this dependency through the use of transgenic organisms that are capable of producing the amino acid repeats that make up the collagen. Collagen naturally exists as collagen type I. It has been produced as porous hydrogels, composites and substrates with topographical cues and biochemical properties. Synthetic kinds of collagen have been produced through recombinant protein production - collagen type II and III, tropoelastin and fibronectin. One challenge with these proteins is that they can not be modified post translation. However, an alternative fibrillar protein has been isolated in microbes that lack collagen's biochemical cues, but has its kind of gene customizability. One focus of recombinant collagen production is yield optimization - how it can be produced most effectively. Plants, in particular, tobacco look like the best option, however, bacteria and yeast are also viable alternatives.

Textured soy protein is a soy flour product often used in plant-based meat that supports the growth of bovine cells. Its spongy texture enables efficient cell seeding and its porosity encourages oxygen transfer. Additionally, it degrades during cell differentiation into compounds that are beneficial to certain cells.

Nanomaterials exhibit unique properties at the nanoscale. London-based Biomimetic Solutions is leveraging nanomaterials in order to create scaffolds.

Cass Materials in Perth, Australia is using a dietary fibre called Nata de Coco (derived from coconuts) to create nanocellulose sponges for their BNC scaffold. Nata de Coco is biocompatible, has high porosity, facilitates cell adhesion and is biodegradable.

Another proposed way of structuring muscle tissue is additive manufacturing. Such a technique was perfected for industrial applications in manufacturing objects made out of plastic, nylon, metal, glass and other synthetic materials. The most common variation of the process involves incrementally depositing a filament in layers onto a bed until the object is completed. This method will most likely lend itself best to the application of cultured meat as opposed to other types such as binder jetting, material jetting or stereolithography that require a specific kind of resin or powder.

A filament of muscle cells can be printed into a structure meant to resemble a finished meat product which can then be further processed for cell maturation. This technique has been demonstrated in a collaboration between 3D bioprinting solutions and Aleph Farms that used additive manufacturing to structure turkey cells on the International Space Station.

Scaffolds are placed inside bioreactors so that cell growth and specialization can occur. Bioreactors are large machines similar to brewery tanks which expose the cells to a large variety of environmental factors that are necessary to promote either proliferation or differentiation. The temperature of the bioreactor must replicate in vivo conditions. In the case of mammalian cells, this requires heating to 37 degrees Celsius. Alternatively, insect cells can be grown at room temperature. Most bioreactors are maintained at 5% carbon dioxide.

Cells can either be cultivated in continuous or fed-batch systems. The former entails inoculating and harvesting cells in a constant process so that there are always cells in the bioreactor. Fed-batch systems mean inoculating the cells, culturing them and harvesting them in a single period.

Stirred tank bioreactors are the most widely used configuration. An impeller increases the flow, thereby homogenizing the culture media and a diffuser facilitates the exchange of oxygen into the media. This system is generally used for suspended cultures but can be used for cells that require attachment to another surface if microcarriers are included. Fixed bed bioreactors are commonly used for adherent cultures. They feature strips of fibres that are packed together to form a bed to which cells can attach. Aerated culture media is circulated through the bed. In airlift bioreactors, the culture media is aerated into a gaseous form using air bubbles which are then scattered and dispersed amongst the cells. Perfusion bioreactors are common configurations for continuous cultivation. They continuously drain media saturated with lactic acid that is void of nutrients and fill it with replenished media.

The elements outlined above apply to the cultivation of animal muscle tissue. However, cellular agriculture includes "acellular agriculture", which involves the production of animal products synthesized of non-living material. Such products include milk, honey, eggs, cheese, and gelatin which are made of various proteins rather than cells. In such cases, these proteins must be fermented much like in recombinant protein production, alcohol brewing and the generation of many plant-based products like tofu, tempeh and sauerkraut.

Proteins are coded for by specific genes, the genes coding for the protein of interest are synthesized into a plasmid - a closed loop of double helical genetic information. This plasmid, called recombinant DNA, is then inserted into a bacterial specimen. For this to happen, the bacteria needs to be competent (i.e. able to accept foreign, extracellular DNA) and able to horizontally transfer genes (i.e. integrate the foreign genes into its own DNA). Horizontal gene transfer is significantly more challenging in eukaryotic organisms than prokaryotic organisms because the former have both a cell membrane and a nuclear membrane which the plasmid needs to penetrate whereas prokaryotic organisms only have a cell membrane. For this reason, prokaryotic bacteria are often favoured. In order to make such a bacteria temporarily competent, it can be exposed to a salt such as calcium chloride, which neutralizes the negative charges on the cell membrane's phosphate heads as well as the negative charges on the plasmid to prevent the two from repelling. The bacteria can incubate in warm water, opening large pores on the cell surface through which the plasmid can enter.

Next, the bacteria is fermented in sugar, which encourages it to grow and duplicate. In the process it expresses its DNA as well as the transferred plasmid resulting in protein.

Finally, the solution is purified to separate out the residual protein. This can be done by introducing an antibody raised against the protein of interest that will kill bacteria cells that do not contain the protein. Through centrifugation, the solution can be spun around an axis with sufficient force to separate solids from liquids. Alternatively it could be soaked in a buffered ionic solution that employs osmosis to leach the water from bacteria and kill them.

The culture media is an essential component of in vitro cultivation. It is responsible for providing the macromolecules, nutrients and growth factors necessary for cell proliferation. Sourcing growth factors is one of the most challenging tasks of cellular agriculture. Traditionally, it involves the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS) which is a blood product extracted from fetal cows. Besides the argument that its production is unethical, it is also vitiates the independence of the use of animals. It is also the most costly constituent of cultured meat, priced at around $1000 per litre. Furthermore, chemical composition varies greatly depending on the animal, so it cannot be uniformly quantified chemically. FBS is employed because it conveniently mimics the process of muscle development in vivo. The growth factors needed for tissue development are predominantly provided through an animal's bloodstream, and no other known fluid can single-handedly deliver all these components.

The current alternative is to generate each growth factor individually using recombinant protein production. In this process, the genes coding for the specific factor are integrated into bacteria which are then fermented. However, due to the added complexity of this process, it is particularly expensive.

The ideal medium would be chemically quantifiable and accessible to ensure simplicity in production, cheap and not dependent on animals. It will most likely be derived from plants and while this may reduce the possibility of transmitting infectious agents, it may induce allergic reactions in some consumers. Such culture sera may also require modifications specific to the cell line to which it is applied. Companies currently invested in developing effective plant based culture include Future Fields, Multus Media and Biftek.

The Good Food Institute (GFI) put out a report in 2019 in support of the concept that cell-based meat could be produced at the same cost as ground beef and in 2021 they commissioned a report from CE Delft on the Techno-Economic Analysis of cultivated meat. While they concluded that current cultivated protein substitute production costs in the order of 100 to 10,000 -fold more than traditional meat products they predicted that future technical improvements would result in substantial cost reductions. The optimism that cell-based protein costs of production can be decreased by over 1000 -fold is unrealistic given that after tens of billions of dollars of investment by the pharmaceutical and allied industries over the last 15 to 20 years the productivity of cell based medicinal products has only been improved by 10 to 20-fold. The current production costs for cell-based meat given the information provided are estimated to be $8,500 to $36,000 (±30%) per kilogram. This estimate does not include precise costs for adding nutritional components, total energy need per kg product, processing to an edible format, packaging or storage costs, as these have not been defined.

A common challenge to bioreactors and scaffolds is developing system configurations that enable all cells to gain exposure to culture media while simultaneously optimizing spatial requirements. In the cell proliferation phase, prior to the introduction of the scaffold, many cell types need to be attached to a surface to support growth. As such, cells must be grown in confluent monolayers only one cell thick which necessitates a lot of surface area. This poses practical challenges on large scales. As such, systems may incorporate microcarriers - small spherical beads of glass or other compatible material that are suspended in the culture medium. Cells adhere to these microcarriers as they would the sides of the bioreactor which increases the amount of surface area.

In the cell differentiation phase, the cells may be seeded to a scaffold and so do not require the use of microcarriers. However, in these instances, the density of the cells on the scaffold means that not all cells have an interface with culture media, leading to cell death and necrotic centers within the meat. When muscle is cultivated in vivo, this issue is circumvented as the ECM delivers nutrients into the muscle through blood vessels. As such, many emerging scaffolds aim to replicate such networks.

Similarly, scaffolds must simulate many of the other characteristics of the ECM, most notably porosity, crystallinity, degradation, biocompatibility and functionality. Few materials that emulate all these characteristics have been identified, leading to the possibility of blending different materials with complementary properties.

Cellular agriculture research does not have a significant basis of academic interest or funding streams. Consequently, the majority of research has been undertaken and funded by independent institutions. However, this is incrementally changing as not for profits drive support and interest. Notably, New Harvest has a fellowship program to support graduate students and groups at various academic institutions.

Consumer acceptance of the product is critical. A study looking at acceptance of cultured meat in China, India, and the USA "found high levels of acceptance of clean meat in the three most populous countries worldwide."

Several potential factors of consumer acceptance of cultured meat have been identified. Healthiness, safety, nutritional characteristics, sustainability, taste, and lower price, are all contributing factors. One study found that the use of highly technical language to explain cultured meat led to significantly more negative public attitude towards the concept. Transparently communicating the science is important, but oversharing the wrong aspects of the product could draw unfavourable attention to safety concerns. Thus one of the challenges in how cultivated meat is marketed is striking the balance between transparency of the science behind it, but communicating it in a way that it does not evoke resistance. One study suggested that describing cultured meat in a way that emphasizes the final product rather than the production method was an effective way to improve acceptance. The role of nomenclature is also crucial. Although the 'lab-grown meat' portrayal of cultivated meat is favoured by media sensationalism, it has been opposed by industry leaders as it seeds an innately unnatural image of cultivated meat in consumer's perceptions.

The use of standardized descriptions would improve future research about consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Current studies have often reported drastically different rates of acceptance, despite similar survey populations. Lou Cooperhouse, CEO of BlueNalu, shared on the Red to Green Podcast that "cell-based" and "cell-cultured" were suitable terms to differentiate it from conventional meat whilst being clear about the process by which it was made.

Global market acceptance has not been assessed. Studies are attempting to determine the current levels of consumer acceptance and identify methods to improve this value. Clear answers are not available, although one recent study reported that consumers were willing to pay a premium for cultured meat.

Low percentages of older adult populations have been reported to show acceptance for cultured meat. Green eating behavior, educational status, and food business, were cited as most important factors for this population.

There is also a lack of studies relating the methods of producing cultured meat with its taste for the consuming public.

Regulatory matters must also be sorted out. Prior to being available for sale, the European Union and Canada require approved novel food applications. Additionally, the European Union requires that cultured animal products and production must prove safety, by an approved company application, as of 1 January 2018.

Within the United States, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) have agreed to jointly regulate cultured meat. Under the agreement, the FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation, while the USDA oversees the production and labeling of human food products derived from the cells.

Large-scale production of cultured meat may or may not require artificial growth hormones to be added to the culture for meat production.

Researchers have suggested that omega-3 fatty acids could be added to cultured meat as a health bonus. In a similar way, the omega-3 fatty acid content of conventional meat can be increased by altering what the animals are fed. An issue of magazine suggested that the cell-cultured process may also decrease exposure of the meat to bacteria and disease.

There is also a lack of research on the comparison on the health effects of production cultured meat with the industrial meat or the biologic organic meat ways of production.

Although cultured meat consists of animal muscle cells, fat and support cells, as well as blood vessels, that are the same as in traditional meat, some consumers may find the high-tech production process unacceptable. Cultured meat has been described as fake or "Frankenmeat". On the other hand, clean meat can be produced without the artificial hormones, antibiotics, steroids, medicine, and GMOs commonly used in factory farmed meat and seafood, though not used on organic biologic production.

If a cultured meat product is different in appearance, taste, smell, texture, or other factors, it may not be commercially competitive with conventionally produced meat. The lack of bone and cardiovascular system is a disadvantage for dishes where these parts make appreciable culinary contributions. However, the lack of bones and/or blood may make many traditional meat preparations, such as buffalo wings, more palatable to some people. Furthermore, blood and bones could potentially be cultured in the future.

Animal production for food is a major causes of air/water pollution and carbon emissions. Significant questions have been raised about whether the traditional industry can meet the rapidly increasing demands for meat. Cultured meat may provide an environmentally conscious alternative to traditional meat production.

The environmental impacts of cultured meat are expected to be significantly lower than from animal husbandry. For every hectare that is used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be returned to its natural state. Vertical farms (in addition to cultured meat facilities) could exploit methane digesters to generate a portion of its electrical needs. Methane digesters could be built on site to transform the organic waste generated at the facility into biogas which is generally composed of 65% methane. This biogas could be burned to generate electricity for the greenhouse or a series of bioreactors.

One study reported that cultured meat was "potentially ... much more efficient and environmentally-friendly". It generated only 4% of greenhouse gas emissions, reduced the energy needs of meat production by up to 45%, and required only 2% of the land that the global meat/livestock industry does. In Tuomisto's life cycle analysis claimed that producing 1000 kg of meat conventionally requires "26-33 GJ energy, 367-521 m³ water, 190-230 m² land, and emits 1900-2240 kg CO2-eq GHG emissions". On the other hand, producing the same quantity of meat in vitro has "7-45% lower energy use... 78-96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82-96% lower water use".

Skeptic Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists speculates that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land. However, S.L. Davis speculated that both vertical farming in urban areas and the activity of cultured meat facilities may cause relatively little harm to the wildlife that live around the facilities. Dickson Despommier speculated that natural resources may be spared from depletion due to vertical farming and cultured meat. One study reported that conventional farming kills ten wild animals per hectare each year.

Techniques of genetic engineering, such as insertion, deletion, silencing, activation, or mutation of a gene, are not required to produce cultured meat. Cultured meat production allows the biological processes that normally occur within an animal to occur without the animal. Since cultured meat is grown in a controlled, artificial environment, some have commented that cultured meat more closely resembles hydroponic vegetables, rather than genetically modified vegetables.

More research is underway on cultured meat, and although cultured meat does not require genetic engineering, researchers may employs such techniques to improve quality and sustainability. Fortifying cultured meat with nutrients such as beneficial fatty acids is one improvement that can be facilitated through genetic modification. The same improvement can be made without genetic modification, by manipulating the conditions of the culture medium. Genetic modification may be able to enhance muscle cell proliferation. The introduction of myogenic regulatory factors, growth factors, or other gene products into muscle cells may increase production over that of conventional meat.

Australian bioethicist Julian Savulescu said, "Artificial meat stops cruelty to animals, is better for the environment, could be safer and more efficient, and even healthier. We have a moral obligation to support this kind of research. It gets the ethical two thumbs up." Animal welfare groups are generally in favor of cultured meat, because the culture process does not include a nervous system and therefore does not involve pain or infringement of rights. Reactions of vegetarians to cultured meat vary. Some feel the cultured meat presented to the public in August 2013 was not vegetarian because fetal bovine serum was used in the growth medium. However, since then, cultured meat has been grown with a medium that does not involve bovine serum. Philosopher Carlo Alvaro argues that the question of the morality of eating in vitro meat has been discussed only in terms of convenience. Alvaro proposes a virtue-oriented approach, suggesting that the determination to produce lab-grown meat stems from unvirtuous motives, i.e., "lack of temperance and misunderstanding of the role of food in human flourishing."

Some have proposed independent inquiries into the standards, laws, and regulations for cultured meat.

Just as with many other foods, cultured meat needs technically sophisticated production methods that may be difficult for some communities, meaning they would lack self-sufficiency and be dependent on global food corporations.

Islamic dietary practices must also be considered. The Islamic Institute of Orange County, California said, "There does not appear to be any objection to eating this type of cultured meat." In addition, Abdul Qahir Qamar of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy said that cultured meat "will not be considered meat from live animals, but will be cultured meat." For cells derived from pigs, dogs, and other haram animals, the meat would be considered vegetative and "similar to yogurt and fermented pickles."

Hinduism typically excludes the consumption of beef, such as steak and burgers. Chandra Kaushik, president of the Hindu Mahasabha, said about cultured beef that he would "not accept it being traded in a marketplace in any form or being used for a commercial purpose."

At the moment, cultured meat is significantly more costly than conventional meat. However,in a March 2015 interview, Post said that the marginal cost of his team's original €250,000 burger was now €8.00. He estimated that technological advancements would allow the product to be cost-competitive to traditionally sourced beef in approximately ten years. In 2018, Memphis Meats reduced the cost of production to $1,700 per pound. In 2019, Eat Just said it cost about US$50 to produce one chicken nugget.

In 2015, Maastricht University hosted the first International Conference on Cultured Meat. New Harvest - a 501(c)(3) research institute - as well as The Good Food Institute host annual conferences to convene industry leaders, scientists, investors, and potential collaborators. The two organizations also fund public research and produce educational content. Organizations such as the Cellular Agriculture Society, Cellular Agriculture Canada, Cellular Agriculture France, Cellular Agriculture Australia and Cellular agriculture New Zealand were founded to advocate for cultured meat in their respective countries. Publications such as Cell Agri and the Protein Report have also emerged in order to provide updates concerning the technology and business within the field.

Research continues on many fronts, including entomoculture, interactome maps of cardiac tissue, substrate design, scaffold design, nutritional profile, reaction kinetics, transport phenomena, mass transfer limitations and metabolic stoichiometric requirements,. and bioprinting process.

Multiple venture capital firms and accelerator/incubator programs focus on assisting cultured technology startups, or plant-based protein companies in general. The Big Idea Ventures (BIV) Venture Capital firm launched their New Protein Fund to invest in emerging cell and plant-based food companies in New York and Singapore. They invested in MeliBio, Actual Veggies, Biftek.co, Orbillion Bio, Yoconut, Evo, WildFor and Novel Farms. Indie Bio is a biology oriented accelerator program that has invested in Memphis Meats, Geltor, New Age Meats and Finless Foods.

Cultured meat has often featured in science fiction. The earliest mention may be in Two Planets (1897) by Kurd Lasswitz, where "synthetic meat" is one of the varieties of synthetic food introduced on Earth by Martians. Other notable books mentioning artificial meat include Ashes, Ashes (1943) by René Barjavel; The Space Merchants (1952) by Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth; The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (1980) by Douglas Adams; Le Transperceneige (Snowpiercer) (1982) by Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette; Neuromancer (1984) by William Gibson; Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; (2007) by Jeffrey Thomas; Accelerando (2005) by Charles Stross; Ware Tetralogy by Rudy Rucker; (2011) by Veronica Roth; and the Vorkosigan Saga (1986-2018) by Lois McMaster Bujold.

In film, artificial meat has featured prominently in Giulio Questi's 1968 drama La morte ha fatto l'uovo ( Death Laid an Egg) and Claude Zidi's 1976 comedy L'aile ou la cuisse ( The Wing or the Thigh). "Man-made" chickens also appear in David Lynch's 1977 surrealist horror, Eraserhead. Most recently, it was also featured prominently as the central theme of the movie (2012).

The Starship Enterprise from the TV and movie franchise apparently provides a synthetic meat, although crews from The Next Generation and later use replicators.

In the ABC sitcom Better Off Ted (2009-2010), the episode " Heroes" features Phil ( Jonathan Slavin) and Lem ( Malcolm Barrett) trying to grow cowless beef.

In the videogame Project Eden, the player characters investigate a cultured meat company called Real Meat.

In the movie Galaxy Quest during the dinner scene, Tim Allen's character refers to his steak tasting like "real Iowa beef".

In The Expanse "vat-grown" meat is produced to feed the people who live on spaceships/space stations away from Earth, due to the exorbitant cost of importing real meat.

In February 2014, a biotech startup called BiteLabs ran a campaign to generate popular support for artisanal salami made with meat cultured from celebrity tissue samples. The campaign became popular on Twitter, where users tweeted at celebrities asking them to donate muscle cells to the project. Media reactions to BiteLabs variously identified the startup as a satire on startup culture, celebrity culture, or as a discussion prompt on bioethical concerns. While BiteLabs claimed to be inspired by the success of Sergey Brin's burger, the company is seen as an example of critical design rather than an actual business venture.

In late 2016, cultured meat was involved in a case in the episode "How The Sausage Is Made" of CBS show Elementary.

Cultured meat was profiled in the 2020 Canadian documentary film Meat the Future.

In the 2020 videogame Cyberpunk 2077, multiple cultured meat products are for sale, due to the high cost of natural meat. This includes "EEZYBEEF", made from in vitro cultured muscle cells taken from cattle, and the flatworm culture based "Orgiatic" which comes in several flavors.

1. Datar, I (January 2010). "Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system". Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 11 (1): 13-22. doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2009.10.007.

2. Watson, Elaine (12 September 2019). "'Cultivated' meat could be the most-consumer-friendly term for cell-cultured meat, suggests Mattson/GFI research". FoodNavigator-USA.

3. ^ ""Clean meat" is catching on: a reflection on nomenclature". The Good Food Institute. 24 May 2018. Archived from the original on 16 September 2018.

4. ^ WO9931222 A1 Application WO9931222, van Eelen, Willem Frederik; van Kooten, Willem Jan & Westerhof, Wiete, "Industrial scale production of meat from in vitro cell cultures"

5. ^ "Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale" (Press release). University of Maryland. 6 July 2005. Archived from the original on 25 July 2005.

6. Macintyre, Ben (20 January 2007). "Test-tube meat science's next leap". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2 November 2011.

7. ^ Rogers, Lois (29 November 2009). "Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory". The Sunday Times. London. Archived from the original on 6 January 2010.

8. ^ Campuzano, Santiago; Pelling, Andrew E. (2019). "Scaffolds for 3D Cell Culture and Cellular Agriculture Applications Derived From Non-animal Sources". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 3. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00038. ISSN 2571-581X. S2CID 157058210.

9. ^ Wingfield, Paul T. (1 April 2015). "Overview of the Purification of Recombinant Proteins". Current Protocols in Protein Science. 80: 6.1.1-6.1.35. doi:10.1002/0471140864.ps0601s80. ISSN 1934-3655. PMC . PMID 25829302.

10. ^ Dessels, Carla; Potgieter, Marnie; Pepper, Michael S. (2016). "Making the Switch: Alternatives to Fetal Bovine Serum for Adipose-Derived Stromal Cell Expansion". Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 4: 115. doi:10.3389/fcell.2016.00115. ISSN 2296-634X. PMC . PMID 27800478.

11. I. Datar, M. Betti, ^ Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 11 (2010) at 17.

12. ^ Sharma, Shruti; Thind, Sukhcharanjit Singh; Kaur, Amarjeet (December 2015). "In vitro meat production system: why and how?". Journal of Food Science and Technology. 52 (12): 7599-7607. doi:10.1007/s13197-015-1972-3. ISSN 0022-1155. PMC . PMID 26604337.

13. ^ Bryant, Christopher; Szejda, Keri; Parekh, Nishant; Desphande, Varun; Tse, Brian (27 February 2019). "A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 3: 11. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011. ISSN 2571-581X.

14. Gómez-Luciano, Cristino Alberto; de Aguiar, Luis Kluwe; Vriesekoop, Frank; Urbano, Beatriz (December 2019). "Consumers' willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic" (PDF). Food Quality and Preference. 78: 103732. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732.

15. ^ Bryant, Christopher J.; Barnett, Julie C. (June 2019). "What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names". Appetite. 137: 104-113. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021. PMID 30840874. S2CID 73479055.

16. ^ Valente, Júlia de Paula Soares; Fiedler, Rodrigo Alonso; Sucha Heidemann, Marina; Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino (30 August 2019). Gao, Zhifeng (ed.). "First glimpse on attitudes of highly educated consumers towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil". PLOS ONE. 14 (8): e0221129. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1421129V. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221129. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC . PMID 31469862.

17. ^ Stephens, N (21 July 2018). "Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture". Trends in Food Science & Technology. 78: 155-166. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010. PMC . PMID 30100674.

18. ^ Azcona, J.O.; Schang, M.J.; Garcia, P.T.; Gallinger, C.; Ayerza, R. (2008). "Omega-3 enriched broiler meat: The influence of dietary alpha-linolenic omega-3 fatty acid sources on growth, performance and meat fatty acid composition". Canadian Journal of Animal Science, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 88 (2): 257-269. doi:10.4141/cjas07081.

19. ^ Despommier, D. (2008). "Vertical Farm Essay I". Vertical Farm. Archived from the original on 1 July 2009.

20. ^ Tuomisto, Hannah (17 June 2011), "Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production", Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (14): 6117-6123, Bibcode:2011EnST...45.6117T, doi:10.1021/es200130u, PMID 21682287

21. ^ Case Study - Landfill Power Generation Archived 3 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine, H. Scott Matthews, Green Design Initiative, Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved 07.02.09

22. ^ Lab-grown meat would 'cut emissions and save energy', 21 June 2011

23. ^ Tuomisto, Hanna (17 June 2011). "Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production". Environmental Science & Technology. 45 (14): 6117-6123. Bibcode:2011EnST...45.6117T. doi:10.1021/es200130u. PMID 21682287.

24. S.L. Davis (2001). "The least harm principle suggests that humans should eat beef, lamb, dairy, not a vegan diet". Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. pp. 449-450.

25. ^ Despommier, Dickson (November 2009). "The Rise of Vertical Farms". Scientific American. 301 (5): 60-67. Bibcode:2009SciAm.301e..80D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1109-80. ISSN 0036-8733. PMID 19873908.

26. ^ Sandhana, Lakshmi. "Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table". Archived from the original on 19 August 2013.

27. ^ Haagsman, H.P.; K.J. HelIingwerf; B.A.J. Roelen (October 2009). "Production of Animal Proteins by Cell Systems" (PDF). Universiteit Utrecht: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: 13-14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 November 2013.

28. ^ Tuomisto, Hanna L.; Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (22-24 September 2010). "Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production" (PDF): 5. Archived from the original on 3 February 2014.

29. ^ Kruglinski, Susan; Wright, Karen (22 September 2008). "I'll Have My Burger Petri-Dish Bred, With Extra Omega-3". .

30. Alvaro, C. (2019) Lab‐Grown Meat and Veganism: A Virtue‐Oriented Perspective. ^ J Agric Environ Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09759-2, p. 17.

31. ^ "In Vitro Meat: Power, Authenticity and Vegetarianism". Archived from the original on 5 August 2013.

32. ^ Kenigsberg, Joel; Zivotofsky, Ari (22 January 2020). "A Jewish Religious Perspective on Cellular Agriculture". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 3. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00128.

33. ^ Hamdan, Mohammad Naqib; Post, Mark J.; Ramli, Mohd Anuar; Mustafa, Amin Rukaini (1 December 2018). "Cultured Meat in Islamic Perspective". Journal of Religion and Health. 57 (6): 2193-2206. doi:10.1007/s10943-017-0403-3. ISSN 1573-6571. PMID 28456853. S2CID 9217711.

34. ^ Merchant, Brian (26 February 2014). "The Guy Who Wants to Sell Lab-Grown Salami Made of Kanye West Is "100% Serious"". Motherboard. Vice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cultured meat is a meat produced by cell cultures of animal cells. It is a form of cellular agriculture. Cultured meat is produced using tissue engineering techniques traditionally used in regenerative medicines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Whitney Bond and member Brooke Helsel Talk Beef on the Ranch and in the Kitchen

# data[].attributes.subject
Whitney Bond and member Brooke Helsel Talk Beef on the Ranch and in the Kitchen

# data[].attributes.body
Join in and listen to their conversation as they share their passion for good beef, and good ranching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whitney Bond and Brooke Helsel Talk Beef on the Ranch and in the Kitchen

# data[].attributes.body
You can depend on the Beef: It's What's For Dinner website to help with any recipe or cooking tips. Check out their advice on pairings!

# data[].attributes.headline
Tips on How to Talk to Anyone About Your Business

# data[].attributes.subject
Tips on How to Talk to Anyone About Your Business

# data[].attributes.body
Needs some tips on how to talk about Beef or Ranching? Here are some great ideas on how to engage someone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's face it, when we go to a networking or other type of event, we get excited when someone asks us about our business. Especially if it is someone who has never heard our great story before.

We get emotional, and we get ready to tell this remarkable story about how we created the greatest idea and started our fantastic business. If we pay close attention though, we see that after about 30 seconds, the person's eyes glass over, and we realize they're not really paying close attention. But, of course, we keep on talking because our story must be told.

Here are 6 tips to help you tell your story without losing anyone's interest.

1. The Problem

Talk about the problem that the business is solving.

For example, if you have a cupcake business, you might say, "you know how hard it is to find good cupcakes in this area?" Then you might say, "I started a cupcake business in this area to solve that problem." This establishes a true purpose for your business.

2. Who has the problem?

Now let's talk about the people that have the problem.

You might say "people have told me over and over they wish they could find good place to get great cupcakes around here." This establishes that there are people that have the problem, your potential customers.

3. Your solution to the problem

This is where you talk about your solution to the problem, your business.

You might say, "that's why two years ago I decided to start Marc's Cupcake Shop. We offer the best homemade cupcakes in this area. We offer the standard cupcakes that most people like as well as cupcakes that we can create from the imagination of our customers," This is your great solution to the problem.

4. Why you?

This is where you tell why buy from you.

You might say, "I have been making cupcakes for over 10 years for friends, family and local events and decided to take it to the next level and open a cupcake business." This will tell people why they should buy from you.

5. How can they find you

Tell them how to find you.

You can say, "we are located at 123 Main St. or you can find us online at www.Marc'scupcakesshop.com." Ask them to come by your store and try something out, or go to your website and sign up for your email newsletter. This is your ask, the most important sometimes forgotten part of your speech.

6. Now this is the hard part

Stop talking!

Let the person ask questions to find out more about your business. This is when to answer the questions that are most important to the person you're talking to. Answer the questions so they will take action.

Summary

This entire process should only take you 60 seconds or less. This will allow you to either engage in more conversation or easily move on to someone else. Remember your purpose at this event is to meet as many people as you can. Your next goal is to get as many people as you can to take action by going to your site, stopping by your location or scheduling a time to talk further.

Bonus Tip: If someone says that would like talk with you another time, get out your phone, and try your best to get it scheduled right now. Don't wait! Take action now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Tips for Talking About Your Business With Anyone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's face it, when we go to a networking or other type of event, we get excited when someone asks us about our business. Especially if it is someone who has never heard our great story before. We get emotional, and we get ready to tell this remarkable story about how we created the greatest idea and started our fantastic business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Janet Shatney did not have an average FarmHer journey. Growing up in New York, she was considered a flatlander. But after over 40 years in Vermont, she easily can call it and her Scottish Highland cattle home. What started with five head of cattle has grown into a full herd of 170 head, and preserves the oldest registered Highland cattle genetics.

The Beautiful View of Highland Cattle On Top of the Farm

I arrived in Plainfield, Vermont on a crisp, autumn morning. The beauty of the Highland cattle complimented the fall colors perfectly. First, I met the most important people on the farm: the herd.

It was quite the sight to see Janet moving the cattle from one field to the next. As she says, it's like being in charge of a first-grade class following the teacher. The cattle moseyed right behind her and found the perfect view from the top of their farm.

Highland Cattle Beef Is One of a Kind

Besides their gorgeous, orange colored hair, Highland cattle also produce one of a kind beef.

If you have never tried Highland beef before, you are not alone. One unique aspect of Highland cattle is their thick, heavy coats. Traditional beef cattle must put on a layer of fat in order to insulate themselves. With Highland beef, the marbling goes directly into the muscle thanks to their coat of hair.

They also are the only breed of beef that will marble to 100% purely on grass for feed.

Janet and her husband Ray started their business, Greenfield Highland Beef, around 15 years ago. At first, they sold their beef at farmers' markets. Now, they sell to a large customer base with a majority of their customers within 40 miles of where the beef was raised.

In beginning, they gave out tons of samples because they truly believe in the difference in taste and marbling of Highland cattle beef. After trying it, so do their customers.

Time For Some Pampering

After we moved and discussed the cattle, it was time for some love and care. Highland cattle are known to be a very docile breed and Janet also shows some of her herd. Because of these two factors, many of her cattle love to be groomed and pampered regularly.

We pulled out brushes, and went to work. And the cattle absolutely loved it, especially under the chin in their special spot.

The Good Life in Vermont

The good life is something you feel when you step onto Janet's farm. She's found peace with the animals she once feared. Now, they are more than a herd, they are members of her family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greenfield Highland Cattle: Preserving Genetics and Beef - FarmHer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Janet Shatney did not have an average FarmHer journey. Growing up in New York, she was considered a flatlander. But after over 40 years in Vermont, she easily can call it and her Scottish Highland cattle home. What started with five head of cattle has grown into a full herd of 170 head, and preserves the oldest registered Highland cattle genetics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scientific Report on base nutritional difference of plant based and grass fed meat

# data[].attributes.subject
Scientific Report on base nutritional difference of plant based and grass fed meat

# data[].attributes.body
A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels | Scientific Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

By 2050, global food systems will need to meet the dietary demands of almost 10 billion people. To meet these demands in a healthy and sustainable manner, it is put forward that diets would benefit from a shift towards consumption of more plant-based foods and less meat, particularly in Western countries1. This has raised questions whether novel plant-based meat alternatives represent healthy and nutritionally adequate alternatives to meat2,3,4,5.

The new generation of plant-based meat alternatives such as the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger are becoming increasingly popular with consumers. Their success has led other international food companies-including traditional meat companies-to invest in their own product versions6. The global plant-based meat alternative sector has experienced substantial growth and is projected to increase from $11.6 billion in 2019 to $30.9 billion by 2026 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15% (Fig. 1). In contrast, the meat sector is expecting a CAGR of 3.9% during this time and to reach a market value of $1142.9 billion by 20237.

The global market value of plant-based meat alternatives and meat. Market data on plant-based meat alternatives and meat were obtained from STATISTA7. ( a) The projected global market value of plant-based meats from 2018 to 2026 in Billion US Dollars. ( b) The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the plant-based meat sector globally and by region. ( c) The relative growth of the global plant-based meat sector (+ 14.8%) is expected to exceed the relative growth global animal meat market (+ 3.9%). Despite growth in absolute terms, the value share of the global animal meat sector as a percentage of the overall food industry is expected to remain more or less similar during 2018-20237.

The production of plant-based meats as a replacement for animal-sourced meat is nothing new. One of the earliest engineered meat alternatives was Protose, a plant-based meat alternative made from wheat gluten, peanuts, and soybean oil, which was designed by John Kellogg in the late nineteenth century. In 1899, Kellogg wrote the following in his patent application for Protose:

"The objective of my invention is to furnish a vegetable substitute for meat which shall possess equal or greater nutritive value in equal or more favorable form for digestion and assimilation and which shall contain the essential nutritive elements in approximately the same proportion as beef and mutton and which substitute has a similar flavor and is as easily digestible as the most tender meat" (U.S. Patent No 670283A).

More than a century later, the objective of plant-based meat alternative production has arguably remained the same; however, contemporary products have arguably accomplished to create a sensory experience that more closely resembles red meat. For example, soy leghemoglobin in a popular plant-based meat alternative imitates the "bloody" appearance and taste of heme proteins in meat, while extracts from red beets, red berries, carrots, and/or other similarly colored vegetables are often embedded in plant-based meat alternatives to give them a reddish "meat-like" appearance6. Methyl cellulose is often used to give plant-based meat alternatives a "meat-like" texture, while flavoring agents are added to mimic the taste of cooked meat. Modern meat alternatives also match the protein content of meat by using isolated plant proteins (e.g., soy, pea, potato, mung bean, rice, mycoprotein, and/or wheat), and they are sometimes fortified with vitamins and minerals found in red meat (e.g., vitamins B ₁₂, zinc, and iron) to provide an even more direct nutritional replacement4,8.

For example, a commercially available plant-based alternative closely matches the Nutrition Facts panel of beef (Fig. 2), and to consumers reading nutritional labels they may appear nutritionally interchangeable9. Nonetheless, food sources have considerable complexity and contain a wide variety of nutrients (e.g., phenols, anti-oxidants, peptides, amino acids, fatty acids, biogenic amines etc.), the majority of which do not appear on nutrition labels, but can have potential health implications10. Important nutritional differences may exist between beef and novel plant-based alternatives; however, this has not been thoroughly assessed.

Schematic description of sample preparation and metabolomics analysis. ( a) Nutrition Facts panels of grass-fed ground beef and the plant-based meat alternative. ( b) Samples were homogenized, methoximated and trimethylsilylated, and untargeted metabolomic analysis was conducted via gas chromatography/electron-ionization mass spectrometry (GC/EI-MS). ( c) Raw spectral data were imported into the freeware (Automatic Mass Spectral Deconvolution and Identification Software or AMDIS), and annotated as metabolites using an orthogonal approach that incorporates both retention time (RT) from GC and the fragmentation pattern observed in EI-MS. ( d) To determine differences in abundance of metabolites between beef and plant-based meat alternative, deconvoluted peak areas from AMDIS analysis were log-base-two transformed prior to analysis and tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p values at 5% (False Discovery Rate adjusted p < 0.05). ( e) Bioactivities and potential health effects of annotated metabolites were explored using FooDB ( https://foodb.ca/) and/or PubChem ( https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) databases, while metabolic pathway identification of metabolites was performed using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) ( https://www.genome.jp/)11. Figure was created with BioRender.com.

Given the scientific and commercial interest in plant-based meat alternatives, the goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles of grass-fed ground beef and a popular plant-based meat alternative, both of which are sometimes considered as healthier and more environmentally friendly sources of "beef"4,5,8. Metabolomics is an analytical profiling technique that allows researchers to measure and compare large numbers of nutrients and metabolites present in biological samples.

Results

Product information

A schematic representation of the study flow is provided in Fig. 2. Eighteen different packages (340 g or 12 oz each) of a commercially-available plant-based meat alternative was purchased from a local grocery store in Raleigh, NC, USA. Ground beef from eighteen grass-fed, black angus cattle (454 g or 16 oz each) was purchased from Alderspring Ranch (May, ID) and matched for total fat content to the plant-based alternative, which was confirmed using proximate analysis (method AOAC 960.39; Microbac Laboratories, Warrendale, PA). The macronutrient composition and energy content of 113 g (4oz) grass-fed beef was 24 g of protein, 0 g of carbohydrates, 14 g of fat (5 g saturated fat), and 220 kcal. The macronutrient composition and energy content of 113 g (4oz) the soy-based meat alternative was 19 g of protein, 9 g of carbohydrates, 14 g of fat (8 g saturated fat), and 250 kcal. The Nutrition Facts panels of both food sources, including micronutrients, can be found in Fig. 2. The plant-based alternative is fortified with iron (from soy leghemoglobin), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B ₆, vitamin B ₁₂, and zinc. The micronutrients within grass-fed beef are part of the natural food matrix.

Metabolomics analysis

We found that a total of 171 out of 190 annotated metabolites (90%) were different (p < 0.05) between beef and the plant-based alternative. Several compounds were found either exclusively (22 metabolites total) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites total) compared with the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients only found in beef included allantoin (alkaloid; anti-oxidant)12, anserine (dipeptide; anti-oxidant)13, cysteamine (amine; anti-oxidant)14, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, C22:6, ω-3 essential fatty acid)15, glucosamine (hexoamines; collagen biosynthesis)16, hydroxyproline (non-protein amino acid; collagen biosynthesis)17, gamma-aminobutyric acid (non-protein amino acid; anti-hypertensive)18, spermine (biogenic polyamine; anti-oxidant)19, niacinamide (vitamin B ₃; neuroprotective)20, and squalene (terpenoid phenolic; anti-bacterial)21. Several other compounds were found exclusively (31 metabolites total) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites total) in the plant-based meat alternative when compared to beef (Supplemental Table 1) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients only found in the plant-based meat alternative included 2-hydroxy-3-methylvaleric acid (pentanoic acids; flavor)22, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid (phenolic; anti-oxidant)23, aconitic acid (carboxylic acid; flavor)24, ascorbate (vitamin C; anti-oxidant)25, beta-sitosterol (phytosterol; anti-carcinogenic)26, campesterol (phytosterol; anti-carcinogenic)26, loganin (terpenoid phenolic; anti-inflammatory)27, melezitose or similar disaccharides (flavor)28, monolaurin (glyceride; anti-microbial)29, phenylacetic acid (phenylacetates; anti-oxidant)30, sorbic acid (unsaturated fatty acid; food preservative)31, sulfurol (phenolic; flavor)32, syringic acid (phenolic; anti-oxidant)33, trilaurin (glyceride; anti-microbial)29, and tyrosol (phenolic; anti-oxidant)34. A full list of annotated metabolites, their respective pathway classification (KEGG-identified)11, and their potential bioactivates/health effects (FoodDB and PubChem-identified) can be found in Supplemental Table 1. While several of these nutrients are considered non-essential or conditionally-essential based on life-stages (e.g., infancy, pregnancy, or advanced age) and are often less appreciated in discussions of human nutritional requirements10, their importance should not be ignored, as their absence (or presence) can potentially impact human metabolism and health.

Table 1 Metabolites clustered into nutrient classes according to structural similarity using ChemRICH software procedures11. Arrow (↑) indicates higher abundance for a particular nutrient class or nutrient. Abbreviations used: AA, amino acids; DHA; docosahexaenoic; FA, fatty acid.

To visualize differences and identify the top metabolites contributing to the nutritional disparity between beef and plant-based meat, we created a ranked heatmap of the top fifty metabolites based on the Pearson distance measure and the Ward clustering algorithm, and performed unsupervised principal component analysis using software procedures from MetaboAnalyst 4.0 ( http://www.metaboanalyst.ca)35. Both the heatmap (Fig. 3A) and unsupervised principal component (PCA) analysis (Fig. 3 B) revealed a distinct separation in nutritional components, with 97.3% of the variance explained within the first principal component (PC1)-further illustrating that large metabolite differences exist between beef and the plant-based meat alternative.

Metabolomics revealed distinct differences in metabolite profiles between grass-fed ground beef (GB) and the plant-based meat alternative (PB). ( a) Heatmap of the top 50 metabolites, ranked by p values (lowest to highest), that were significantly different (p < 0.05) between beef and the plant-based meat alternative. Red (intensity ranges from 0 to 1.5) means higher abundance of the corresponding metabolite, whereas blue means lower abundance (intensity ranges from − 0 to − 1.5). The numbers below the heatmap represent individual samples (GB-1 to 18 and PB-1 to 18 respectively; n = 18 for each group). Metabolites in beef and the plant-based meat alternative were compared by the Wilcoxon rank sum test with Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p values at 5% (p < 0.05). ( b) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) analysis of beef and plant-based meat revealed a distinct difference in metabolite composition between the grass-fed ground beef and the plant-based meat, with 97.3% of the variance explained within the first principal component (PC1)-which illustrates that large differences exist between beef and the plant-based meat alternative. Red and green colors above the heatmap ( a) and the PCA plot ( b) represent the ground beef and the plant-based meat, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the groups is depicted in their respective color. A full list of potential bioactivities and health effects of each individual metabolite is reported in Supplemental Table 1. Figure was created with MetaboAnalyst 4.0 ( http://www.metaboanalyst.ca)35.

Chemical similarity enrichment analysis

To identify the main metabolite classes that differed between beef and the plant-based alternative, we clustered individual metabolites into metabolite classes according to their structural similarity using Chemical Similarity Enrichment Analysis (ChemRICH) software procedures ( http://chemrich.fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu/). We identified 24 classes (enrichment clusters) with ≥ 3 structurally similar metabolites regardless of whether these metabolites were found in beef or the plant-based meat alternative (Table 1). We found that 23 out of the 24 identified metabolite classes differed significantly (false discovery rates adjusted p < 0.05) between beef and the plant-based meat alternative.

Amongst the metabolite classes emerging as most discriminating between beef and the plant-based meat alternative were amino acids, non-protein amino acids, saccharides, saturated fatty acids, dicarboxylic acids, phenols, dipeptides, sugar alcohols, vitamins, glycerides, unsaturated fatty acids, and amino alcohols (all, p < 0.05). We then used partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) (Fig. 4) and identified the metabolites responsible for their overall discrimination ability between groups (ranked according to Variable Importance in Projection [VIP] scores).

Partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to rank metabolites according to their prognostic importance (VIP scores) in separating the metabolite profiles of beef and the plant-based meat alternative. The boxes on the right of the plot indicates the relative concentrations of the corresponding metabolite in the plant-based meat alternative and beef. Red means higher abundance of the corresponding metabolite, whereas blue means lower abundance. Metabolite classes were identified using Chemical Similarity Enrichment Analysis (ChemRICH) software procedures ( http://chemrich.fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu/)11 and indicated by the colored bars left of the metabolites.

Discussion

A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives have recently entered global consumer markets. Novel plant-based meat alternatives are often formulated and marketed to facilitate the replacement of animal-based foods in the diet, both in terms of sensory experience and nutrition. The plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed, beef studied in our work, have largely similar Nutrition Facts panels and may appear nutritionally interchangeable to consumers9. Despite these apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundance between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; p < 0.05). Substantial differences in metabolites within various classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, odd-chain saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, antioxidants) indicate that these products should not be viewed as nutritionally interchangeable. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers, and to inform dietary advice by health professionals.

Several metabolites with potentially important regulatory roles in human health were found either exclusively or in greater quantities in beef samples than in the plant-based alternative and vice versa. Creatinine (product of creatine), hydroxyproline (a non-proteinogenic amino acid), anserine (a carnosine metabolite), glucosamine (a saccharide), and cysteamine (an aminothiol) are examples of nutrients only found in beef and appeared as discriminating metabolites within their respective nutrient class (Table 1). These nutrients have potentially important physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles17,36, and low intakes are associated with cardiovascular, neurocognitive, retinal, hepatic, skeletal muscle, and connective tissue dysfunction17,36. For example, creatine and anserine were found to provide neurocognitive protection in randomized controlled trials in older adults37,38. Cysteamine, a potent antioxidant, also has neuroprotective effects and is a precursor of glutathione-one of the most potent intracellular anti-oxidants14. Squalene has potential anti-oxidant, anti-bacterial, and anti-tumor activity21, while dietary hydroxyproline and glucosamine can stimulate collagen biosynthesis and are considered important for maintaining the structure and strength of connective tissue and blood vessels16,17.

Metabolites in nutrient classes such as phenols, tocopherols, and phytosterols (Table 1) were found exclusively or in greater abundance in the plant-based meat when compared to beef. For instance, the plant-based meat alternative contained more tocopherols (α, γ, and δ)-a class of nutrients with vitamin E activity best known for their anti-oxidant effects39. We also found several phytosterols such as beta-sitosterol, campesterol, and stigmasterol in the plant-based meat; compounds that collectively may possess anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and/or cancer-protective properties26. We also found a wider variety and greater abundance of phenolic compounds in the plant-based alternative when compared to beef (Table 1). Identified compounds include sulfurol, syringic acid, vanillic acid, and methylated/hydroxylated forms of valeric acid, which may benefit human health by dampening oxidative stress and inflammation40. Lastly, we found higher amounts of spermidine in the plant-based meat alternative, which is a biogenic polyamine that has been studied for its potential neurocognitive and cardiovascular benefits41.

Within the nutrient class of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), the fatty acids arachidonic acid (ARA, C20:4, ω-6) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, C22:6, ω-3) were found exclusively (DHA) or in greater quantities (ARA) in grass-fed beef samples (Table 1). These essential fatty acids are major constituents of the brain phospholipid membrane and have important roles in cognition, immunomodulation, platelet function, and cell signaling15,36. Their deficiencies are associated with cognitive decline and increased risk of cardiovascular disease15,36.

Important differences were also observed in saturated fatty acid and glyceride classes (Table 1). The main saturated fatty acids and glycerides (Table 1) in the plant-based meat were coconut oil-derived lauric acid and monolaurin, which may possess anti-microbial and/or anti-inflammatory properties29,42. On the other hand, we found higher levels of the dietary odd-chain saturated fatty acids (OCFAs) pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) in beef than in the plant-based alternative. These compounds are believed to exert their beneficial effects by attenuating inflammation, dyslipidemia, and cell fibrosis43, and increased dietary intake is associated with a lower risk of metabolic disease44,45. Other notable metabolites in the plant-based meat alternative were the vitamins niacin (B ₃), pyridoxine (B ₆), and ascorbic acid (C), which are added as fortificants to the product.

When considering the health effects of foods there is a need to appreciate the complexity of whole food sources beyond simply their protein, fat, vitamin, and mineral content46. Considerations of how diet affects health is generally limited to 150 nutritional components routinely tracked in nutritional databases of which only 13 routinely appear on nutritional labels (e.g., fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, fiber, sugar, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron)10. These nutrients represent only a small fraction of the more than 26,000 metabolites in the 'human foodome'-many of which have potential health effects but often remain underappreciated in discussions of diet and human health10,46. The complexity of the whole food matrix-as indicated here by our metabolomics findings-highlights that attempting to mimic food sources using single constituents such as isolated proteins, vitamins, and minerals is challenging and arguably underestimates the complexity of the food source it is meant to mimic.

While additional fortification and technological advancement could potentially somewhat increase the nutritional similarity of plant-based meat alternatives and meat, since foods contain thousands of constituents that can synergistically impact human metabolism, consuming isolated nutrients or fortified foods often do not confer similar benefits when compared to ingesting nutrients as part of their whole-food matrix47. For example, supplementation of a low-meat diet with zinc and other minerals found in meat did not result in a similar in vivo zinc status when equivalent amounts of these minerals were provided as part of the natural meat matrix48. Similar findings have been made for other nutrients, such as copper, calcium and vitamins A, C, and D, which are associated with disease protection when obtained from food, but often not when obtained from fortified or supplemental sources49,50.

The uptake of minerals such as iron51 and zinc52 is also reduced when obtained from legumes (the common protein source in plant-based meat alternatives) when compared to animal foods. That is because iron in animal foods is found in the heme form, which is more bioavailable than the non-heme form found in plant foods53. Of note is that the iron in a novel plant-based meat alternative is also present in the heme form, and is produced from Pichia pastori yeast encoded with the leghemoglobin protein gene that is normally expressed in root nodules of soy plants (i.e., soy leghemoglobin)54. Work performed in an in vitro human epithelial model found that iron uptake from leghemoglobin is comparable to bovine hemoglobin55, and future work is needed to confirm the potential ability of soy leghemoglobin in plant-based meat alternatives to contribute to iron status in vivo in humans. Uptake of zinc from plant foods is also reduced due to the presence of phytates, lectins, and other anti-nutrients52, but can be improved when consumed at higher meal-like protein levels56, which is the case for novel plant-based meat alternatives given their use of isolated plant proteins. For an in-depth discussion on potential nutrient uptake from meat and plant-based meat alternatives we refer to a recent publication5.

Similarities in terms of total protein content (~20 g protein) and several vitamins/minerals (e.g., zinc, iron, vitamin B ₁₂, and niacin) between beef and the plant-based alternative, studied in this work (Fig. 2), does indicate that a "flexitarian approach" (replacing limited amounts of animal foods with plant-based alternatives) is unlikely to negatively impact essential nutritional status of consumers, but this also depends on what other foods are part of the diet and the degree to which plant-based substitutes replace animal foods (e.g., the occasional replacement or full replacement). Caution is warranted for vulnerable populations such as children, women of childbearing age, and older individuals who may be at increased risk for suboptimal nutritional status with low intakes of animal foods57,58.

Plant-based diets are commonly associated with higher dietary quality and lower chronic metabolic disease risk when compared to typical omnivorous diets59,60,61. Several prospective studies have found that consumption of plant foods such as legumes, whole grains, and nuts is associated with lower cancer rates, cardiovascular disease risk, and all-cause mortality, whereas red and processed meat is generally associated with an elevated risk62,63, particularly when consumed as part of Standard American/Western diets64,65,66. It must be noted that in the context of healthful dietary patterns, plant-based (vegan/vegetarian) and omnivorous diets may be equally associated with lower chronic metabolic disease risk and/or mortality67,68,69,70.

While plant foods are generally considered healthy to consume, Hu and colleagues2 have expressed reservation in extending these notions to several novel plant-based meat alternatives given their ultra-processed nature. Not all plant-based diets are necessarily healthy either, and diets rich in ultra-processed foods are associated with increased chronic metabolic disease risk, irrespective of whether they are plant-based or mixed (omnivorous)71,72. Whether several novel plant-based meat alternatives fit the description of a desirable plant food in healthy dietary patterns is currently debated2,4,5,73, and likely depends on product formulations, frequency of consumption, and the background diet of the individual. Further work is needed to inform these discussions; however, we consider it important to not lose sight of the "bigger picture" in these discussions, which is the overall dietary pattern in which individual foods are consumed. That is arguably the predominant factor dictating health outcomes to individual foods74. Of note is a recent 8-week randomized controlled trial that found that a "flexitarian approach" (swapping moderate amounts of meat with novel plant-based alternatives as part of an omnivorous diet) may have positive benefits in terms of weight control and lipoprotein profiles (e.g., LDL-cholesterol)73.

Our work has limitations. While the plant-based meat alternative studied here is one of the most popular products currently on the market, product formulations of novel plant-based meat alternatives differ in terms of the type of isolated plant proteins (e.g., soy, pea, potato, mung bean, rice, mycoprotein and/or wheat), fats (e.g., canola, soy, coconut, and/or sunflower oil), and/or other novel ingredients (e.g., soy leghemoglobin, different vegetable extracts, and/or different flavoring agents)8. Furthermore, we used GC-MS for metabolic profiling and it is possible that other platforms (e.g., LC-MS) may reveal additional differences or similarities in metabolite profiles. Nonetheless, our metabolomics analysis and a recent comparison of fatty acids and volatile (flavor) compounds in other plant-based meat alternatives with a beef burger suggests that, in general, plant-based meat alternatives are substantially different from animal meat when considering expanded nutritional profiles75. As the field of food-omics (the application of metabolomics in food and nutrition sciences) progresses, we will undoubtedly gain further appreciation of the complexity of natural food matrices and the ability of manifold nutritional constituents to synergistically modulate human health10.

In conclusion, metabolomics revealed that abundance of 171 out of 190 profiled metabolites differed between beef and a commercially-available plant-based meat alternative, despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels. Amongst identified metabolites were various nutrients (amino acids, phenols, vitamins, unsaturated fatty acids, and dipeptides) with potentially important physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles-many of which remained absent in the plant-based meat alternative when compared to beef and vice versa. Our data indicates that these products should not be viewed as nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume. Just a peanut is not really an egg76, we conclude that a plant burger is not really a beef burger. Thus, our work adds to the notion that caution is warranted when categorizing foods as equivalent for consumers simply based on their protein content ("protein foods"), which is typical in dietary recommendations76,77.

Future studies are needed to better understand how the presence and absence of metabolites and nutrients in plant-based meat alternatives and meat impacts short- and long-term consumer health. Studies performed in various populations (children, elderly, those with metabolic disease etc.), and in response to various types and amounts of plant-based meat alternatives are required to evaluate their healthfulness and appropriateness within the human diet.

Materials and methods

Sample preparation

Individual patties (113 g or 4 oz each) were formed from each package of plant-based meat ( n = 18) and beef ( n = 18), respectively. Individual patties were cooked in a non-stick skillet until the internal temperature of each patty read 71 °C as determined by a meat thermometer. One-gram microcore samples were obtained from the middle of each patty using a bioptome device, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at − 80 °C until metabolomics analysis. Microcore samples the plant-based meat replacement and bovine skeletal muscle (i.e., beef) were powdered under liquid N2 and homogenized in 50% aqueous acetonitrile containing 0.3% formic acid (50 mg wet weight sample per ml homogenate) using a Qiagen Retsch Tissue Lyser II set to a frequency of 30 oscillations/s for a total of 2 min with one 5 mm glass ball (GlenMills, Inc, #7200-005000TM) per tube. 100 µl of each sample homogenate was then transferred into a fresh, 1.5-ml, Reduced Surface Activity (RSATM) glass autosampler vial (catalog number 9512C-1MP-RS, MicroSolv Technology Corporation, Leland, NC). Proteins in sample homogenates were subsequently "crash" precipitated with 750 µl dry methanol and centrifuged at 13.500× g rcf for 5 min (Vial Centrifuge TM, MicroSolv, catalog C2417). The crash solvent was spiked with D ₂₇-deuterated myristic acid (D27-C14:0) (Sigma 366889, 6.25 mg/l) an internal standard for retention-time locking (described below). 700 µl of the supernatant of each sample homogenate was subsequently transferred to fresh RSATM glass vials (catalog number 9512C-1MP-RS, MicroSolv Technology Corporation, Leland, NC). Methanolic extracts were then dried in a Savant SPD111V SpeedVac Concentrator (Thermo Scientific, Asheville, NC), with the help of a final pulse of toluene (Fisher Scientific, catalog number T324-50) as an azeotropic drying agent. 25 µl methoxyamine hydrochloride (18 mg/ml in dry pyridine: Fisher Scientific, catalog number T324-50) was then added to each sample and incubated at 50 °C for 30 min for methoximation of certain reactive carbonyl groups. Finally, metabolites were rendered volatile by replacement of easily exchangeable protons with trimethylsilyl (TMS) groups using N-methyl- N-(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA; 75 µl per sample Cerilliant M-132, Sigma, St. Louis, MO) at 50 °C for 30 min.

GC/EI-MS analysis

Biological comparators (beef vs. plant-meat based alternative) were run in direct succession (e.g., the order A-B-A-B) on a 7890B GC/5977B single-quadrupole, Inert MS (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). This system was equipped with a MultiMode Inlet (MMI), which, in combination with a mid-column, purged ultimate union (PUU), enabled hot back-flushing of the upstream half of the column at the end of each run to reduce fouling of both GC and MS with heavy contaminants ("high boilers") and carryover between injections. Briefly, the two wall-coated, open-tubular (WCOT) GC columns connected in series were both from J&W/Agilent (part 122-5512 UI), DB5-MS UI, 15 m in length, 0.25 mm in diameter, with a 0.25-µm luminal film. This film is a nonpolar, thermally stable, phenyl-arylene polymer, similar in performance to traditional 5%-phenyl-methylpolysiloxane films. Prior to each daily run (2 total), the starting inlet pressure was empirically adjusted such that the retention time of the TMS-D27-C14:0 standard is set at ~ 16.727 min. Following an initial distillation within the MMI, the GC oven ramps from 60 to 325 °C at a speed of 10 °C/min. Under these conditions, derivatized metabolites elute from the column and reach the MS detector at known times (e.g., bis-TMS-lactic acid at ~ 6.85 min, and TMS-cholesterol at ~ 27.38 min) within specific tolerance of < 0.1 min. Radical cations generated with conventional electron ionization via a tungsten-rhenium filament set to an energy of 70 eV were scanned broadly from 600 to 50 m/z in the detector throughout the run. Cycle time was approximately 38 min. Our GC/MS methods are based on validated methods and follow those reported by Roessner et al.78, Fiehn et al.79, Kind et al.80, McNulty et al.81, Banerjee et al.82, and Clinton et al.83.

Data reduction

Raw data from Agilent's MassHunter software environment were imported into the freeware, Automatic Mass Spectral Deconvolution and Identification Software or AMDIS (version 2.73)-84,85,86; courtesy of NIST ( http://chemdata.nist.gov/mass-spc/amdis/). Peaks were not normalized, with all samples run in a single batch sequence, for which we have found normalization of peak intensities to not be necessary. Deconvoluted spectra were annotated as metabolites using an orthogonal approach that incorporates both retention time (RT) from GC and the fragmentation pattern observed in EI-MS. Peak annotation was based primarily on our own RT-locked spectral library of metabolites (2059 spectra from 1174 unique compounds at the time of analysis; January 2020). Our library is built upon the Fiehn GC/MS Metabolomics RTL Library (a gift from Agilent, their part number G1676-90000; Kind et al. 200980. Additional spectra have been gleaned from running pure reagent standards in our lab, from the Golm Metabolome Library87 ( http://csbdb.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/csbdb/gmd/gmd.html), and from the Wiley 10th-NIST 2014 commercial library (Agilent G1730-64000). Peak alignment and chemometrics of log-base-two-transformed areas of deconvoluted peaks were performed with our own custom macros, written in our lab in Visual Basic (version 6.0) for use in the Excel (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019) software environment (both from Microsoft, Redmond, WA).

Data processing

Three investigators (S.V.V., J.R.B., and M.J.M.) subsequently performed line-by-line manual curation to fix miscalls and highlighted ambiguities inherent in certain isomeric or otherwise similar metabolites. Metabolites were retained for further analysis if detected in ≥ 80% of samples of either the plant-based meat replacement or ground beef (i.e., 14 out of 18 samples per group). If a discernable signal for a biochemical was observed in ≥ 80% of samples of one group (beef or plant), but remained absent in all samples of the other group, we assumed absence of meaningful amounts and imputed a small value close to 1 prior to log-base-two-transformation. As can be observed from Supplemental Table 1, this was the case for 53 metabolites, which were readily detected in one source (e.g., beef or the plant-based alternative) but not the other.

This decision was made after careful deliberation with a biostatistician (C.F.P.) and the Metabolomics Core at the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, and was based on the expectation that in such cases the metabolite feature was truly nonexistent (or at least below the Level of Detection) for a given group (beef or plant-based meat alternative) and not due to chromatographic non-detection. In other words, had the metabolite been present in the food source at meaningful levels, it would have registered as we detected this metabolite in ≥ 80% of samples in the other group (i.e., 14 out of 18 samples).

To illustrate this with an example; anserine (β-alanyl-1-methyl-l-histidine; a methylated product of carnosine) is metabolite that is well-known to occur in beef and other animal meats, but known to be absent in plant samples17. Similarly, isoflavones such as β-sitosterol and campesterol would normally not be found in grass-fed beef, but were readily detected in all plant-based meat samples. If we used-nearest neighbor (KNN) imputation (or other commonly used imputation methods such as Partial Least Squares, Singular Value Decomposition, Bayesian Principal Component Analysis etc.) without accounting for true absence of metabolites in a given group, our data set would falsely imply that some metabolites are in the plant or beef source of which their presence is implausible. In the case of remaining missing values for other metabolites, for which a signal was detected in ≥ 14 of samples of one group (beef or plant) and ≥ 1 sample of the other group, k-nearest neighbor imputation was performed88,89. The full list of annotated metabolites and their retention times are presented in Supplemental Table 2.

Data analysis

After data processing, individual metabolites were tested for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests (p < 0.05) using SAS 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina, USA). Several metabolites did not show a normal distribution after log transformation, which may be expected based on the observed large differences in metabolites abudance between beef and the plant-based meat alternative-53 metabolites were detected exclusively in either the plant-based meat alternative or beef. To test differences in individual metabolites between groups, we subsequently used the non-parametric Wilcoxon with Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p values at 5% to account for false discovery in our statistical analysis (FDR adjusted p < 0.05).

To visualize differences in individual metabolites between groups and identify the top metabolites that contributed to the nutritional differences between beef and the plant-based meat alternative, we created a ranked heatmap of the top fifty metabolites based on the Pearson distance measure and the Ward clustering algorithm and performed unsupervised principal component analysis using software procedures from MetaboAnalyst 4.0 ( https://www.metaboanalyst.ca) (Fig. 3)35. Partial Least Square-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) was used to determine the variable importance in projection (VIP) of each compound. The VIP plot generated from the PLS-DA models ranks individual metabolites for their ability to discriminate the grass-fed beef from the plant-based meat alternative and those with score ≥ 1.75 are reported in Fig. 4.

Potential bioactivities and health effects of annotated metabolites were explored by entering Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) # of individual metabolites in FooDB ( https://foodb.ca/) and/or PubChem ( https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) databases, while metabolic pathway identification of individual metabolites was performed using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) ( https://www.genome.jp/)11. To inform discussions, we clustered metabolites by chemical class using freely-available ChemRICH software procedures ( http://chemrich.fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu/)90. To enable cluster analysis via structural similarity and ontology mapping, InChiKeys, PubChemID and SMILES canonicals for each metabolite was retrieved by entering its respective Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) # in the PubChem database ( https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/).

After ChemRICH analysis, the lead investigator (S.V.V.) performed line-by-line manual curation to fix any apparent miscalls or apparent misclassification of individual metabolites, and to perform manual adjustment of metabolite classification when appropriate, after which analysis was re-ran (e.g., ChemRICH classified pyrodixine as a separate "Vitamin B ₆ " category in which case the metabolite was subsequently lumped into a larger class labeled "Vitamins").

Acknowledgements

We thank Agilent for providing the spectral library. We also thank Demetrius Hill for his technical assistance and William E Kraus, MD for his valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

Stephan van Vliet, James R. Bain, Michael J. Muehlbauer, Carl F. Pieper & Kim M. Huffman

2. Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

Frederick D. Provenza

3. Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Mandan, ND, USA

Scott L. Kronberg

Contributions

Conceptualization, S.V.V., F.D.P., and S.L.K..; methodology, S.V.V., J.R.B., and M.J.M..; formal analysis and data curation; S.V.V., J.R.B., and M.J.M..; statistical analysis: S.V.V., C.F.P., K.M.H. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan van Vliet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

S.V.V. reports a grant from the North Dakota Beef Association to study the impact of diet quality on the relationship between red meat and human health. S.V.V reports additional grant support from USDA-NIFA-SARE (LS21-357), the Turner Institute of Ecoagriculture, and the Dixon Foundation for projects that link agricultural production systems to the nutritional/metabolite composition of foods and human health. S.V.V also reports having received honoria for talks linking food production systems to human health, which was used to support scientific research. F.D.P. reports receiving honoraria for his talks about behavior-based management of livestock. J.R.B., M.J.M., S.L.K., C.F.P., and K.M.H report no conflicts. S.V.V., J.R.B., M.J.M., F.D.P., S.L.K., and C.F.P. consume omnivorous diets; K.M.H. consumes a vegetarian diet.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Vliet, S., Bain, J.R., Muehlbauer, M.J. et al. A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels. Sci Rep 11, 13828 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3
Download citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels - Scientific Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives-formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat-have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Ideas to Include for Your Website - Advice for Dairy Producers can Help Beef Producers Too

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Ideas to Include for Your Website - Advice for Dairy Producers can Help Beef Producers Too

# data[].attributes.body
What should you have on your farm’s website? | AGDAILY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While social media seems to be all the rage - from Instagram to TikTok - a farm website is what a consumer will likely see first when searching for your farm.

Every business can be found on search engines (such as Google) when people want to learn more. If you haven't Googled your farm name, you should, and then click on the links that come up. This is what consumers will see and read about.

If you want to assure they see the most accurate story about your farm, then you should have a website, which will help you build trust with consumers and the entire dairy industry.

The biggest problem I find with building farm website is that farmers aren't certain what to include or say about their farm. Below is a template I've used to build farm websites.

Remember, as you create or gather the videos, photos, and text, this material needs to showcase to your consumers why you love to farm and how your farming and way of life benefits them.

First Step: Write down the basics about the farm

What's the name of the farm?

Why did you pick this name?

Where is it located?

What is/are your name/s?

How did you get into farming?

How long have you been farming?

Do you know the history of your farm and the land?

What are your future plans for the farm?

Second Step: Write down the products and services you provide

What crops are you growing?

How are you growing those crops?

What excites you the most about the crops?

What animals are you raising?

How are you raising them?

What excites you the most about your animals?

What products do you produce?

How are you producing them?

What excites you the most about these products?

Why do you farm?

How does your farming help consumers?

What family values mean the most to you and why?

Third Step: Pretend you are giving a farm tour

What would you say about these different areas on your farm?

Business area

Calving area

Barn/Housing

Cow feed

Milking parlor

Maternity/Hospital barn

Employees

The fields

Fourth Step: How can people get in touch with you through the website?

Consider including your:

Address

Phone

Email

Social media connections (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, etc...)

All of this information will be placed on the website in different sections.
HOMEPAGE:

The farm name and who you are.

Why do you farm?

How does your farming help consumers?
What family values mean the most to you and why?

Use the best photos and videos of your animals, buildings, employees and family.

ABOUT US PAGE:
This page would address these questions:

Why did you pick that farm name?

Where is it located?

Who are the people on the farm who can be contacted?

How did you get into farming?

How long have you been farming?

Do you know the history of your farm and the land?Please make sure your family values are in the text.

OUR COWS PAGE:

What breed of cow is at your farm?

How big is a dairy cow?

How much milk do they produce?

Where do they live?

What excites you the most about them?

This page could include a frequently asked questions section

OUR LAND PAGE:

What crops are you growing?

How are you growing those crops?

How are the crops used at your farm?

What do cows typically eat?

How much food do they eat and how much is grown at your farm?

How do you manage cow manure?

What is your sustainability story?

How are you handling the manure from the cows?

This page could also include questions (along with your answers) that you get from consumers about the land.

OUR PRODUCTS PAGE:

How much milk do your cows produce?

Where does that milk go?

How can consumers be assured their milk is safe?

What steps do you do at the farm to assure its safety?

When will milk from your farm be at the store?

What excites you the most about the milk you produce every day?

Again, this page could include questions (along with your answers) that you get from consumers about your products.

DAIRY FARM TOUR PAGE:
I would encourage you to produce text or videos about each one of these different sections on the farm:

Home/Business area/Family life

Calving area

Barn/Housing

Cow Feed

Milking Parlor

Maternity/Hospital Barn

Employees

BLOG PAGE:
You could also publish a blog on your website so that you can easily share farm updates or address timely issues or questions from consumers. Blogs are a great tool to effectively communicate your farm's story.
CONTACT US PAGE:
If you have questions about building a website for your farm, please reach out to your local checkoff or you can ask me at [email protected] .

To learn more about your national and local dairy checkoffs, visit www.USDairy.com or send a request to join our Dairy Checkoff Facebook Group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What should you have on your farm's website? | AGDAILY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While social media seems to be all the rage - from Instagram to TikTok - a farm website is what a consumer will likely see first when searching for your farm. Every business can be found on search engines (such as Google) when people want to learn more.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Mexico Milkmaid - an Environmental Scientist telling the real story

# data[].attributes.subject
New Mexico Milkmaid - an Environmental Scientist telling the real story

# data[].attributes.body
New Mexico Milkmaid - You can also find her on Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome

I'm Tara and I share online as the New Mexico Milkmaid.

New Mexico Native. Born and Raised.

5th Generation Dairy Farmer and Farm Wife.

Environmental Scientist. University of Arizona Alum.

Girl Mom to Two.

Whiskey Drinker and Fast Talker.

Lover of all things Southwest including Green Chile, Turquoise and Beautiful Sunsets.

Avid Boho Braid Enthusiast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm Tara and I share online as the New Mexico Milkmaid. New Mexico Native. Born and Raised. 5th Generation Dairy Farmer and Farm Wife. Environmental Scientist. University of Arizona Alum. Girl Mom to Two. Whiskey Drinker and Fast Talker. Lover of all things Southwest including Green Chile, Turquoise and Beautiful Sunsets.

# data[].attributes.body
California Cattlewomen member Markie Hageman advocates for beef and shares her beginning beef operation story on social media -  You can find her on Facebook and on Instagram at   @girlseatbeeftoo.

# data[].attributes.headline
Defending Beef - by Nicolette Hahn Niman

# data[].attributes.subject
Defending Beef - by Nicolette Hahn Niman

# data[].attributes.body
Nicolette Hahn Niman sets out to debunk just about everything you think you know . . .  She’s not trying to change your mind; she’s trying to save your world.”—Los Angeles Times.

Available from your favorite book seller, also on audible

# data[].attributes.body
Published by the Newsroom, the Official Source Auburn University News, by Wayne Greene and ANCW President Evelyn Greene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article body

Beef has been on the dinner table throughout our history in modern society. When humankind transitioned from being hunters and gathers to farmers and ranchers, efficiency of our food supply chain increased. The efficiency of producing food has continued to increase throughout our recent past generations. Statistics show that in the 1930s one farmer fed four other people. In the 1970s the statistic was 73 people; and today, one farmer feeds approximately 170 people. The data indicates that one farmer has increased the number of people fed by two individuals each year since the Great Depression. Prior to 1950 the increase was only one person per year; but, during the latter half of the 20 th century the annual increase in the number of people a farmer fed was 2.4 people. This rapid shift in the increase of efficiency of the American farmer and rancher is directly related to the development and implementation of technology in modern day agriculture. This is especially true for beef production systems. Today, the innovative development of genetics, management, nutrition and reproduction technologies into cow herds results in 36% fewer cattle needed to produce the same amount of beef that was produced in 1975. Implementation of these technologies developed by scientists at land grant universities, USDA and private industry has been the foundation of the increased efficiency in beef production.

Unfortunately, the rate of growth in the number of people fed by the American farmer and rancher is decreasing. Within the last decade the rate of growth in the efficiency of one farmer or rancher feeding others declined from 2.4 to 1.4 persons per year. We believe a reason for the recent loss of efficiency growth is in part related to the many areas of activism negatively affecting the development and implementation of technology in farming and ranching. Activists, under the banner of animal care and well-being, environmental sustainability, greenhouse gas production, animal harvest for food, deforestation and many other areas, negatively affect food production. At a time in our history when agricultural lands are being consumed by urban sprawl amidst a rapidly growing world population, the need for increasing the number of people a single farmer or rancher can feed is increasingly important. Increasing the efficiency and quantity of food production is imperative to provide food security in future generations.

As farming and ranching developed, beef (and other farm-raised animal protein) became a staple on the plate. Beef has been in the human diet worldwide for generations. Beef provides needed high-quality protein supplying dietary essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals for a healthy lifestyle. It fits well in a balanced diet for growth, health, reproduction and maintenance of the human population. However, beef is being threatened by activists from many different angles. There has been a growing campaign to take beef (and meat in general) off the table. In the past, animal protein production faced animal care and well-being, animal harvest for food, greenhouse gas production and other issues brought forth by animal activists. Recently, it has faced the challenges of fake meat, lab-grown meat and alternative protein as a replacement for beef (and meat) to maintain its place on the table. Activists are working hard to take the farm animal out of the food equation. At a time in the world when we must increase the quantity and efficiency of food production to prevent food insecurity, it does not make sense to remove farm animals from the food equation. There is no other replacement for the efficiency of a cow (and her offspring) harvesting her own food by grazing grass and other forages while converting it into high-quality, nutritious and healthy human foods. The lands used for this activity are most often agricultural lands not conducive to producing any other foodstuff. Additionally, cows and growing cattle, along with pork and poultry, are fed feedstuffs that contain by-products of other industries that are not feasible for human consumption. These include cotton industry by-products, corn distillers' grains generated by the use of corn grain for alcohol production and corn gluten and corn bran generated from the production of starch and corn oil. Wheat used for the production of flour generates significant amounts of by-products not consumed by humans to include screenings, bran and germ that is targeted for food animal feeds. Corn, wheat and other grains that do not meet the specifications as food grade are destined for animal feeds. Citrus pulp, apple pomace, potato waste and hundreds of other by-products are found in animal feeds-products humans do not eat. Without farm animals producing high-quality protein for a consuming public, all of these by-products would create a significant environmental hazard by their disposal into waste dumps. These stories are overlooked and never presented by the activists working to remove beef (and other meat) from the diet.

If beef continues to be a staple to provide high-quality protein for generations to come, we have to become the activist. Activist is defined as a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change. Those that we think of today as animal activists are those that focus on animal care and well-being, environmental issues, animal harvest for food, health for the consuming public and other issues in order to "save the animal from human consumption." However, the farmer and rancher is focused on the very same issues except in the direction of using animals to serve humankind by providing a "wholesome, safe, healthy and high-quality protein for human consumption" to feed a hungry world.

Stop and think about what the world looks like tomorrow if the activists working against beef as a safe, healthy, nutritious product for a world population were immediately granted their desires, which would mean "No Beef on the Dinner Table." Answer these questions: 1) Is this what our society needs? 2) Would the world be healthier? 3) Would our environment be improved? 4) Would animals (beef, pork, poultry) lead long and happy lives without the fear of being eaten (by humans or animals of prey)? The answer to these questions is NO, because 1) Our diet needs to contain high-quality protein that supplies dietary essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals that are readily available from animal products: meat, milk, eggs, 2) lean beef and other animal protein (eggs, milk and milk products) are recognized as major nutrient dense foods needed for a healthy lifestyle, 3) food animals convert feedstuffs and by-products not directly consumed by humans that otherwise would not have a value for feeding humans and 4) if food animals were not used for food, they would not be needed in the animal kingdom and would likely become extinct. Additionally, society would likely face a severe food shortage and economic crisis, the likes of what has never been realized in modern history in this country. The North American Meat Institute reported in a 2012 Meat and Poultry Economic Impact Study that the combined impact of the meat and poultry processing industry contributed approximately $894 billion in total to the U.S. economy, or just under 6% of total U.S. GDP. Based on a 2014 economic analysis, beef cattle production contributed approximately $165 billion to the U.S. economy through direct and indirect economic employment opportunities. And these statistics have continued to increase to present day. The nation and world cannot afford to remove these products from the marketplace, either economically or nutritionally.

The call by the activist to take beef (and animal protein) off the table must never become a reality. However, if we do not step forward and stand tall to fight the fight it will become a reality within the generation of millennials. If no action is taken, society will have to address many issues that currently do not exist. Some of these are: What happens to the food animals worldwide if they are not used to supply a healthy wholesome protein for humans-their only value will be in zoos? What happens to the welfare of these animals-no one will be able to afford to provide quality care and well-being if they are not productive or valued by society? Without being a valuable food staple on the table, food animals will go the way of feral hogs and unwanted horses to be released into the wild creating significant environmental damage if not controlled. Without cattle, the non-cultivatable land in the world not conducive to growing crops will have no economic value. Many by-products of multiple industries will not be utilized. Rangelands world-wide will not be valued for their contribution to food production. At a time when world food hunger and world-wide food security is "front and center," does it really make sense to give the activist what they ask for?

Balance is the foundation to success. When the scale gets tipped one way or the other too far in either direction, it requires a readjustment to gain a "new normal." The activists work to slowly and methodically shift the fulcrum to the left, creating change (and then readjustment of balance) in the direction of their goal. Unfortunately, the work of the activists do not have farmers, ranchers or the consumer's interest within their heart. They do not seem to see (or even care) where the balance point should be placed. Activists tout healthy food, clean environment and animal care as their concerns. And, consequently, their message gets millions of people joining their cause (and oftentimes unknowingly) targeted toward destroying the food animal industry. Let's look at this from a different perspective. Is the American farmer and rancher focused on producing a healthy, high-quality product while maintaining our environment for the next generations while simultaneously providing quality animal care and well-being for the animals in their care? The answer is certainly, yes. We know that-but does the world? The public will "stand up" in support of environmental management for future generations, quality animal care and well-being to provide a valued life for animals and the production and delivery of safe and wholesome nutritious food. This is what we do in beef production and all of animal agriculture. If we do not take our message to the consuming public, someone else will. And their agenda is to take meat off the table. Since the Meatless Monday movement began in 2003, it has taken hold in over 40 countries and adapted in over 22 different languages simply because of the presentation that it's "good for you" and "good for the planet." We know beef is good for you and good for the planet, but does the public?

In society, each crisis of the day/month/year is overcome in some way or other. The direction of that solution depends upon those providing solutions. The farmer and rancher have always been innovative in sustaining their livelihood through the hard times and good times. Otherwise, the dramatic increases in production efficiency presented at the beginning of this article would not have been a reality. Our forefathers stood tall and fought for a better way. Today we have to do the same. We have to continue to be innovative in the way we do things in developing a safe and wholesome product for our future generations. Farm-level innovation over the past decades includes the incorporation of improved genetics, better management, enhanced efficiency and greater productivity. All of these things have led to an enhanced environment for future generations and the sustainability of our food supply. This is very ironic because the environment and sustainability of beef production is often presented in a negative light by anti-beef activists, and beef production is indeed sustainable while utilizing waste products from other industries. In fact, beef production adds sustainability to other industries. Very few industries can claim such a positive movement in efficiency and sustainability. In order to feed our future generations beef (and other animal protein), we must continue this fight.

Today, individuals, activists and politicians are working against us. We believe balance is a key to our continued success. We need balance across all sources of protein for a well-balanced diet. Looking ahead to meet the global food security challenges, we need to recognize it will take balance between both plant and animal products. It will take innovation and adoption of best practices to ensure all global food security. We must continue our efforts to increase the efficiency of all food production, including animal protein. The future of beef for generations depends upon it.

We are thankful that every day we have our industry checkoff funds providing quality data and information, our national and state cattle organizations providing leadership, scientists providing new technology, media outlets providing quality information and farmers and ranchers working hard to deliver a quality product. But that's not enough-we have to do more. In order to sustain beef for generations, it will take activism. We must fight activism with activism, just as we fight fire with fire. It's time we set a backfire along the inner edge of the fire line to consume the fuel in the path of the activists that are so focused on destroying the consumption of animal protein. It is our call to produce a wholesome, healthy, high-quality protein, to provide quality care and well-being for animals in our control and to not only sustain but to improve the environment for generations to come. If we have beef for generations, it will take all of us-individuals and organizations-to continue putting beef on the table.

We challenge you as a reader of this article to become an activist. Be an activist for beef. You make a difference. All of us worldwide want a safe healthy wholesome protein on the dinner plate produced in an environment that is sustainable for generations to come. We promote the same message as animal activists except from a different side of the fulcrum. In animal agriculture, we are the original animal activists. Let's stand up and be an activist for change in the right direction. Our next generation is dependent upon it.
About Wayne Greene: Wayne Greene is department head and professor in the Department of Animal Sciences in Auburn University's College of Agriculture. He is a beef cattle nutritionist and widely published in the scientific literature focused on the development and implementation of technology for increased efficiency in beef cattle production systems. About Evelyn Greene: Evelyn Greene is president of the American National Cattlewomen's Association. Her presidential theme is #beef4generations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beef has been on the dinner table throughout our history in modern society. When humankind transitioned from being hunters and gathers to farmers and ranchers, efficiency of our food supply chain increased. The efficiency of producing food has continued to increase throughout our recent past generations.

# data[].attributes.body
Great meal ideas and recipes from Isabel Laessig, also known as the Family Foodie.  Welcome to her Beef Obsessed Website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Latest Recipes

Follow Us on Social

Keep up with our latest recipes through our social media channels!

Grilled Beef Recipes

We love grilling! Find our best grilled beef recipes here: Beef Grilling Recipes.

Air Fryer Beef Recipes

We love air frying! Our Air Fryer Beef Recipes make quick and easy meals.

Beef Casserole Recipes

Try our Best Beef Casseroles - these are easy family meals you will love!

Best Ground Beef Recipes

Ground beef makes for budget-friendly, easy dinners. Try our Best Ground Beef Recipes!

Asian Beef Recipes

From beef and broccoli to Vietnamese beef salad, these are the best Asian Beef Recipes!

Best Steak Recipes

Whether you're making steak in the oven or grilling out, find your new favorite Steak Dinner Ideas here!

Instant Pot Beef Recipes

We're big fans of the Instant Pot! Our Instant Pot Beef Recipes cover everything from pressure cooker beef stew to Salisbury steak.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our Latest Recipes Follow Us on Social Keep up with our latest recipes through our social media channels! InstagramPinterestYoutube Grilled Beef Recipes We love grilling! Find our best grilled beef recipes here: Beef Grilling Recipes. Air Fryer Beef Recipes We love air frying! Our Air Fryer Beef Recipes make quick and easy meals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Testimony Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, US Senate

# data[].attributes.subject
Testimony Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, US Senate

# data[].attributes.body
Written testimony of Dr. Frank Mitloehner, PhD

# data[].attributes.headline
Science Daily - Exploring a World without Food Animals

# data[].attributes.subject
Science Daily - Exploring a World without Food Animals

# data[].attributes.body
The long range, large implications on health are worth noting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What would happen if U.S. farmers stopped producing animals for food and Americans went vegan? Some have called for a move in that direction to address increasing concerns about U.S. health, eating habits, and climate change. Researchers at USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Virginia Tech recently explored those questions and found surprising results.

Mary Beth Hall, an ARS animal scientist at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin, and Robin R. White, a professor of Animal and Poultry Science at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA, found that shifting land usage from food animal production to food crop production would increase the total U.S. food supply by 23 percent. Because much of that land is unsuitable for high value crops, most of the additional food produced would include high-calorie crops like corn and soybeans.

A complete shift away from food animal production would present major challenges to meeting America's nutritional needs. With no meat, milk, eggs, fish, or cheese in our diets, the U.S. population would not receive enough of several different essential dietary nutrients from the foods they eat, according to the study results. The findings are based on information compiled in the USDA dietary guidelines.

"Different types of carefully balanced diets -- vegan, vegetarian, omnivore -- can meet a person's needs and keep them healthy, but this study examined balancing the needs of the entire nation with the foods we could produce from plants alone. There's a difference between what's possible when feeding one person versus feeding everyone in the U.S.," says Hall.

Eliminating food animals would increase deficiencies in calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some important fatty acids. The last are important as they help to reduce cardiovascular disease and improve cognitive function and vision in infants. Animal food products are the only available, non-supplemental sources of some fatty acids and vitamin B12.

A plant-only diet also would require individuals to eat more food and more daily calories to meet their nutritional needs from the foods they eat because the available foods from plants are not as nutrient dense as foods from animals.

Agriculture in the U.S. contributed to approximately 9 percent of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2015, with nearly half of that total coming from animal production, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports. The scientists determined that eliminating food animals from U.S. production would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not by the full 49 percent of agricultural emissions that animals currently contribute. Rather, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would drop by 28 percent without farmed animals because of increases associated with producing additional food crops and the use of more synthetic fertilizer to replace manure. That would represent a drop of only about 2.6 percent of total U.S. emissions.

"A take-home message from the study was that we need to expand the way we think about food production to account for the complex consequences of changing any individual piece within the wider food system," says White.

The findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
agriculture and food; food and agriculture; food; rainforests; ecology; environmental policy; resource shortage; world development; retail and services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What would happen if U.S. farmers stopped producing animals for food and Americans went vegan? Some have called for a move in that direction to address increasing concerns about U.S. health, eating habits, and climate change. Researchers recently explored those questions and found surprising results.

# data[].attributes.headline
Eat This Not That - One Major Side Effect of Eating Plant-Based Meats

# data[].attributes.subject
Eat This Not That - One Major Side Effect of Eating Plant-Based Meats

# data[].attributes.body
From Eat This Not That, new study reveals there is a side effect of avoiding real meat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year brings a fresh wave of food trends, and 2021 seems to be shaping up as the year plant-based meats finally caught hold. Despite veggie burgers being on the market for decades, the wave of fast-food choices is highlighting these alternatives-from Burger King's Impossible Whopper to Panda Express trying out a plant-based orange chicken with Beyond Meat products.

But a new study in Scientific Reports suggests that when it comes to nutrition, they're not exactly an even swap.

Researchers at Duke University noted that when you look at nutrition labels, the amount of vitamins, fats, and protein are very similar to real beef. However, using an approach known as "metabolomics," they were able to examine the biochemistry for 18 plant-based meat products and assess their metabolites.

RELATED: Delicious Foods You Can Eat on a Plant-Based Diet

Metabolites are essential for signaling between cells and converting food into energy, and about half of them come from our diet. When the researchers compared samples of plant-based meat with grass-fed ground beef, they found significant differences between the two in terms of metabolite content-up to 90% in some cases.

The beef contained 22 metabolites that were lacking in the plant substitute, including several amino acids and vitamins. Several of these are known to have important anti-inflammatory roles in the body, the researchers noted, such as omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine, and creatine, which were all found in larger quantities in the real beef samples.

They aren't suggesting avoiding plant-based meat altogether-in fact, the plant-based products contained 31 metabolites that were missing in the meat. These included vitamin C and phytosterols, which are naturally occurring compounds found in plant cell membranes. These compounds are particularly important for lowering cholesterol, which is why plant-based eating is regularly touted for heart health.

In general, that means adding in these alternative meat options could be helpful for getting a full range of beneficial metabolites.

Unless you prefer to eat only plant-based foods, including both plant and animal meats in your diet could yield more nutritional advantages, says lead researcher Stephan van Vliet, Ph.D., a researcher at Duke Molecular Physiology Institute.

"The takeaway is that there are large differences between meat and a plant-based meat alternative," he states. "However, plant and animal foods can be complementary, because they provide different nutrients."

For more, be sure to check out:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One Major Side Effect of Eating Plant-Based Meat, Says New Study | Eat This Not That

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year brings a fresh wave of food trends, and 2021 seems to be shaping up as the year plant-based meats finally caught hold. Despite veggie burgers being on the market for decades, the wave of fast-food choices is highlighting these alternatives-from Burger King's Impossible Whopper to Panda Express trying out a plant-based orange chicken with Beyond Meat products.

# data[].attributes.headline
Buy Beef Locally - California Producers 

# data[].attributes.subject
Buy Beef Locally - California Producers 

# data[].attributes.body
This list, showcasing where you can get beef locally, covers from north to south!  Many ship direct to you.  Click here for the current list:  https://www.calbeef.org/resources/california-local-beef-directory

# data[].attributes.headline
Most popular steak cuts served in restaurants. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Most popular steak cuts served in restaurants. 

# data[].attributes.body
What is your favorite cut?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Tenderloin/Filet Mignon
The tenderloin (not to be confused with the short loin) runs along both sides of the spine, and is usually harvested as two long snake-shaped cuts of beef. The tenderloin is sometimes sold whole.
2. Strip Steak (New York Strip)
The strip steak is a type of cut of beef steaks. Internationally it is called a club steak. In the United States and Canada it is also known as New York strip, strip loin, shell steak, or Kansas City strip steak. In Australia it is known as a porterhouse steak or boneless sirloin.

The rib eye or ribeye (also known as Scotch fillet in Australia and New Zealand), is a beef steak from the rib section. The rib section of beef spans from ribs six through twelve. Ribeye steaks are mostly composed of the Longissimus dorsi muscle but also contain the Complexus and Spinalis muscles.

Top sirloin is a cut of meat from the primal loin, subprimal sirloin, of a beef carcass. Top sirloin steaks differ from sirloin steaks in that the bone and the tenderloin and bottom round muscles have been removed; the remaining major muscles are the gluteus medius and biceps femoris (top sirloin cap steak).

5. Porterhouse/T-Bone Steak

The T-bone and porterhouse are steaks of beef cut from the short loin. Both steaks include a "T-shaped" bone with meat on each side.

Did You Know?
A Filet mignon (French for "cute fillet" or "dainty fillet") is a steak cut of beef taken from the smaller end of the tenderloin, or psoas major of the beef carcass, usually a steer or heifer. In French this cut can also be called filet de bœuf, which translates in English to beef fillet. When found on a menu in France, filet mignon generally refers to pork rather than beef.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Popular Steak Cuts Served in Restaurants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. Tenderloin/Filet Mignon The tenderloin (not to be confused with the short loin) runs along both sides of the spine, and is usually harvested as two long snake-shaped cuts of beef. The tenderloin is sometimes sold whole. 2. Strip Steak (New York Strip) The strip steak is a type of cut of beef steaks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef Byproducts: Products That We Get From Beef Cattle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beef byproducts are the products that we get from beef cattle that might not be quite so obvious.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you know the  caloric cost of plant protein compared to lean beef?

# data[].attributes.body
A long heritage of quality horses and cattle, the Lacey family has generations of hard work and good breeding.

# data[].attributes.body
Beef is catching a bad rap from those looking to eliminate Beef.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eleven Madison Park, a top Manhattan restaurant, is going meatless. The Epicurious cooking site stopped posting new beef recipes. The Culinary Institute of America is promoting "plant-forward" menus. Dozens of colleges, including Harvard and Stanford, are shifting toward "climate-friendly" meals.

If this continues - and the Boston Consulting Group and Kearney believe the trend is global and growing - beef could be the new coal, shunned by elite tastemakers over rising temperatures and squeezed by increasingly cheap alternatives.

"Beef is under a whole lot of pressure," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University's Program on Climate Change Communications. "It was the shift in market forces that was the death knell for coal. And it's the same thing here. It's going to be the shift in consumer tastes and preferences, not some regulation."

Americans do claim to want a shift. Seventy percent say it would be healthier if the country ate less meat and 58% would like to eat more fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains, according to a 2020 survey by the food market research firm Datassential. Worries about climate pile on top of long-standing health concerns about red meat.

Yet, while long-term trends back the change, U.S. consumption of beef actually ticked up slightly during the 2020 pandemic, to 55.8 pounds per person. It has been slowly rising since 2015 after plunging during the 2007-2009 Great Recession. Consumption last year remained 11.4% below 2006 and nearly 40% below peak 1970s levels, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Tastemakers are pushing. Popular culinary personalities including chef Jamie Oliver are promoting plant-centric meals. Bill Gates is urging developed nations to completely give up conventional beef. Many school and corporate cafeterias have dropped all-beef patties for "blended burgers" made of one-third mushrooms.

The next culture war?

Meanwhile, a backlash is stirring among rural Republican politicians who scent a new battleground in the partisan culture wars. In broad swaths of the Heartland, cattle and the rows of corn grown for animal feed are central to livelihood and identity. More than a third of U.S. farms and ranches are beef cattle operations, making it the single largest segment of U.S. agriculture. Burgers sizzle from countless backyard barbecues.

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts seized on a suggestion by his Democratic counterpart in neighboring Colorado that the state's residents cut red meat for one day to counter with a "Meat on the Menu" Day. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds outdid him, declaring all of April "Meat on the Menu Month." Fox News later spent days promoting phony accusations the Biden administration had launched a "War on Beef."

It hasn't, but there is no escaping the fact that beef is a climate villain. Cows' ruminant digestive system ferments grass and other feed in multiple stomach compartments, burping methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Cattle's relatively long lifespan compared to other meat sources adds to their climate impact.

Ranchers stress stewardship

Globally, 14.5% of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock production, with cattle responsible for two-thirds, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Per gram of protein, beef production has more than 6 times the climate impact of pork, more than 8 times that of poultry and 113 times that of peas, according to a 2018 analysis of global production in the journal Science. U.S. livestock producers generally have lower emissions than worldwide averages because of production efficiencies.

Cattle producers have sought to blunt the appeal of competing faux meat products with state laws banning them from using common meat terms and addressed environmental criticism by promoting the role of ranchers as stewards of the land.

"That Wild West is alive and well because cattle producers protect that space and make it resilient," said Kaitlynn Glover, executive director of natural resources for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

For now, an emerging global middle class in China and elsewhere is bolstering global demand for meat and feed-grains used for livestock, improving export opportunities for American farmers and ranchers. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said Biden administration climate initiatives won't target meat consumption.

'Menus of change'

Investors are rushing into plant-based and cultivated faux meat startups. A Boston Consulting Group report in March heralded the beginning of a "protein transformation" and forecast meat alternatives would make up 11-22% of the global protein market by 2035. A Kearney study projects global meat sales will begin to drop by 2025 and decline 33% by 2040 as alternatives take away market share.

Much as falling costs for natural gas, wind and solar power were drivers in shutting down coal plants reviled by environmentalists, pocketbook decisions will be crucial, said Carsten Gerhardt, a Kearney partner who consults for agribusiness and co-authored the study. Trends suggest alternatives are well on their way to "parity" in taste and texture and will soon beat conventional meat on price, he said.

Plant-based alternatives already have hit the mass market, with Burger King's Impossible Whopper. Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks serve plant-based sausage patties. Even Tyson Foods Inc, the U.S.'s largest meat processor, joined in this month with its own line of 100% vegan meat products.

Cultivated meat is also advancing. In December, Singapore became the first country to approve commercial sale of such animal cells.

More than half of roughly 350 school districts in the U.S. supplied by food service giant Sodexo SA have switched from all-beef to blended beef-mushroom burgers and many corporate and health-care customers also use the blend for tacos and lasagna, said Lisa Feldman, director of recipe management. Corporate customers are adopting "choice architecture" to steer employees toward meals with less meat.

A consortium of 41 colleges including Harvard, Stanford and Kansas State University joined in a "Menus of Change" collaborative to shift students to healthier, more climate-friendly diets. Harvard dining halls showcase vegetable and grain-heavy "bistro bowls." The University of North Texas has a "Mean Greens" vegan dining hall. In 2019, the 19 member institutions that reported data lowered meat purchases 9.4% from the year earlier, even as overall food purchases rose.

Sophie Egan, co-director of the university collaborative, said the initiative consciously targets young people to shape food preferences at a time of life when most are more adventurous and still forming identities and tastes for a lifetime. Students are often especially open to dishes inspired by global cuisines that use less meat.

"We know trends start with the youngest generations," Egan said. "They're coming in to the dining hall three times a day, sometimes for years. That's sculpting their food identities for many years to come."
To contact the author of this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net © 2021 Bloomberg L.P.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eleven Madison Park, a top Manhattan restaurant, is going meatless. The Epicurious cooking site stopped posting new beef recipes. The Culinary Institute of America is promoting "plant-forward" menus. Dozens of colleges, including Harvard and Stanford, are shifting toward "climate-friendly" meals.

# data[].attributes.body
Advocating for women in Ag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hey there, I'm Marji. Storyteller, entrepreneur, wife and mom on a mission to explore, expand, and live my best life. Join me for entertainment, connection and inspiration for the FarmHer in all of us.

# data[].attributes.headline
Western Justice. Supporting the Western Horse Industry and Lifestyle. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Western Justice. Supporting the Western Horse Industry and Lifestyle. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Help fund legislative ACTION and effect CHANGE within the government on specific horse industry-related issues by becoming a member of Western Justice

​

​

​Western Justice Legislative Fund is a membership-based C4 non-profit organization engaging in political action to preserve and protect the western lifestyle.

​Your donation puts our team's years of experience to work writing professionally researched and timely articles, keeping abreast of legislation as it affects the western horse industry and affords our team to lobby/advocate in Washington D.C. for the western horse industry.

Thank you for supporting Western Justice, we look forward to representing you and the entire western horse industry.

​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Western Justice Legislative Fund is a membership-based C4 Nonprofit organization engaging in political action to preserve and protect the western lifestyle. Your donation puts our team's years of experience to work writing, researching legislation and advocating in Washington D.C. for the western horse industry.

# data[].attributes.body
Good performance in your favorite sport starts with good nutrition . Thank you South Dakota Beef industry and their partners for these resources in good nutrition for the athlete!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
...is a comprehensive sports nutrition program that utilizes beef as its premier protein. It strives to prepare young athletes and their families for a successful sports season through ready to use materials, best in class sports nutrition education, and high quality protein to support optimal performance.

Apply for Your School Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
is a comprehensive sports nutrition program that utilizes beef as its premier protein. It strives to prepare young athletes and their families for a successful sports season through ready to use materials, best in class sports nutrition education, and high quality protein to support optimal performance.

# data[].attributes.body
by What I’ve Learned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why

# data[].attributes.body
Blogger Ryan Goodman shares his thoughts about fueling Running and Travel with Beef. Producers and Consumers will both find great insight and thought provoking topics - give him a read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do you find to be the most difficult part of discussing sustainability? Share your thoughts on Twitter. Happy Earth Day! I hope you take this opportunity to share some appreciation for the environment we live and work in on a daily basis. The agriculture community is lucky to have these landscapes as our offices. I know [...]

Each morning, I often find myself brewing a cup of coffee and settling into my recliner for a few minutes of peace and quiet over the morning news. I'll often grab one of the recent editions of my favorite running magazines and reading a few columns to start my day. (How old do those sentences [...]

Earlier this year, I found myself in a difficult situation where I could no longer support the values and culture of my employer and chose to leave and take a stand for diversity and inclusion. This provided me with a predicament of a career pivot in the middle of a pandemic. However, this was also [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do you find to be the most difficult part of discussing sustainability? Share your thoughts on Twitter. Happy Earth Day! I hope you take this opportunity to share some appreciation for the environment we live and work in on a daily basis. The agriculture community is lucky to have these landscapes as our offices.

# data[].attributes.body
After a career change, Ryan Goodman shares his stories of Running and Travel - fueled by Beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do you find to be the most difficult part of discussing sustainability? Share your thoughts on Twitter. Happy Earth Day! I hope you take this opportunity to share some appreciation for the environment we live and work in on a daily basis. The agriculture community is lucky to have these landscapes as our offices. I know [...]

Each morning, I often find myself brewing a cup of coffee and settling into my recliner for a few minutes of peace and quiet over the morning news. I'll often grab one of the recent editions of my favorite running magazines and reading a few columns to start my day. (How old do those sentences [...]

Earlier this year, I found myself in a difficult situation where I could no longer support the values and culture of my employer and chose to leave and take a stand for diversity and inclusion. This provided me with a predicament of a career pivot in the middle of a pandemic. However, this was also [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do you find to be the most difficult part of discussing sustainability? Share your thoughts on Twitter. Happy Earth Day! I hope you take this opportunity to share some appreciation for the environment we live and work in on a daily basis. The agriculture community is lucky to have these landscapes as our offices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Catastrophic Wildfires: Cows can help keep this from happening and why it matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Catastrophic Wildfires: Cows can help keep this from happening and why it matters

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Dave Daley shares his story concerning the devastation from the fires during the summer of 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Catastrophic Wildfires: Why California's Ranching Families Care

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding the roll of cattle in Biogenic Carbon Cycle - an important part of the ability for plants to absorb and sequester carbon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Samantha Werth

Cattle are often thought to contribute to climate change because they belch methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. While this is true, cattle do belch methane, it is actually part of an important natural cycle, known as the biogenic carbon cycle.

The biogenic carbon cycle centers on the ability of plants to absorb and sequester carbon. Plants have the unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and deposit that carbon into plant leaves, roots, and stems while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. This process is known as photosynthesis and it is central to the biogenic carbon cycle.

When plants perform photosynthesis, carbon is primarily converted to cellulose, a form of carbohydrate that is one of the main building blocks for growing plants. Cellulose happens to be the most abundant organic compound in the world, present in all grasses, shrubs, crops, and trees. Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?

Cattle are made to digest cellulose. They are able to consume grasses and other plants that are high in cellulose and, through enteric fermentation, digest the carbon that is stored in cellulose. Cattle can use that carbon, upcycling the cellulose, for growth, milk production, and other metabolic processes.

As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat the plants and the cycle begins once again. In essence, the methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. Rather it is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle.

The biogenic carbon cycle is a relatively fast cycle. That is, carbon cycles between plants and the atmosphere in a short period of time, usually in the range of a few years to a few decades. In the case of cattle, this cycle is about ten years. By comparison, carbon exchange between the atmosphere and geological reserves (such as deep soils, the deeper ocean, and rocks) is on the span of millennia, 1000 or more years. Hence, why the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. geological reserves) has a much greater impact on our climate than the biogenic carbon cycle.

It takes 1000 years for CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels to be redeposited back into geological reserves. That is tenfold (10x) the amount of time it takes methane belched by cattle to be redeposited back into plant matter. To put this in perspective, the CO2 released from driving your car to work today will remain in the atmosphere, having a warming effect on our climate, longer than the lifetimes of you, your children, or even your grandchildren. Thus, the burning of fossil fuels has a longstanding impact on our climate, one that is much more significant than the belching of methane from cattle, which is part of the short-term biogenic carbon cycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Samantha Werth Cattle are often thought to contribute to climate change because they belch methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. While this is true, cattle do belch methane, it is actually part of an important natural cycle, known as the biogenic carbon cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
The Bearded Butchers give a tutorial of the differences from the butcher’s point of view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grass Fed Beef vs Grain Fed Beef (What's the Difference) | The Bearded Butchers

# data[].attributes.body
Carlyn Peterson, PhD student at UC Davis gives us a quick info spot update  on the source of the information of Beef being a big contributor to climate change.....  worth watching!

# data[].attributes.body
California Rangeland Trust and UC Berkeley published the value of working landscapes of Rangeland Trust Easements put in place to protect from urban encroachment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ecosystem Service Study | CA Ranching | Rangeland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are so pleased to announce the release of the Ecosystem Service Study examining the value of rangelands, in partnership with UC Berkeley scientists.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cattle-fornia - American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.subject
Cattle-fornia - American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.body
A production of PBS and My Job Depends on Ag, this episode covers the stories of iconic Cattle producers and raisers, a part of the deep heritage of the history and care of the land provided by the cattle industry in California.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cattlefornia -  FULL EPISODE - American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.body
Coverage of the Wiley report discussing the efficiencies of US Beef Production as the most sustainable system in global beef production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (April 5, 2021) - A research paper released today confirmed U.S. beef production is the most sustainable production system in the world, a fact long understood by America's cattle producers, who between the 1960s and 2018, reduced the carbon footprint of the industry by 40 percent while producing 66 percent more beef.

"We already know a growing global population will require and demand high-quality food, which means we need ruminant animals, like beef cattle, to help make more protein with fewer resources," said NCBA president and Kansas cattleman, Jerry Bohn. "Cattle generate more protein for the human food supply than would exist without them because their unique digestive system allows them to convert human-inedible plants, like grass, into high-quality protein."

Although the study's abstract disingenuously advocates for decreased beef consumption, the paper itself repeatedly points out that the advantages of the U.S. cattle and beef production model far outweigh the impacts. The U.S. has been a global leader with the lowest emissions intensity in the world for the past 25 years, producing just 2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or 0.5 percent of global GHG emissions.

The study examined livestock lifecycle assessments (LCAs) from across the globe to reach its conclusions and pointed out that there is significant room for improvement of global livestock production practices. While it laid out many opportunities for improvement, it also recognized the work already done by the U.S. cattle industry to become the leader in sustainable beef production. Thanks to early adoption of innovative grazing practices combined with advances in cattle breeding and nutrition, U.S. producers have already employed many of the suggested practices that the study suggests employing around the world.

While the content of the study repeatedly confirms the U.S. as the leader in sustainable beef and cattle production, NCBA was disappointed to see a statement in the abstract that advocated for a reduction in beef consumption. This statement is not only unfounded but is inappropriate to include in a summary of work that consistently validates American conservation and management practices. Cattle production protects open space, guards against catastrophic wildfire, and protects wildlife habitat across the country. Those benefits, and the practices that underpin them in the United States, further confirm the country's role as a global leader.

"Beef and cattle production is a critical part of our country's identity as a global leader in sustainable beef production, but also in our long-held principle that economic, environmental, and community-based sustainability will result in widespread benefits," said Bohn. "U.S. farmers and ranchers are the best in the world when it comes to producing safe, wholesome and sustainable high-quality beef for American families, and doing it with the smallest possible footprint and we're committed to continuing on that path of improvement."

###

NCBA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study Confirms US Beef Industry is the Most Sustainable in the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (April 5, 2021) - A research paper released today confirmed U.S. beef production is the most sustainable production system in the world, a fact long understood by America's cattle producers, who between the 1960s and 2018, reduced the carbon footprint of the industry by 40 percent while producing 66 percent more beef.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reducing Climate Impacts of Beef Production  : a synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions

# data[].attributes.subject
Reducing Climate Impacts of Beef Production  : a synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions

# data[].attributes.body
Research published March 2021, which includes US beef production. Wiley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Daniela F. Cusack

Corresponding Author

Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Warner College of Natural Resources, B205 Natural and Environmental Sciences Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Correspondence
Daniela F. Cusack, Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Warner College of Natural Resources, B205 Natural and Environmental Sciences Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Search for more papers by this author

First published:

Abstract

The global demand for beef is rapidly increasing (FAO, 2019), raising concern about climate change impacts (Clark et al., 2020; Leip et al., 2015; Springmann et al., 2018). Beef and dairy contribute over 70% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which collectively contribute ~6.3 Gt CO ₂ ‐eq/year (Gerber et al., 2013; Herrero et al., 2016) and account for 14%-18% of human GHG emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Gerber et al., 2013). The utility of beef GHG mitigation strategies, such as land‐based carbon (C) sequestration and increased production efficiency, are actively debated (Garnett et al., 2017). We compiled 292 local comparisons of "improved" versus "conventional" beef production systems across global regions, assessing net GHG emission data from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. Our results indicate that net beef GHG emissions could be reduced substantially via changes in management. Overall, a 46 % reduction in net GHG emissions per unit of beef was achieved at sites using carbon (C) sequestration management strategies on grazed lands, and an 8% reduction in net GHGs was achieved at sites using growth efficiency strategies. However, net‐zero emissions were only achieved in 2% of studies. Among regions, studies from Brazil had the greatest improvement, with management strategies for C sequestration and efficiency reducing beef GHG emissions by 57%. In the United States, C sequestration strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by over 100% (net‐zero emissions) in a few grazing systems, whereas efficiency strategies were not successful at reducing GHGs, possibly because of high baseline efficiency in the region. This meta‐analysis offers insight into pathways to substantially reduce beef production's global GHG emissions. Nonetheless, even if these improved land‐based and efficiency management strategies could be fully applied globally, the trajectory of growth in beef demand will likely more than offset GHG emissions reductions and lead to further warming unless there is also reduced beef consumption.

1 INTRODUCTION

On average, beef production emits 2-9 times the greenhouse gases (GHGs) of other animal products, and >50 times the GHGs of most plant‐based foods per unit of protein (Clune et al., 2017; Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Searchinger et al., 2019). Beef production is also a major driver of global deforestation and land degradation (Bustamante et al., 2012; Cederberg et al., 2011). Globally, cattle produce ~78% of total livestock GHG emissions (including other livestock like goats, sheep, etc.), and enteric methane (CH ₄) is the largest beef GHG source, contributing ~35% of total livestock emissions in carbon dioxide‐equivalents (CO ₂‐eq; Herrero et al., 2016). The other top sources of total livestock GHG emissions include nitrous oxide (N ₂O) from soils in fertilized feed production (~25% of livestock CO 2 eq emissions), CO ₂ from soils in feed production (~15% of livestock emissions), N ₂O and CH ₄ from manure management (~12%), and CO ₂ from land‐use/land cover change (~6%; FAO, 2019; Herrero et al., 2016; Hilborn et al., 2018). A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Sustainable Land Management called for improved livestock management to mitigate climate change, with co‐benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and animal welfare (IPCC, 2019; Llonch et al., 2017). In addition, diet switching away from beef to plant‐based diets could reduce total food GHG emissions by up to 70% at low cost and with health co‐benefits (Springmann et al., 2016; Stehfest et al., 2009). However, given that the demand for beef has dropped very little per capita despite the climate and health impacts of beef (Searchinger et al., 2019), assessing and implementing best practices for beef production is necessary to help mitigate climate change.

Net GHG emissions from beef production vary fourfold globally, indicating that there is substantial room for improvement among a large proportion of producers (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Opportunities for improvement in beef management and GHG emissions reductions also vary among global regions, depending on environmental factors such as soil type and degradation status, land‐use history, vegetation cover, climate, cattle breeds, and socioeconomic factors (Conant et al., 2017; McSherry & Ritchie, 2013). To date, there has been no broad comparison of the potential reduction in beef GHG emissions that are possible by changing beef management systems across global regions. This study aimed to clarify the potential for management changes to minimize and/or offset beef GHG emissions across and within global regions.

Beef management strategies to reduce GHG emissions generally fall under two broad categories: (1) increased efficiency to produce more beef per unit of GHG emitted, and (2) enhanced land‐based C sequestration to offset cattle GHG emissions. Increased efficiency approaches often focus on improving feed quality and/or genetic improvements to aid in digestion and increase rates of weight gain while reducing enteric CH ₄ emissions per unit of beef (Henderson et al., 2015). Land‐based strategies, by comparison, emphasize soil and plant C sequestration via improved management of grazed land, including planting trees, addition of C‐rich organic compost, and changes in fertilization to increase plant growth, soil C sequestration, and/or reduce emissions of N ₂O from soils (Gravuer et al., 2019). Fundamental to both of these avenues for reducing beef GHG emissions is the need to dramatically diminish the rate of conversion of natural grassland and forest area into new pasture or grazing land, since avoided land conversion represents a climate change mitigation potential (3719 Tg CO ₂‐eq/year) roughly equal to past calculations of emissions reductions with improved agriculture and grassland management (4817 Tg CO ₂‐eq/year; Griscom et al., 2017). Within these two broad categories, there are specific management improvements that have been tested in different regions.

Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are an increasingly popular method for accounting net GHG emissions across an entire beef production system, such as from cradle‐to‐farm gate or cradle‐to‐consumption. In particular, comparative LCAs that assess improved versus conventional beef management in nearby systems are useful for determining how much a given management shift might reduce GHG emissions in a given region. Some recent studies have found that beef GHG emissions can be reduced to net‐zero or even negative emissions (i.e., net C sequestration) with improved management in temperate ecosystem grazed lands (Herrero et al., 2016; Paustian et al., 2016; Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016), although management‐related soil C sequestration rates may diminish over time, with added soil C storage potentially reversible under subsequent disturbances and/or climate change (Godde et al., 2020). Meanwhile, ongoing enteric methane emissions from cattle are unavoidable, and are likely to increase with increased beef production. Also, other recent management comparisons suggest no significant reduction in net beef GHG emissions in grassfed/grazed versus grainfed/feedlot systems (Clark & Tilman, 2017; Garnett et al., 2017). Thus, a formal assessment of a broader suite of management changes across global regions is needed to elucidate the potential for substantial reductions in beef GHG emissions.

Here, we present a meta‐analysis of comparative LCA studies from different global regions to identify the most successful beef management strategies for reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef and/or per unit of land. We identified comparative LCA studies that evaluated local management changes aimed at reducing beef GHG emissions via increased efficiency, increased land‐based C sequestration, or both. We calculated the potential GHG mitigation "Effect Size" for the management shifts in each study, and then explored broad patterns across management strategies, among global regions, and within regions. This approach also identified which management changes were most studied within and among different regions. Our results provide insight into the global and regional potential for a variety of beef management strategies to mitigate beef GHG emissions.

2 METHODS

2.1 Meta‐analysis of comparative beef management LCAs

We compiled data from LCAs that compared total GHG emissions from at least two beef management systems within nearby/similar environmental settings to conduct a meta‐analysis comparing results across studies. Broadly, LCAs attempt to identify and measure the total GHG flux for the entire production (and sometimes distribution and consumption) of a product; however, the methods embedded within individual LCA models vary across a number of dimensions, including the GHG fluxes accounted, the physical boundary of the study (e.g., cradle‐to‐farm gate, cradle‐to‐distribution, cradle‐to‐consumption; Table S1), and the proportion of on‐the‐ground data versus literature estimates (McClellande et al., 2018). Given the heterogeneity of LCA models, the resulting net GHG emissions, or C footprints, can vary substantially among studies, and generally are not directly comparable. Thus, we used a meta‐analysis approach to control for this heterogeneity in total fluxes between studies by calculating a unitless parameter for each management comparison as:

We relied on author identification within each study of the "improved" management system relative to the "conventional" system such that improved versus conventional was locally defined. Effect Sizes below zero indicate a net decrease in GHG emissions with improved management. Because the natural log of a ratio calculates the proportional shift, we present Effect Sizes as raw data values (fractions) in figures, and as percent change in the text for ease of interpretation. In a few cases, one or both emission values were negative (i.e., net C uptake into the system), so a positive number on the same order of magnitude as the measured fluxes was added to the control and treatment values to transform them into positive values, preserving the directional difference between control and treatment, before calculating Effect Size.

2.2 Data collection

Our review of papers began in 2018 with collection and review of all citations of beef GHG LCAs from two recent reviews on the environmental impacts of food (Clune et al., 2017; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Neither of these previous reviews attempted to assess differences among beef management strategies. We then conducted an additional search of the scientific literature using Web of Science and Google Scholar in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, using the search terms: "livestock," "cattle," "beef," "beef production," "beef management," "LCA," "life cycle assessment," "carbon," "greenhouse gas," "methane," and/or "grazing." We assessed all papers identified through these searches by reading title, abstract, and keywords to determine whether the study was a comparative beef production LCA (i.e., compared at least two management systems). We included studies that provided calculated net GHG emissions with errors associated, and statistical comparisons among treatments. We then conducted a forward citation search for all of the papers initially identified since the recent body of literature on beef LCAs has rapidly grown since 2006 (date of first paper found). We also assessed the gray literature, including government reports, dissertations, and conference proceedings from the conference: Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri‐Food Sector. Assessment of the gray literature was intended to reduce publication bias, but because of our inclusion requirements (e.g., error, statistics), few gray literature studies were included.

We found a total of 57 comparative beef LCA studies across global regions (Figure 1), with most studies comparing numerous management changes relative to a control, or conventional, management system, generating a total of 292 comparisons of improved versus conventional management ( n = 292, Table 1; Table S1). Most studies provided GHG estimates from at least cradle‐to‐gate, and included input‐related GHG emissions (e.g., related to the production and transportation of fertilizers, feed, and water), processing‐related GHG emissions (animal maintenance, slaughter, packaging), and output‐related GHG emissions (animals, soils, machinery use). From each study, we tabulated which GHG fluxes were included, the system boundaries, the type of LCA model used, the unit of measure (i.e., GHGs produced per head of cattle, per herd, per gram of protein/beef, or per land unit), and all aspects of management changes that were compared (Table S1). Finally, we recorded the net GHG flux for each improved and control management strategy within each paper, and used these to calculate the Effect Size for each management shift. In most cases, average data were provided in tables or text within the study, and in cases where data were only available in figures we extracted data using Data Thief III software (2018). Studies were all published between 2006 and 2018, with a linear increase in the number of studies per year over time (from 2 in 2006 to 10 in 2018), illustrating the growing use of LCA studies to assess and compare beef management strategies.

Management strategy type

Treatment examples

Breed comparison

Crossbreeding to reduce the calving interval, age at first calving, and increase beef yield per animal

Selection for low inbreeding which allows for animals with better growth and efficiency

Conventional versus Organic beef production

Eliminating the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives, growth hormones, and genetically engineered breeding

Extensive versus Intensive rotational grazing

Switching from a non‐irrigated, lightly stocked system to more heavily stocked, irrigated systems, often characterized by rotational grazing with short recovery times for plants to regenerate

Feedlots versus Grazing finished

Conducting the finishing phase of cattle production in a pasture or rangeland, rather than a feedlot, with the goal to quickly fatten cattle

Fertilizer use change

Reduction of mineral N fertilization with the aim of reducing GHG emissions from soils

Increase in mineral N fertilization with the aim of increasing plant growth and nutrient content

Addition of manure with the aim of increasing plant growth and nutrient content

Improved Feed/Supplements

Dietary modifications aimed at reducing enteric CH₄ emissions and increasing growth efficiency, including changes in forage versus feed levels, pasture grass species with greater nutrient content, dietary supplementation with polyunsaturated lipids, and use of dried grains

Integrated field management

Integrating trees and/or organic soil amendments and/or inorganic nutrients to enhance plant and soil C sequestration in degraded pasture and/or rangeland.

Cattle lifecycle management

Weaning cows earlier so that they can spend additional time in the finishing phase as a means of more efficiently converting feed to weight gain

Younger age at slaughter

2.2.1 Management comparisons

Across studies, management changes were generally targeted at reducing total beef GHG emissions. Because the improved versus conventional comparison was locally defined, studies varied somewhat in which specific management change was identified as "improved" (Table 1). We grouped studies into eight categories based on the primary management changes across studies (Tables 1 and S1). The eight categories included two strategies focused on land‐based C sequestration to offset beef GHG emissions: (1) conventional field management versus Integrated Field Management (improved), which used application of C‐rich organic compost, intercropping feed/fodder plants with trees, and/or agroforestry ( n = 48); (2) extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing as the improved practice (i.e., adaptive‐multi‐paddock grazing or high‐intensity, short‐duration grazing, n = 58), which aims to promote greater plant growth, improved forage quality, and increase soil C sequestration during field recovery times between short (e.g., hours to days) and intense grazing periods (Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016).

We included three efficiency strategies: (3) conventional versus Improved Feed/Supplements, achieved by providing feed with greater nutritional value, and/or vitamins to increase growth and reduce enteric CH ₄ emissions per unit of beef ( n = 65); (4) Breed Comparison of conventional/common cattle breeds versus improved breeds, such as cross‐bred or less‐used strains ( n = 23); (5) conventional versus improved Cattle Lifecycle Management, with management changes including shifts in age of slaughter, weight at slaughter, and/or age to pasture ( n = 45), with the goal of maximizing weight gain per GHG emission at the time of slaughter.

We had two categories that blended efficiency and C sequestration to reduce overall beef GHG emissions: (6) Feedlot versus Grazing finished (i.e., grassfed as the improved strategy, n = 8), which compared growth efficiency on feedlots versus growth efficiency plus C sequestration on grazed lands; (7) Fertilizer Use Change ( n = 33), with some studies increasing fertilizer application as the "improved" strategy, and other studies reducing fertilizer application as the "improved" strategy (Table 1). Because of this variation, we broke this category down into three subcategories based on the authors' definition within each study: (a) increased inorganic fertilizer application as an improved practice to increase plant growth and improve forage quality ( n = 21); (b) manure additions as an improved practice to increase plant growth and improve forage quality ( n = 3); and (c) reduced inorganic fertilizer application as an improved practice to reduce soil N ₂O fluxes and thus minimize overall beef GHG emissions ( n = 9).

Our final category was (8) non‐organic beef production versus Organic Beef Production (improved, n = 13), which was not strictly an efficiency or a C sequestration strategy, but rather a strategy for broader sustainable land use and food production.

2.2.2 Regions

Countries and regions were grouped geographically, since local environmental factors such as climate, soil type, and soil degradation, as well as local beef production standards and cultural influences, like breeds and common feeds, could influence management outcomes. We subdivided some regions that included many studies (e.g., Brazil split from the rest of Latin America, and Canada and the United States separated from each other) resulting in the following regions: Asia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Latin America, and the United States. The types of management shifts employed were not distributed evenly across regions. The vast majority of Integrated Field Management studies occurred in Brazil (73% of the studies in this category) and Latin America (17%). Western Europe had the majority of conventional versus Organic Beef Production studies (46%), Fertilizer Use Change studies (49%), Lifecycle Management (62%), and Improved Feed/Supplement studies (49%). The majority of Feedlot versus Grazing finished studies were in the United States (63%). In contrast, extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing comparisons were more evenly distributed among Brazil (36%), Latin America (36%), and Western Europe (19%; Figure 4). It is unclear whether this variation among regions is an artifact of random differences in scientific interest, or if this indicates the popularity of different sustainable management strategies among regions.

2.2.3 Consideration of covariates

We assessed covariates that could bias results among studies. We tabulated all available covariate data presented within studies that could bias outcomes, including inclusion or not of soil C fluxes, unit of measure, system boundaries, duration of study, and type of LCA model used (Table S1).

First, we noted whether an LCA model included soil C sequestration and GHG emissions from soils and manure. Given that grazing can change C sequestration, loss, and storage levels in soil, inclusion of this flux could have a large impact on the net GHG footprint. All management change categories except Fertilizer Use Change had studies that included soil C in the LCA, with 10%-55% of studies within other categories including soil C sequestration. Thus, we excluded the Fertilizer Use Change in assessment of how inclusion of soil C fluxes altered net GHG calculations in LCAs. Notably, soil C fluxes were absent from a majority of the LCAs, so fewer Effect Sizes included soil C sequestration ( n = 69) versus omitting this C flux ( n = 221). Most studies that were focused on land‐based C sequestration (Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing) included soil C fluxes.

We gave special consideration to the unit of measurement since some studies calculated GHG emissions per unit of beef, whereas others (or sometimes the same study) calculated GHG emissions per unit of land area. This distinction was assessed because with increased productivity, GHG emissions per unit of beef could decline if efficiency increases, whereas GHG emissions per unit of land could increase if stocking densities increase enough to offset efficiency gains. Most studies calculated GHG emissions per unit of beef or protein ( n = 240), and some calculated GHG emissions per unit of land area ( n = 42, Table 2; Table S2).

(a) Management change

Unit of measure

n

Effect size (mean)

Effect size (SE)

(b) Region

Unit of measure

n

Effect size (mean)

Effect size (SE)

We also assessed the effect of the system boundary used in each study. Since competing agricultural products would require transportation and distribution C costs similar to those of beef, many livestock LCAs justify using only "on‐site" production metrics (e.g., cradle‐to‐gate) to calculate net beef GHG emissions, often referred to as partial LCAs (Teague et al., 2016). In contrast, full LCAs track all beef GHG emissions, including inputs, production, processing, distribution, and consumption. The majority of beef LCAs identified here were partial LCAs and accounted for GHGs from cradle‐to‐gate, including all life stages of cattle ( n = 229). Fewer studies focused on only the "finishing phase" (i.e., fattening period prior to slaughter; n = 23), and even fewer studies accounted from cradle‐to‐slaughter ( n = 11) or cradle‐to‐consumption ( n = 5), with the remaining studies including some variation of these three boundaries. One study included the C cost of Brazilian rainforest deforestation for new pasture within the boundary, comparing this versus improved management in existing pasture, which resulted in the most negative Effect Size measured (‐3.25, or 325% reduction in beef GHGs) (Cederberg et al. 2011), but because of this unique boundary this was not included in the statistical analysis of the 8 groupings described above. Most studies included other off‐site GHG production prior to the "cradle," like feed and fertilizer production and transportation to the site ( n = 200). We tabulated the LCA boundary used in each study (Table S1), and we did not attempt to make any correction for different system boundaries aside from the normalizing calculation of the Effect Size.

2.3 Statistical analysis

Management change category, geographic region, inclusion of soil C fluxes, system boundary, and timespan of the study were all tested as predictors of Effect Sizes in ANOVA, running separate analyses for Effect Sizes based on the two units of measure (i.e., GHG per unit beef or GHG per unit land area). Effect Sizes for each management change category and each region were tested for significant difference from zero to indicate whether there was an overall negative, positive, or neutral effect on GHG emissions. Differences among management change categories and regions were then explored using post‐hoc Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) tests. To assess how different management strategies performed within different regions, Effect Sizes for each management change category were also compared for each region separately using post‐hoc Fisher's LSD tests. Post‐hoc tests were also used to compare the influence of different LCA parameters on Effect Sizes, such as inclusion or not of soil C sequestration, soil and manure GHG fluxes, unit of measure, system boundary, and timespan. Assumptions of normality of data were tested and met. Statistical analyses were conducted in JMP Pro 14.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., 2017). Significance was determined as p < 0.05, and data are shown as averages ±1 SE.

3 RESULTS

Across all management comparisons explored in this meta‐analysis ( n = 292), 73% of studies found significant reductions in beef GHG emissions, indicating that there is broad potential for improving beef's climate impact across regions and producers. However, only 2% of comparisons indicated the potential for net‐zero or negative emissions (i.e., C sequestration) over periods <10 years, with most beef management changes still producing net positive GHG fluxes (i.e., Effect Sizes ≥‐1, Table S1), highlighting that improved beef production will still produce GHG emissions and contribute to global warming.

3.1 Strategies for land‐based carbon sequestration to reduce beef GHG emissions

Efforts to manage plants and soils explicitly for C sequestration on grazed lands, through Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing, had the greatest reductions in net beef GHG emissions, including examples of net‐zero emissions, as described below. On average, these two strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by 46 ± 6% ( n = 105).

3.1.1 Integrated field management

Integrated Field Management for C sequestration had the largest significant reduction in beef emissions among management strategies, reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef by 62 ± 9%, and reducing beef GHG emissions per unit of land by 112 ± 39% (Figure 2a,b). Thus, this was the only strategy with promise for net‐zero or negative emission beef production. Across studies included here, Integrated Field Management included strategies such as organic compost application, silvo‐agro‐forestry, and seeding to increase plant cover on grazed lands (Table 1), with most studies applying combinations of these strategies in response to local ecological conditions. The majority of these studies were from Brazil ( n = 35) and Latin America ( n = 8), and these management changes were also explored in the United States ( n = 2) and W. Europe ( n = 3; Figure 1).

3.1.2 Intensive rotational grazing

Intensive Rotational Grazing had the second largest reduction in GHG emissions per unit of beef, reducing emissions by 37 ± 7% compared with extensive grazing system, but there was no significant change in GHG emissions per unit of land for this management strategy (Figure 2a,b). One LCA for the Midwestern USA showed that an Intensive Rotational Grazing system had high enough soil C sequestration rates over 2 years to achieve net‐zero GHG emissions (Rowntree et al., 2016), compared with net positive GHG emissions from nearby feedlots (Stanley et al., 2018), in one of the few studies to compare feedlots with alternative grazing practices. Extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing management studies were mostly in Latin America ( n = 21) and Brazil ( n = 21), and were also conducted across other regions, with comparisons from Asia ( n = 1), Canada ( n = 1), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 11; Figure 1).

3.2 Management strategies to increase production efficiency

Of the management changes aimed at increasing efficiency-Improved Feed/Supplements, Breed Changes, and Lifecycle Management Change-Improved Feed/Supplements and Breed Changes both showed significant opportunities for GHG reductions. None of the efficiency‐based strategies led to net‐zero or negative emissions from beef production (Table S1). On average, these three strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by 8 ± 3%.

3.2.1 Improved Feed Quality and supplements

Improved Feed Quality significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 7 ± 2% (Figure 2a). For example, a Brazilian study showed that improved feed quality, achieved by seeding more nutrient‐rich forage grasses into pastures, reduced enteric CH ₄ production by 20% across seven different feed scenarios (Ruviaro et al., 2015). Improved Feed Quality practices commonly included adding nutrient‐rich forage or feed to cattle diets, and were studied in Australia ( n = 7), Brazil ( n = 9), Canada ( n = 7), the United States ( n = 7), and W. Europe ( n = 32; Figure 1).

3.2.2 Breed Changes

Breed Changes significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 30 ± 14% (Figure 2a). Breed Changes generally aimed to increase the efficiency of beef production per enteric CH ₄ emission of each individual cow. The types of breed comparisons used were variable across studies, but generally included comparisons of cross‐bred cattle and/or less‐used strains (improved) versus frequently used breeds (Table 1; Table S1). Breed Change comparisons were done in Asia ( n = 4), Brazil ( n = 8), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 10; Figure 1). Because of the variability in how Breed Changes were applied, there were no clear groupings to indicate which breeds or cross‐breeds were more efficient across regions.

3.2.3 Cattle Lifecycle Management Changes

On average, changes in Lifecycle Management did not lead to significant reductions in beef GHG emissions per unit of beef or per unit of land area (Figure 2a,b), possibly because of the large variability in the management changes implemented in this category, and different conventions in each region. For example, Cattle Lifecycle Management studies variably changed the timing of different production phases, such as time cattle spent in the finishing/fattening phase, the age or weight at slaughter, and/or the age of weaning (Nguyen et al., 2013; Veysset et al., 2010). There were also variable changes in the proportions of heifers versus bulls versus calves, and the annual calving rate and replacement rate of heifers (Pelletier et al., 2010). Thus, while some Cattle Lifecycle Management studies showed potential for reductions in net beef GHG emissions (Taylor et al., 2016), other studies found that the conventional (i.e., baseline or pre‐existing) lifecycle management had lower GHG emissions (Lupo et al., 2013). Cattle Lifecycle Management Changes were explored in Australia ( n = 30), Canada ( n = 2), the United States ( n = 8), and W. Europe ( n = 28; Figure 1).

3.3 Strategies for both increased efficiency and C sequestration

3.3.1 Feedlots versus Grazing

In this meta‐analysis, beef produced on grazed pastures and rangelands emitted 30 ± 12% more GHGs compared with feedlot‐finished beef per unit of beef (Figure 2a), with no difference per unit of land (Figure 2b). However, this comparison category contained the fewest data points ( n = 8) among categories, and most studies compared feedlots to conventional, low‐intensity grazing, rather than the high‐intensity grazing strategy that here showed promise for reducing GHG emissions (see above). Therefore, the comparisons in this category likely underestimate C sequestration benefits from improved, intensive grazing practices relative to feedlots. Broader comparisons for feedlots versus different types of grazing management are merited, particularly in regions where both production systems are used. Comparisons in this category came from Latin America ( n = 1), the United States ( n = 5), and W. Europe ( n = 2; Figure 1).

3.3.2 Fertilizer Use Change for efficiency, C sequestration, and/or reduced soil GHG emissions

Overall, Fertilizer Use Change as a comparison of author‐defined improved versus conventional decreased net beef GHG emissions by 26 ± 6% per unit of beef (Figure 2a), but increased GHG emissions by 86 ± 24% per unit of land (Figure 2b). For example, increased inorganic fertilizer application in Irish grazed lands increased GHG emissions per unit of land by 35% because of greater soil N ₂O emissions, yet decreased GHG emissions per unit of beef by ~9% because of improved efficiency (Foley et al., 2011).

Considering the sub‐categories of Fertilizer Use Change, increased inorganic fertilizer significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 33 ± 8%, and decreased inorganic fertilizer also reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 11 ± 3% (Figure 3a). Per unit of land, increased inorganic fertilizer significantly increased beef GHG emissions by 62 ± 11%, manure application significantly increased GHG emissions by 173 ± 2%, and there was no change with decreased inorganic fertilizer (Figure 3b).

Thus, gains in efficiency and/or C sequestration must outbalance increases in soil GHGs that commonly result from nitrogen fertilization (e.g., N ₂O) (Liebig et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2015). Overall, this analysis suggests that gains in efficiency per unit of beaf that were achieved with increased fertilizer use were generally outbalanced by net increases in soil GHG emissions per unit of land. Fertilizer Use Change strategies were explored across Asia ( n = 1), Brazil ( n = 13), Canada ( n = 5), and W. Europe ( n = 16; Figure 1).

3.4 Non‐organic Beef Production versus Organic Beef Production

Overall, there was no significant difference in beef GHG emissions per unit beef between non‐organic and Organic Beef Production in this meta‐analysis (Figure 2a), and emissions changes per unit of land area were not assessed in the studies. There were relatively few studies comparing non‐organic versus Organic Beef Production systems, with just 13 studies from across Asia ( n = 2), Brazil ( n = 1), Latin America ( n = 3), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 6).

3.5 Regional differences in GHG reductions with beef management changes

Our regional analysis indicated that some regions, like Brazil, could broadly improve efficiency and land‐based C sequestration to greatly offset beef GHG emissions, while other regions could make substantial reductions with a narrower set of strategies, like increased efficiency in Australia and land‐based C sequestration in grazed lands in the United States. Below, we present net changes among regions (Figure 4a,b), and the relative success of each management strategy within each region (Figure S1 a-p).

3.5.1 Large reductions in beef GHG emissions are attainable in Brazil/Latin America

The largest potential for reducing beef GHG emissions per unit of beef was in Brazil, with overall 57 ± 7% reductions in beef GHGs, followed by the rest of Latin America with 25 ± 4% reductions (Figure 4a). Per unit of land area, management improvements in Brazilian studies reduced beef GHG emissions by 37 ± 15% (Figure 4b). The large reductions in beef GHG emissions in Brazil resulted from successful management changes for both increased growth efficiency and land‐based C sequestration. Specifically, Brazilian studies successfully reduced beef GHG emissions by implementing Breed Changes (Figure S1a), Improved Feed/Supplements (Figure S1b), and Fertilizer Use Change (Figure S1h). Also, both decreased and increased inorganic fertilizer treatments reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1i), indicating successful site‐specific decisions to manage fertilizer either for better forage (efficiency) and C sequestration, or for reductions of soil N ₂ O emissions.

For C sequestration strategies, Brazilian and other Latin American studies also successfully used Integrated Field Management, reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1l), and per unit of land (Figure S1m). Brazilian and other Latin American studies successfully implemented Intensive Rotational Grazing to reduce GHG emissions per unit of beef compared with extensive grazing, with the largest reductions in Brazil (Figure S1n). Tropical studies in these regions mainly occurred on lands where cattle are in broadleaf forest biomes that have been deforested (Figure S2 a), and many of the large reductions in GHG emissions resulted from implementation of silvo‐agro‐forestry, with reforestation and integration of trees, forage plants, and livestock on pasture and rangelands.

3.5.2 Successful increased efficiency in Australia

Australian studies achieved the third largest overall reductions in beef GHGs per unit of beef with 18 ± 3% reductions (Figure 4a). This was primarily related to successful implementation of efficiency strategies, which were the focus of all Australian studies (Table S2), and included Improved Feed/Supplements ( n = 7; Figure S1b) and changes in Cattle Lifecycle Management ( n = 3; Figure S1 d).

3.5.3 Carbon sequestration strategies most effective in the United States

In the United States, Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing LCA studies were rigorous as individual studies, albeit rare ( n = 2 and n = 1, respectively) in the broader literature, and reflect an emerging interest of these approaches for offsetting beef GHGs in the United States. Data used in these LCA studies were derived from established emissions factors (e.g., IPCC, EPA, FAO, etc.) and from peer‐reviewed field studies. Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing resulted in the largest reductions in beef GHG emissions among any strategy for one region, with a net negative change in emissions of 117 ± 66% (i.e., net C uptake into grazed lands) per unit of land area (Figure 4b; Figure S1m,o), compared with conventional grazing techniques. At the same time, US comparisons of Feedlot versus Grazed finished indicated overall increased GHG emissions per unit of beef with grazing (Figure 4a), with most studies using extensive, low‐intensity grazing for this comparison (Table S1). This result parallels our results for comparison of feedlots versus grazing across regions (above). Per unit of beef, there were 40% lower GHG emissions from Feedlot versus Grazed finished cattle in the United States (Figure S1f), indicating that the greater efficiency in feedlots outweighed C sequestration benefits of these extensive grazing systems. This difference was much smaller (8%) per unit of land versus per unit of beef in the USA studies (Figure S1g), likely because of lower overall cattle density and thus diffuse GHG emissions per unit of land in grazed systems compared with feedlots. In contrast to the Australian results above, application of efficiency strategies in United States resulted in no significant effect on beef GHG emissions (Figure S1 b,d).

3.5.4 Effects of management change on beef GHG emissions for W. Europe, Canada, and Asia

In W. Europe, Canada, and Asia, management "improvements" overall tended to either increase beef GHG emissions, or have no significant effect, although some specific management changes resulted in the intended reductions in beef GHG emissions.

In W. Europe, there were overall increases in beef GHG emissions per unit of land with "improvements" (22 ± 6%, Figure 4b), and there was no overall change in GHG emissions per unit of beef across management change strategies intended to offer improvements (Figure 4a). Still, there were some significant reductions in beef GHG emissions per unit of beef for the region with Improved Feed/Supplements (Figure S1b), Integrated Field Management (Figure S1l), and Fertilizer Use Change (Figure S1h,i). Increased GHG emissions per unit of land for this region were primarily related to Fertilizer Use Change strategies that increased fertilizer application (Figure S1j,k). Intensive Rotational Grazing reduced beef GHG emissions per unit of beef in this region (Figure S1n), but increased emissions per unit of land (Figure S1 o). Thus, while there were no overall improvements in W. Europe across strategies tested, there are still some promising avenues for reducing beef GHGs, particularly in relation to reducing use of inorganic fertilizers.

The largest increases in beef GHGs with "improved" management, on a per unit of land basis, were in Canada (Figure 4b), due almost entirely to large GHG emission increases with manure applications (Figure S1 j,k).

In Asia, management changes had no overall significant effect on beef GHG emissions (Figure 4a,b), although Breed Comparisons reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1a), and Intensive Rotational Grazing reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1n), indicating the potential for reduced GHG emissions in this region. There were relatively few comparative LCAs for Asia ( n = 8 total), so conclusions about regional trends and potential to reduce beef GHG emissions in Asia require more LCA studies.

3.6 Influence of LCA parameters on GHG effect sizes

There were some differences in Effect Sizes related to the parameters used within different LCA studies.

3.6.1 Inclusion of soil C sequestration

Overall, studies that included soil C fluxes ( n = 69) had significantly more reductions in net GHG emissions with management change than studies that did not ( n = 221). On average, studies that included soil C fluxes had 42 ± 10% reductions in GHG emissions, whereas studies that did not include soil C fluxes had 12 ± 3% reductions in GHG emission. While the direction of the effect of a given management change on GHG emissions (increase vs. reduction) was not altered by the inclusion or omission of soil C fluxes, calculating an accurate C footprint for a management strategy is the main goal of LCAs. Since soil C sequestration is one of the primary ways to offset cattle GHG emissions, future LCAs should explicitly include soil C fluxes. Inclusion of soil C sequestration was distributed across management change categories (Lifecycle Management n = 19, Improved Feed/Supplements n = 17, Extensive vs. Intensive grazing n = 9, Integrated Field Management n = 8, Conventional vs. Organic n = 5, Breed Comparison n = 4, Fertilizer Use Change n = 4, Feedlot vs. Grazing n = 3). Within management change categories, studies that included soil C fluxes had significantly larger reductions in beef GHG emissions for Breed Comparison, Extensive versus Intensive grazing, Fertilizer Use Change, and Integrated Field Management, whereas inclusion of this C flux did not influence average Effect Sizes for the other management categories.

3.6.2 Inclusion of soil and manure GHG emissions

Inclusion of soil or manure GHG emissions in LCA models was not a significant predictor of Effect Sizes in this study. In general, fewer studies included measures of GHG emissions from soil ( n = 114) versus studies with neither of these measures ( n = 179). Soil N ₂O fluxes were the most commonly included among soil GHGs (CO ₂: n = 56, CH ₄: n = 15, N ₂O: n = 104). In contrast with soil GHGs, more studies included GHG emissions from manure ( n = 218) versus no inclusion ( n = 75), and again, manure N ₂O fluxes were the most commonly included (CO ₂ n = 0, CH ₄ n = 72, N ₂O n = 193).

3.6.3 Unit of measure

Effect Sizes for two management categories, Fertilizer Use Change and extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing, were sensitive to the unit of measure. There were increased beef GHG emissions per unit of land area, but decreased beef GHG emissions per unit of beef for both of these management categories (see above). That is, extensive grazing systems had greater GHG emissions per unit of land, but less GHG emissions per unit beef, compared with Intensive Rotational Grazing systems. Similarly, Fertilizer Use Change increased beef GHG emissions per unit of land, but decreased beef GHG emissions per unit of beef, which some authors explained as an increase in beef production efficiency, despite greater GHG emissions per unit of land. Thus, future LCAs should include beef GHG emissions both per unit of beef or protein, and per unit of land area, for a more comprehensive assessment of the warming effect of changes in beef management.

3.6.4 Boundary and timespan effects

The physical boundary of the LCA was not a significant factor in ANOVA. The vast majority of Effect Sizes were calculated from partial LCAs that considered beef GHG fluxes from cradle‐to‐gate ( n = 229), followed by studies that considered only the "finishing" or fattening phase prior to slaughter ( n = 23), while cradle‐to‐slaughter ( n = 11) and cradle‐to‐consumption ( n = 5) were much less common. Although there were no significant differences, all studies that used the first three of these boundaries had average negative Effect Sizes, whereas cradle‐to‐consumption studies found that management changes increased beef GHGs by 10 ± 16%. This trend might suggest that using partial LCAs that ignore distribution and consumption may over‐emphasize the potential reductions in GHGs possible through management changes. More LCAs should consider a full GHG accounting from cradle‐to‐consumption.

Timespan of study was not a significant factor in our ANOVA, and did not vary greatly among studies. The period of most studies was either 1 year, or the lifespan of one generation of cattle (2-4 years). On average, studies were conducted over 2.3 ± 0.3 years, with only three studies considering timespans ≥10 years, which makes it particularly difficult to assess the longer‐term success of C sequestration strategies.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Land‐based carbon sequestration can help offset beef GHGs in the near‐term

Our results indicate that improved pasture and rangeland practices that promote land‐based C sequestration in plant biomass and in soil have the potential to contribute to climate change mitigation, at least on decadal timescales. On average, application of these strategies could reduce net beef GHGs by almost half (46%). Notably, we saw large regional variation in the magnitude of the success of these management changes, which could reflect differences in native ecosystem type (e.g., grassland vs. forest), plant community, climate, soil characteristics, land‐use history, and the type of integrated field management or intensive grazing undertaken (McSherry & Ritchie, 2013). Thus, land‐based C sequestration strategies must be finely tuned to local contexts to maximize their potential for climate change mitigation. Further exploration of these management strategies and how they can be fine‐tuned to regional contexts over the longer‐term deserves attention.

Reductions in beef GHG emissions in Brazil and Latin America would be of particular global significance, because these areas produce more beef than any other region globally, and have greater GHG emissions per unit of beef than other regions (FAO, 2019), in part because of the CO ₂ emissions from ongoing deforestation of tropical rainforests for pasture and feed crops. Fertilizer Use Change was particularly successful in Brazil and Latin America in this meta‐analysis, indicating successful local decisions balancing reduced inorganic fertilizer use in some studies/areas to minimize soils N ₂O emissions, with increased fertilizer use in other studies/areas to promote plant growth and soil C sequestration. Land‐based C sequestration strategies were particularly successful in Brazil and Latin America. Silvo‐agro‐forestry systems can sequester more C than tree plantations or pastures alone because of greater plant biomass production in roots vertically beneath the soil surface (Sharrow & Ismail, 2004), and these systems can also be more productive and profitable than conventional grazed pastures (Murgueitio et al., 2011). These systems can also divert deforestation that could otherwise occur to create new grazing lands, particularly in rainforest regions (Schroth et al., 2004), with avoided forest conversion representing the largest mitigation potential for GHG production from tropical regions overall, and particularly in Latin America (Griscom et al., 2020). Globally, the climate mitigation potential of improved nutrient management in agriculture and grasslands (706 TgCO ₂ eq/year) is nearly as much as the mitigation potential from agroforestry (1040 TgCO ₂ eq/year; Griscom et al., 2017), yet even combined these two strategies are unlikely to provide the same level of climate change mitigation as avoided tropical forest conversion (2580 TgCO ₂ eq/year) and reforestation of marginal grazed land in the tropics (1250 TgCO ₂ eq/year; Griscom et al., 2020), which would likely require diet shifting away from beef. National policies to reduce deforestation are likely needed to support and promote Integrated Field Management, Fertilizer Use Change, and Intensive Rotational Grazing on existing pasturelands (Bowman et al., 2012).

Temperate grassland Integrated Field Management studies took the approach of diversifying forage species and applying C‐rich organic soil amendments, with a few USA studies successfully doubling rates of soil C sequestration (Drinkwater et al., 1998), and reducing beef GHG emissions by over 100% with on‐site waste management and compost production (DeLonge et al., 2013; Ryals & Silver, 2013). Thus, soil amendments that contain C and nutrients and promote plant growth without large increases in soil GHG fluxes represent an important potential strategy for reducing grazed beef GHG emissions in grassland regions, although nutrient runoff challenges must be addressed (Gravuer et al., 2019). Furthermore, while one‐time applications of compost may not negatively impact some grassland plant communities (Ryals et al., 2016), nutrient addition can reduce natural grassland diversity (Bobbink et al., 1998; Suding et al., 2005), so more research on biodiversity impacts in native grasslands is necessary. It is promising that adoption of C sequestration management on grazed lands in temperate regions appears to be growing, as indicated by increased funding for and promotion of adding C‐rich organic compost in Californian and adoption of soil health programs in US beef production (CalCAN, 2019; N 4E, 2018), and projections of increased global adoption rates of improved grazing management and other land‐based strategies for reducing GHG emissions, like forest and grassland protection, methane digesters, and nutrient management (ProjectDrawdown, 2020). A more comprehensive analysis of current and potential adoption rates of improved beef management strategies within existing beef production systems at national and sub‐nations levels would help indicate how much more improvement is possible and likely.

Grazing‐based strategies for climate mitigation have been shown to have varying effects on C sequestration rates among sites and over time (Henderson et al., 2015). In particular, the extent of soil degradation varied among regions (Figure S2b), leading to different baselines for comparison with increased soil C storage. Promotion of soil C sequestration is typically more successful on degraded lands that have lost large portions of their native soil C (Figure S2c), and it has been estimated that restoring depleted C stocks represents 47% of the potential for climate change mitigation on agricultural and grasslands (Bossio et al., 2020; Lal, 2004). A full spatial analysis of the extent to which beef management practices could increase soil C sequestration would require better data than is currently available about which strategies are being used on different degraded lands. Long‐term dynamics of soil C sequestration on grazed lands must also be assessed, since C sequestration rates in soils typically decline after initial increases that can occur with improved management (Schmidt et al., 2011; Six et al., 2002). For example, soil C stocks increased rapidly for 6 years after conversion of degraded row cropland to intensive rotational grazing in three farms in the southeastern USA, but then C sequestration rates plateaued (Machmuller et al., 2015), and soil C stocks appeared to increase for the first 13 out of 20 years in a chronosequence study in similar sites in the southeastern USA using multi‐species pasture rotation (Rowntree et al., 2020). Nonetheless, even the shorter‐term recovery of previously existing soil C on grazed lands presents a feasible and substantial reduction in beef GHG emissions, and should be pursued to mitigate climate change.

4.2 To what extent can efficiency strategies reduce beef emissions?

In this meta‐analysis, improved efficiency practices provided an average 8% reduction in beef GHG emissions globally, with most of these GHG reductions related to Breed Change, which alone reduced beef GHGs by 30%, a smaller contribution from Improved Feed, and no change with Lifecycle Management. This result contrasts with previous global estimates that Improved Feed could mitigate roughly three times more CO ₂‐eq than Breed Changes and lifecycle management combined (Griscom et al., 2017). While these GHG reductions related to efficiency gains present a substantial opportunity for climate mitigation, it seems unlikely that increased efficiency alone will reduce net global beef production GHG emissions on par with growing demand (Springmann et al., 2018). Consumption of meat products has more than doubled since 1961 (IPCC, 2019), and an 80% increase in global food GHG emissions is projected from 2009 to 2050 due to population growth and income‐related dietary shifts toward more meat (Tilman & Clark, 2014). Even with increased efficiency, greater production to meet greater demand will increase net beef GHG emissions.

Also, in regions where growth efficiency is already nearly maximized, the potential for further gains appears small. For example, in the United States, where feedlots make up 97% of US cattle finishing phases (vs. 3% that are grass‐finished; Cheung et al., 2017), efficiency techniques had no overall effect on beef GHGs, possibly because there is already low GHG emission intensity per unit of beef in the United States compared to other regions (Herrero et al., 2016). Large efficiency gains in US beef production in recent decades could actually open the possibility for restoration of some pasture lands back to natural forest and grassland, for further C sequestration opportunities related to United States beef (Fargione et al., 2018). In contrast with the results for the United States, Australia, Brazil, and Asia had significant reductions in beef GHG emissions in studies that implemented efficiency strategies. This regional contrast is probably linked to the lower baseline efficiency of beef production in Australia relative to the United States and W. Europe, and even lower baseline efficiency in parts of Latin America, SE Asia, and Africa, where beef demand is growing fastest (Herrero & Thornton, 2013; Searchinger et al., 2019). Thus, regions with relatively lower baseline efficiency and rapidly increasing demand for beef have a significant opportunity to reduce beef GHG emissions by broader implementation of efficiency management strategies like improved feed, breed and lifecycle changes. More information on which strategies are already saturating in different regions, and the rates of adoption of new strategies, would facilitate calculation of the remaining reductions in beef GHG emissions that are possible and likely.

Considering the strategies that blend efficiency and C sequestration, or trade off one for the other, whether finishing cattle in feedlots versus field grazing is more likely to reduce net beef GHG emissions has been a point of contention in the literature. Many studies show that feedlots are the more GHG‐efficient beef finishing strategy because of reductions in enteric CH ₄ emissions resulting from more digestible feed and greater stocking densities, compared to more fibrous diets and longer finishing times in grazed beef (Capper, 2012; Desjardins et al., 2012; Eldesouky et al., 2018; Lupo et al., 2013; Pelletier et al., 2010; Stackhouse‐Lawson et al., 2012; Swain et al., 2018). Other studies argue that finishing cattle on pasture or rangeland, rather than in feedlots, is more beneficial to the climate because it promotes land‐based C sequestration and requires less climate‐intensive feed crops while also supporting natural grassland conservation and animal welfare (Chiavegato et al., 2015; Garnett et al., 2017; Llonch et al., 2017; Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016). Also, greater growth efficiency on feedlots versus grazed lands is often counter‐balanced by other negative environmental impacts, including greater water pollution (Hilborn et al., 2018), soil erosion (Janzen, 2011), and broader land degradation and GHG emissions from associated agricultural areas where feed is grown (USDA, 2015), which may or may not be included in LCA calculations. The majority of comparative LCAs on this topic assessed feedlots versus extensively grazed lands, rather than the Intensive Rotational Grazing strategies that presented the most potential for C sequestration. Also, iIntegrated Field Management and Fertilizer Use Change with Intensive Rotational Grazing during finishing phases have the potential to further improve fodder quality, increase growth efficiency, and promote land‐based C sequestration. Thus, more LCAs should compare feedlot efficiency gains with efficiency plus C sequestration gains on lands withIntensive Rotational Grazing plus other improved management strategies.

5 CONCLUSION

Overall, this meta‐analysis suggests that substantial GHG emissions reductions are possible in beef production systems, both via increased efficiency and land‐based C sequestration. To improve these estimates, LCA studies should uniformly include soil C sequestration fluxes, be conducted over longer timespans to assess the stability of added C storage, and expand boundaries to include cradle‐to‐consumption for a full accounting of beef GHG emissions. The broad‐scale feasibility of large reductions in beef GHG emissions is difficult to assess because of a lack of data on the proportion of beef production in different management systems for most regions. Future research should assess which management shifts are saturating in different regions in terms of reduced beef GHG emissions, versus which strategies still present "low‐hanging fruit" for increased broad‐scale adoption. Emissions transition costs between beef management systems are also largely unknown, and such transitions would need to be considered within a larger sustainability context of local livelihoods, environmental impacts, food waste prevention, and animal welfare. Broad‐scale implementation of more sustainable beef production practices would require political, economic, and institutional support, which have been intermittent and unreliable, particularly for many of the tropical regions that hold the greatest technical potential for reducing net beef GHG emissions. In conclusion, many of the efficiency and land‐based C sequestration strategies assessed here hold broad‐scale potential for mitigating the climate change impact of beef production, particularly if applied as suites of strategies tailored to particular regions. Nonetheless, given the unlikelihood that these strategies will be applied globally to maximum effect, beef management changes for increased efficiency and C sequestration should be considered as complements to efforts to curtail the growing global demand for beef in order to achieve large‐scale, sustainable reduction in food GHG emissions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Climate and Land Use Alliance and The Nature Conservancy for support, and D. Zarin for initial discussions and input on early drafts of the manuscript.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

DFC, ALC, AH, and KC conceived of the project and undertook the initial literature review. DFC undertook statistical analyses and productions of figures and tables. DFC, RR, JK, and CK wrote and edited the manuscript.

Figures 1-4 have all associated raw data available as online Table S1. Data for Table S1 are also publicly available data from FAO GLEAM for cattle distribution globally ( http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/). Supplementary Figures also uses the FAO Gleam dataset, plus publicly available data for Olson's global ecoregions distribution ( https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial‐ecoregions‐of‐the‐world), soil C stocks from SoilGrid ( https://data.isric.org/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search), soil degradation from FAO ( http://www.fao.org/soils‐portal/soil‐degradation‐restoration/global‐soil‐health‐indicators‐and‐assessment/soil‐heath‐physical/en/).

Abstract

The global demand for beef is rapidly increasing (FAO, 2019), raising concern about climate change impacts (Clark et al., 2020; Leip et al., 2015; Springmann et al., 2018). Beef and dairy contribute over 70% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which collectively contribute ~6.3 Gt CO ₂ ‐eq/year (Gerber et al., 2013; Herrero et al., 2016) and account for 14%-18% of human GHG emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Gerber et al., 2013). The utility of beef GHG mitigation strategies, such as land‐based carbon (C) sequestration and increased production efficiency, are actively debated (Garnett et al., 2017). We compiled 292 local comparisons of "improved" versus "conventional" beef production systems across global regions, assessing net GHG emission data from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. Our results indicate that net beef GHG emissions could be reduced substantially via changes in management. Overall, a 46 % reduction in net GHG emissions per unit of beef was achieved at sites using carbon (C) sequestration management strategies on grazed lands, and an 8% reduction in net GHGs was achieved at sites using growth efficiency strategies. However, net‐zero emissions were only achieved in 2% of studies. Among regions, studies from Brazil had the greatest improvement, with management strategies for C sequestration and efficiency reducing beef GHG emissions by 57%. In the United States, C sequestration strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by over 100% (net‐zero emissions) in a few grazing systems, whereas efficiency strategies were not successful at reducing GHGs, possibly because of high baseline efficiency in the region. This meta‐analysis offers insight into pathways to substantially reduce beef production's global GHG emissions. Nonetheless, even if these improved land‐based and efficiency management strategies could be fully applied globally, the trajectory of growth in beef demand will likely more than offset GHG emissions reductions and lead to further warming unless there is also reduced beef consumption.

1 INTRODUCTION

On average, beef production emits 2-9 times the greenhouse gases (GHGs) of other animal products, and >50 times the GHGs of most plant‐based foods per unit of protein (Clune et al., 2017; Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Searchinger et al., 2019). Beef production is also a major driver of global deforestation and land degradation (Bustamante et al., 2012; Cederberg et al., 2011). Globally, cattle produce ~78% of total livestock GHG emissions (including other livestock like goats, sheep, etc.), and enteric methane (CH ₄) is the largest beef GHG source, contributing ~35% of total livestock emissions in carbon dioxide‐equivalents (CO ₂‐eq; Herrero et al., 2016). The other top sources of total livestock GHG emissions include nitrous oxide (N ₂O) from soils in fertilized feed production (~25% of livestock CO 2 eq emissions), CO ₂ from soils in feed production (~15% of livestock emissions), N ₂O and CH ₄ from manure management (~12%), and CO ₂ from land‐use/land cover change (~6%; FAO, 2019; Herrero et al., 2016; Hilborn et al., 2018). A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Sustainable Land Management called for improved livestock management to mitigate climate change, with co‐benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and animal welfare (IPCC, 2019; Llonch et al., 2017). In addition, diet switching away from beef to plant‐based diets could reduce total food GHG emissions by up to 70% at low cost and with health co‐benefits (Springmann et al., 2016; Stehfest et al., 2009). However, given that the demand for beef has dropped very little per capita despite the climate and health impacts of beef (Searchinger et al., 2019), assessing and implementing best practices for beef production is necessary to help mitigate climate change.

Net GHG emissions from beef production vary fourfold globally, indicating that there is substantial room for improvement among a large proportion of producers (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Opportunities for improvement in beef management and GHG emissions reductions also vary among global regions, depending on environmental factors such as soil type and degradation status, land‐use history, vegetation cover, climate, cattle breeds, and socioeconomic factors (Conant et al., 2017; McSherry & Ritchie, 2013). To date, there has been no broad comparison of the potential reduction in beef GHG emissions that are possible by changing beef management systems across global regions. This study aimed to clarify the potential for management changes to minimize and/or offset beef GHG emissions across and within global regions.

Beef management strategies to reduce GHG emissions generally fall under two broad categories: (1) increased efficiency to produce more beef per unit of GHG emitted, and (2) enhanced land‐based C sequestration to offset cattle GHG emissions. Increased efficiency approaches often focus on improving feed quality and/or genetic improvements to aid in digestion and increase rates of weight gain while reducing enteric CH ₄ emissions per unit of beef (Henderson et al., 2015). Land‐based strategies, by comparison, emphasize soil and plant C sequestration via improved management of grazed land, including planting trees, addition of C‐rich organic compost, and changes in fertilization to increase plant growth, soil C sequestration, and/or reduce emissions of N ₂O from soils (Gravuer et al., 2019). Fundamental to both of these avenues for reducing beef GHG emissions is the need to dramatically diminish the rate of conversion of natural grassland and forest area into new pasture or grazing land, since avoided land conversion represents a climate change mitigation potential (3719 Tg CO ₂‐eq/year) roughly equal to past calculations of emissions reductions with improved agriculture and grassland management (4817 Tg CO ₂‐eq/year; Griscom et al., 2017). Within these two broad categories, there are specific management improvements that have been tested in different regions.

Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are an increasingly popular method for accounting net GHG emissions across an entire beef production system, such as from cradle‐to‐farm gate or cradle‐to‐consumption. In particular, comparative LCAs that assess improved versus conventional beef management in nearby systems are useful for determining how much a given management shift might reduce GHG emissions in a given region. Some recent studies have found that beef GHG emissions can be reduced to net‐zero or even negative emissions (i.e., net C sequestration) with improved management in temperate ecosystem grazed lands (Herrero et al., 2016; Paustian et al., 2016; Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016), although management‐related soil C sequestration rates may diminish over time, with added soil C storage potentially reversible under subsequent disturbances and/or climate change (Godde et al., 2020). Meanwhile, ongoing enteric methane emissions from cattle are unavoidable, and are likely to increase with increased beef production. Also, other recent management comparisons suggest no significant reduction in net beef GHG emissions in grassfed/grazed versus grainfed/feedlot systems (Clark & Tilman, 2017; Garnett et al., 2017). Thus, a formal assessment of a broader suite of management changes across global regions is needed to elucidate the potential for substantial reductions in beef GHG emissions.

Here, we present a meta‐analysis of comparative LCA studies from different global regions to identify the most successful beef management strategies for reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef and/or per unit of land. We identified comparative LCA studies that evaluated local management changes aimed at reducing beef GHG emissions via increased efficiency, increased land‐based C sequestration, or both. We calculated the potential GHG mitigation "Effect Size" for the management shifts in each study, and then explored broad patterns across management strategies, among global regions, and within regions. This approach also identified which management changes were most studied within and among different regions. Our results provide insight into the global and regional potential for a variety of beef management strategies to mitigate beef GHG emissions.

2 METHODS

2.1 Meta‐analysis of comparative beef management LCAs

We compiled data from LCAs that compared total GHG emissions from at least two beef management systems within nearby/similar environmental settings to conduct a meta‐analysis comparing results across studies. Broadly, LCAs attempt to identify and measure the total GHG flux for the entire production (and sometimes distribution and consumption) of a product; however, the methods embedded within individual LCA models vary across a number of dimensions, including the GHG fluxes accounted, the physical boundary of the study (e.g., cradle‐to‐farm gate, cradle‐to‐distribution, cradle‐to‐consumption; Table S1), and the proportion of on‐the‐ground data versus literature estimates (McClellande et al., 2018). Given the heterogeneity of LCA models, the resulting net GHG emissions, or C footprints, can vary substantially among studies, and generally are not directly comparable. Thus, we used a meta‐analysis approach to control for this heterogeneity in total fluxes between studies by calculating a unitless parameter for each management comparison as:

We relied on author identification within each study of the "improved" management system relative to the "conventional" system such that improved versus conventional was locally defined. Effect Sizes below zero indicate a net decrease in GHG emissions with improved management. Because the natural log of a ratio calculates the proportional shift, we present Effect Sizes as raw data values (fractions) in figures, and as percent change in the text for ease of interpretation. In a few cases, one or both emission values were negative (i.e., net C uptake into the system), so a positive number on the same order of magnitude as the measured fluxes was added to the control and treatment values to transform them into positive values, preserving the directional difference between control and treatment, before calculating Effect Size.

2.2 Data collection

Our review of papers began in 2018 with collection and review of all citations of beef GHG LCAs from two recent reviews on the environmental impacts of food (Clune et al., 2017; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Neither of these previous reviews attempted to assess differences among beef management strategies. We then conducted an additional search of the scientific literature using Web of Science and Google Scholar in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, using the search terms: "livestock," "cattle," "beef," "beef production," "beef management," "LCA," "life cycle assessment," "carbon," "greenhouse gas," "methane," and/or "grazing." We assessed all papers identified through these searches by reading title, abstract, and keywords to determine whether the study was a comparative beef production LCA (i.e., compared at least two management systems). We included studies that provided calculated net GHG emissions with errors associated, and statistical comparisons among treatments. We then conducted a forward citation search for all of the papers initially identified since the recent body of literature on beef LCAs has rapidly grown since 2006 (date of first paper found). We also assessed the gray literature, including government reports, dissertations, and conference proceedings from the conference: Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri‐Food Sector. Assessment of the gray literature was intended to reduce publication bias, but because of our inclusion requirements (e.g., error, statistics), few gray literature studies were included.

We found a total of 57 comparative beef LCA studies across global regions (Figure 1), with most studies comparing numerous management changes relative to a control, or conventional, management system, generating a total of 292 comparisons of improved versus conventional management ( n = 292, Table 1; Table S1). Most studies provided GHG estimates from at least cradle‐to‐gate, and included input‐related GHG emissions (e.g., related to the production and transportation of fertilizers, feed, and water), processing‐related GHG emissions (animal maintenance, slaughter, packaging), and output‐related GHG emissions (animals, soils, machinery use). From each study, we tabulated which GHG fluxes were included, the system boundaries, the type of LCA model used, the unit of measure (i.e., GHGs produced per head of cattle, per herd, per gram of protein/beef, or per land unit), and all aspects of management changes that were compared (Table S1). Finally, we recorded the net GHG flux for each improved and control management strategy within each paper, and used these to calculate the Effect Size for each management shift. In most cases, average data were provided in tables or text within the study, and in cases where data were only available in figures we extracted data using Data Thief III software (2018). Studies were all published between 2006 and 2018, with a linear increase in the number of studies per year over time (from 2 in 2006 to 10 in 2018), illustrating the growing use of LCA studies to assess and compare beef management strategies.

Management strategy type

Treatment examples

Breed comparison

Crossbreeding to reduce the calving interval, age at first calving, and increase beef yield per animal

Selection for low inbreeding which allows for animals with better growth and efficiency

Conventional versus Organic beef production

Eliminating the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives, growth hormones, and genetically engineered breeding

Extensive versus Intensive rotational grazing

Switching from a non‐irrigated, lightly stocked system to more heavily stocked, irrigated systems, often characterized by rotational grazing with short recovery times for plants to regenerate

Feedlots versus Grazing finished

Conducting the finishing phase of cattle production in a pasture or rangeland, rather than a feedlot, with the goal to quickly fatten cattle

Fertilizer use change

Reduction of mineral N fertilization with the aim of reducing GHG emissions from soils

Increase in mineral N fertilization with the aim of increasing plant growth and nutrient content

Addition of manure with the aim of increasing plant growth and nutrient content

Improved Feed/Supplements

Dietary modifications aimed at reducing enteric CH₄ emissions and increasing growth efficiency, including changes in forage versus feed levels, pasture grass species with greater nutrient content, dietary supplementation with polyunsaturated lipids, and use of dried grains

Integrated field management

Integrating trees and/or organic soil amendments and/or inorganic nutrients to enhance plant and soil C sequestration in degraded pasture and/or rangeland.

Cattle lifecycle management

Weaning cows earlier so that they can spend additional time in the finishing phase as a means of more efficiently converting feed to weight gain

Younger age at slaughter

2.2.1 Management comparisons

Across studies, management changes were generally targeted at reducing total beef GHG emissions. Because the improved versus conventional comparison was locally defined, studies varied somewhat in which specific management change was identified as "improved" (Table 1). We grouped studies into eight categories based on the primary management changes across studies (Tables 1 and S1). The eight categories included two strategies focused on land‐based C sequestration to offset beef GHG emissions: (1) conventional field management versus Integrated Field Management (improved), which used application of C‐rich organic compost, intercropping feed/fodder plants with trees, and/or agroforestry ( n = 48); (2) extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing as the improved practice (i.e., adaptive‐multi‐paddock grazing or high‐intensity, short‐duration grazing, n = 58), which aims to promote greater plant growth, improved forage quality, and increase soil C sequestration during field recovery times between short (e.g., hours to days) and intense grazing periods (Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016).

We included three efficiency strategies: (3) conventional versus Improved Feed/Supplements, achieved by providing feed with greater nutritional value, and/or vitamins to increase growth and reduce enteric CH ₄ emissions per unit of beef ( n = 65); (4) Breed Comparison of conventional/common cattle breeds versus improved breeds, such as cross‐bred or less‐used strains ( n = 23); (5) conventional versus improved Cattle Lifecycle Management, with management changes including shifts in age of slaughter, weight at slaughter, and/or age to pasture ( n = 45), with the goal of maximizing weight gain per GHG emission at the time of slaughter.

We had two categories that blended efficiency and C sequestration to reduce overall beef GHG emissions: (6) Feedlot versus Grazing finished (i.e., grassfed as the improved strategy, n = 8), which compared growth efficiency on feedlots versus growth efficiency plus C sequestration on grazed lands; (7) Fertilizer Use Change ( n = 33), with some studies increasing fertilizer application as the "improved" strategy, and other studies reducing fertilizer application as the "improved" strategy (Table 1). Because of this variation, we broke this category down into three subcategories based on the authors' definition within each study: (a) increased inorganic fertilizer application as an improved practice to increase plant growth and improve forage quality ( n = 21); (b) manure additions as an improved practice to increase plant growth and improve forage quality ( n = 3); and (c) reduced inorganic fertilizer application as an improved practice to reduce soil N ₂O fluxes and thus minimize overall beef GHG emissions ( n = 9).

Our final category was (8) non‐organic beef production versus Organic Beef Production (improved, n = 13), which was not strictly an efficiency or a C sequestration strategy, but rather a strategy for broader sustainable land use and food production.

2.2.2 Regions

Countries and regions were grouped geographically, since local environmental factors such as climate, soil type, and soil degradation, as well as local beef production standards and cultural influences, like breeds and common feeds, could influence management outcomes. We subdivided some regions that included many studies (e.g., Brazil split from the rest of Latin America, and Canada and the United States separated from each other) resulting in the following regions: Asia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Latin America, and the United States. The types of management shifts employed were not distributed evenly across regions. The vast majority of Integrated Field Management studies occurred in Brazil (73% of the studies in this category) and Latin America (17%). Western Europe had the majority of conventional versus Organic Beef Production studies (46%), Fertilizer Use Change studies (49%), Lifecycle Management (62%), and Improved Feed/Supplement studies (49%). The majority of Feedlot versus Grazing finished studies were in the United States (63%). In contrast, extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing comparisons were more evenly distributed among Brazil (36%), Latin America (36%), and Western Europe (19%; Figure 4). It is unclear whether this variation among regions is an artifact of random differences in scientific interest, or if this indicates the popularity of different sustainable management strategies among regions.

2.2.3 Consideration of covariates

We assessed covariates that could bias results among studies. We tabulated all available covariate data presented within studies that could bias outcomes, including inclusion or not of soil C fluxes, unit of measure, system boundaries, duration of study, and type of LCA model used (Table S1).

First, we noted whether an LCA model included soil C sequestration and GHG emissions from soils and manure. Given that grazing can change C sequestration, loss, and storage levels in soil, inclusion of this flux could have a large impact on the net GHG footprint. All management change categories except Fertilizer Use Change had studies that included soil C in the LCA, with 10%-55% of studies within other categories including soil C sequestration. Thus, we excluded the Fertilizer Use Change in assessment of how inclusion of soil C fluxes altered net GHG calculations in LCAs. Notably, soil C fluxes were absent from a majority of the LCAs, so fewer Effect Sizes included soil C sequestration ( n = 69) versus omitting this C flux ( n = 221). Most studies that were focused on land‐based C sequestration (Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing) included soil C fluxes.

We gave special consideration to the unit of measurement since some studies calculated GHG emissions per unit of beef, whereas others (or sometimes the same study) calculated GHG emissions per unit of land area. This distinction was assessed because with increased productivity, GHG emissions per unit of beef could decline if efficiency increases, whereas GHG emissions per unit of land could increase if stocking densities increase enough to offset efficiency gains. Most studies calculated GHG emissions per unit of beef or protein ( n = 240), and some calculated GHG emissions per unit of land area ( n = 42, Table 2; Table S2).

(a) Management change

Unit of measure

n

Effect size (mean)

Effect size (SE)

(b) Region

Unit of measure

n

Effect size (mean)

Effect size (SE)

We also assessed the effect of the system boundary used in each study. Since competing agricultural products would require transportation and distribution C costs similar to those of beef, many livestock LCAs justify using only "on‐site" production metrics (e.g., cradle‐to‐gate) to calculate net beef GHG emissions, often referred to as partial LCAs (Teague et al., 2016). In contrast, full LCAs track all beef GHG emissions, including inputs, production, processing, distribution, and consumption. The majority of beef LCAs identified here were partial LCAs and accounted for GHGs from cradle‐to‐gate, including all life stages of cattle ( n = 229). Fewer studies focused on only the "finishing phase" (i.e., fattening period prior to slaughter; n = 23), and even fewer studies accounted from cradle‐to‐slaughter ( n = 11) or cradle‐to‐consumption ( n = 5), with the remaining studies including some variation of these three boundaries. One study included the C cost of Brazilian rainforest deforestation for new pasture within the boundary, comparing this versus improved management in existing pasture, which resulted in the most negative Effect Size measured (‐3.25, or 325% reduction in beef GHGs) (Cederberg et al. 2011), but because of this unique boundary this was not included in the statistical analysis of the 8 groupings described above. Most studies included other off‐site GHG production prior to the "cradle," like feed and fertilizer production and transportation to the site ( n = 200). We tabulated the LCA boundary used in each study (Table S1), and we did not attempt to make any correction for different system boundaries aside from the normalizing calculation of the Effect Size.

2.3 Statistical analysis

Management change category, geographic region, inclusion of soil C fluxes, system boundary, and timespan of the study were all tested as predictors of Effect Sizes in ANOVA, running separate analyses for Effect Sizes based on the two units of measure (i.e., GHG per unit beef or GHG per unit land area). Effect Sizes for each management change category and each region were tested for significant difference from zero to indicate whether there was an overall negative, positive, or neutral effect on GHG emissions. Differences among management change categories and regions were then explored using post‐hoc Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) tests. To assess how different management strategies performed within different regions, Effect Sizes for each management change category were also compared for each region separately using post‐hoc Fisher's LSD tests. Post‐hoc tests were also used to compare the influence of different LCA parameters on Effect Sizes, such as inclusion or not of soil C sequestration, soil and manure GHG fluxes, unit of measure, system boundary, and timespan. Assumptions of normality of data were tested and met. Statistical analyses were conducted in JMP Pro 14.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., 2017). Significance was determined as p < 0.05, and data are shown as averages ±1 SE.

3 RESULTS

Across all management comparisons explored in this meta‐analysis ( n = 292), 73% of studies found significant reductions in beef GHG emissions, indicating that there is broad potential for improving beef's climate impact across regions and producers. However, only 2% of comparisons indicated the potential for net‐zero or negative emissions (i.e., C sequestration) over periods <10 years, with most beef management changes still producing net positive GHG fluxes (i.e., Effect Sizes ≥‐1, Table S1), highlighting that improved beef production will still produce GHG emissions and contribute to global warming.

3.1 Strategies for land‐based carbon sequestration to reduce beef GHG emissions

Efforts to manage plants and soils explicitly for C sequestration on grazed lands, through Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing, had the greatest reductions in net beef GHG emissions, including examples of net‐zero emissions, as described below. On average, these two strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by 46 ± 6% ( n = 105).

3.1.1 Integrated field management

Integrated Field Management for C sequestration had the largest significant reduction in beef emissions among management strategies, reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef by 62 ± 9%, and reducing beef GHG emissions per unit of land by 112 ± 39% (Figure 2a,b). Thus, this was the only strategy with promise for net‐zero or negative emission beef production. Across studies included here, Integrated Field Management included strategies such as organic compost application, silvo‐agro‐forestry, and seeding to increase plant cover on grazed lands (Table 1), with most studies applying combinations of these strategies in response to local ecological conditions. The majority of these studies were from Brazil ( n = 35) and Latin America ( n = 8), and these management changes were also explored in the United States ( n = 2) and W. Europe ( n = 3; Figure 1).

3.1.2 Intensive rotational grazing

Intensive Rotational Grazing had the second largest reduction in GHG emissions per unit of beef, reducing emissions by 37 ± 7% compared with extensive grazing system, but there was no significant change in GHG emissions per unit of land for this management strategy (Figure 2a,b). One LCA for the Midwestern USA showed that an Intensive Rotational Grazing system had high enough soil C sequestration rates over 2 years to achieve net‐zero GHG emissions (Rowntree et al., 2016), compared with net positive GHG emissions from nearby feedlots (Stanley et al., 2018), in one of the few studies to compare feedlots with alternative grazing practices. Extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing management studies were mostly in Latin America ( n = 21) and Brazil ( n = 21), and were also conducted across other regions, with comparisons from Asia ( n = 1), Canada ( n = 1), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 11; Figure 1).

3.2 Management strategies to increase production efficiency

Of the management changes aimed at increasing efficiency-Improved Feed/Supplements, Breed Changes, and Lifecycle Management Change-Improved Feed/Supplements and Breed Changes both showed significant opportunities for GHG reductions. None of the efficiency‐based strategies led to net‐zero or negative emissions from beef production (Table S1). On average, these three strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by 8 ± 3%.

3.2.1 Improved Feed Quality and supplements

Improved Feed Quality significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 7 ± 2% (Figure 2a). For example, a Brazilian study showed that improved feed quality, achieved by seeding more nutrient‐rich forage grasses into pastures, reduced enteric CH ₄ production by 20% across seven different feed scenarios (Ruviaro et al., 2015). Improved Feed Quality practices commonly included adding nutrient‐rich forage or feed to cattle diets, and were studied in Australia ( n = 7), Brazil ( n = 9), Canada ( n = 7), the United States ( n = 7), and W. Europe ( n = 32; Figure 1).

3.2.2 Breed Changes

Breed Changes significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 30 ± 14% (Figure 2a). Breed Changes generally aimed to increase the efficiency of beef production per enteric CH ₄ emission of each individual cow. The types of breed comparisons used were variable across studies, but generally included comparisons of cross‐bred cattle and/or less‐used strains (improved) versus frequently used breeds (Table 1; Table S1). Breed Change comparisons were done in Asia ( n = 4), Brazil ( n = 8), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 10; Figure 1). Because of the variability in how Breed Changes were applied, there were no clear groupings to indicate which breeds or cross‐breeds were more efficient across regions.

3.2.3 Cattle Lifecycle Management Changes

On average, changes in Lifecycle Management did not lead to significant reductions in beef GHG emissions per unit of beef or per unit of land area (Figure 2a,b), possibly because of the large variability in the management changes implemented in this category, and different conventions in each region. For example, Cattle Lifecycle Management studies variably changed the timing of different production phases, such as time cattle spent in the finishing/fattening phase, the age or weight at slaughter, and/or the age of weaning (Nguyen et al., 2013; Veysset et al., 2010). There were also variable changes in the proportions of heifers versus bulls versus calves, and the annual calving rate and replacement rate of heifers (Pelletier et al., 2010). Thus, while some Cattle Lifecycle Management studies showed potential for reductions in net beef GHG emissions (Taylor et al., 2016), other studies found that the conventional (i.e., baseline or pre‐existing) lifecycle management had lower GHG emissions (Lupo et al., 2013). Cattle Lifecycle Management Changes were explored in Australia ( n = 30), Canada ( n = 2), the United States ( n = 8), and W. Europe ( n = 28; Figure 1).

3.3 Strategies for both increased efficiency and C sequestration

3.3.1 Feedlots versus Grazing

In this meta‐analysis, beef produced on grazed pastures and rangelands emitted 30 ± 12% more GHGs compared with feedlot‐finished beef per unit of beef (Figure 2a), with no difference per unit of land (Figure 2b). However, this comparison category contained the fewest data points ( n = 8) among categories, and most studies compared feedlots to conventional, low‐intensity grazing, rather than the high‐intensity grazing strategy that here showed promise for reducing GHG emissions (see above). Therefore, the comparisons in this category likely underestimate C sequestration benefits from improved, intensive grazing practices relative to feedlots. Broader comparisons for feedlots versus different types of grazing management are merited, particularly in regions where both production systems are used. Comparisons in this category came from Latin America ( n = 1), the United States ( n = 5), and W. Europe ( n = 2; Figure 1).

3.3.2 Fertilizer Use Change for efficiency, C sequestration, and/or reduced soil GHG emissions

Overall, Fertilizer Use Change as a comparison of author‐defined improved versus conventional decreased net beef GHG emissions by 26 ± 6% per unit of beef (Figure 2a), but increased GHG emissions by 86 ± 24% per unit of land (Figure 2b). For example, increased inorganic fertilizer application in Irish grazed lands increased GHG emissions per unit of land by 35% because of greater soil N ₂O emissions, yet decreased GHG emissions per unit of beef by ~9% because of improved efficiency (Foley et al., 2011).

Considering the sub‐categories of Fertilizer Use Change, increased inorganic fertilizer significantly reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 33 ± 8%, and decreased inorganic fertilizer also reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef by 11 ± 3% (Figure 3a). Per unit of land, increased inorganic fertilizer significantly increased beef GHG emissions by 62 ± 11%, manure application significantly increased GHG emissions by 173 ± 2%, and there was no change with decreased inorganic fertilizer (Figure 3b).

Thus, gains in efficiency and/or C sequestration must outbalance increases in soil GHGs that commonly result from nitrogen fertilization (e.g., N ₂O) (Liebig et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2015). Overall, this analysis suggests that gains in efficiency per unit of beaf that were achieved with increased fertilizer use were generally outbalanced by net increases in soil GHG emissions per unit of land. Fertilizer Use Change strategies were explored across Asia ( n = 1), Brazil ( n = 13), Canada ( n = 5), and W. Europe ( n = 16; Figure 1).

3.4 Non‐organic Beef Production versus Organic Beef Production

Overall, there was no significant difference in beef GHG emissions per unit beef between non‐organic and Organic Beef Production in this meta‐analysis (Figure 2a), and emissions changes per unit of land area were not assessed in the studies. There were relatively few studies comparing non‐organic versus Organic Beef Production systems, with just 13 studies from across Asia ( n = 2), Brazil ( n = 1), Latin America ( n = 3), the United States ( n = 1), and W. Europe ( n = 6).

3.5 Regional differences in GHG reductions with beef management changes

Our regional analysis indicated that some regions, like Brazil, could broadly improve efficiency and land‐based C sequestration to greatly offset beef GHG emissions, while other regions could make substantial reductions with a narrower set of strategies, like increased efficiency in Australia and land‐based C sequestration in grazed lands in the United States. Below, we present net changes among regions (Figure 4a,b), and the relative success of each management strategy within each region (Figure S1 a-p).

3.5.1 Large reductions in beef GHG emissions are attainable in Brazil/Latin America

The largest potential for reducing beef GHG emissions per unit of beef was in Brazil, with overall 57 ± 7% reductions in beef GHGs, followed by the rest of Latin America with 25 ± 4% reductions (Figure 4a). Per unit of land area, management improvements in Brazilian studies reduced beef GHG emissions by 37 ± 15% (Figure 4b). The large reductions in beef GHG emissions in Brazil resulted from successful management changes for both increased growth efficiency and land‐based C sequestration. Specifically, Brazilian studies successfully reduced beef GHG emissions by implementing Breed Changes (Figure S1a), Improved Feed/Supplements (Figure S1b), and Fertilizer Use Change (Figure S1h). Also, both decreased and increased inorganic fertilizer treatments reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1i), indicating successful site‐specific decisions to manage fertilizer either for better forage (efficiency) and C sequestration, or for reductions of soil N ₂ O emissions.

For C sequestration strategies, Brazilian and other Latin American studies also successfully used Integrated Field Management, reducing GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1l), and per unit of land (Figure S1m). Brazilian and other Latin American studies successfully implemented Intensive Rotational Grazing to reduce GHG emissions per unit of beef compared with extensive grazing, with the largest reductions in Brazil (Figure S1n). Tropical studies in these regions mainly occurred on lands where cattle are in broadleaf forest biomes that have been deforested (Figure S2 a), and many of the large reductions in GHG emissions resulted from implementation of silvo‐agro‐forestry, with reforestation and integration of trees, forage plants, and livestock on pasture and rangelands.

3.5.2 Successful increased efficiency in Australia

Australian studies achieved the third largest overall reductions in beef GHGs per unit of beef with 18 ± 3% reductions (Figure 4a). This was primarily related to successful implementation of efficiency strategies, which were the focus of all Australian studies (Table S2), and included Improved Feed/Supplements ( n = 7; Figure S1b) and changes in Cattle Lifecycle Management ( n = 3; Figure S1 d).

3.5.3 Carbon sequestration strategies most effective in the United States

In the United States, Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing LCA studies were rigorous as individual studies, albeit rare ( n = 2 and n = 1, respectively) in the broader literature, and reflect an emerging interest of these approaches for offsetting beef GHGs in the United States. Data used in these LCA studies were derived from established emissions factors (e.g., IPCC, EPA, FAO, etc.) and from peer‐reviewed field studies. Integrated Field Management and Intensive Rotational Grazing resulted in the largest reductions in beef GHG emissions among any strategy for one region, with a net negative change in emissions of 117 ± 66% (i.e., net C uptake into grazed lands) per unit of land area (Figure 4b; Figure S1m,o), compared with conventional grazing techniques. At the same time, US comparisons of Feedlot versus Grazed finished indicated overall increased GHG emissions per unit of beef with grazing (Figure 4a), with most studies using extensive, low‐intensity grazing for this comparison (Table S1). This result parallels our results for comparison of feedlots versus grazing across regions (above). Per unit of beef, there were 40% lower GHG emissions from Feedlot versus Grazed finished cattle in the United States (Figure S1f), indicating that the greater efficiency in feedlots outweighed C sequestration benefits of these extensive grazing systems. This difference was much smaller (8%) per unit of land versus per unit of beef in the USA studies (Figure S1g), likely because of lower overall cattle density and thus diffuse GHG emissions per unit of land in grazed systems compared with feedlots. In contrast to the Australian results above, application of efficiency strategies in United States resulted in no significant effect on beef GHG emissions (Figure S1 b,d).

3.5.4 Effects of management change on beef GHG emissions for W. Europe, Canada, and Asia

In W. Europe, Canada, and Asia, management "improvements" overall tended to either increase beef GHG emissions, or have no significant effect, although some specific management changes resulted in the intended reductions in beef GHG emissions.

In W. Europe, there were overall increases in beef GHG emissions per unit of land with "improvements" (22 ± 6%, Figure 4b), and there was no overall change in GHG emissions per unit of beef across management change strategies intended to offer improvements (Figure 4a). Still, there were some significant reductions in beef GHG emissions per unit of beef for the region with Improved Feed/Supplements (Figure S1b), Integrated Field Management (Figure S1l), and Fertilizer Use Change (Figure S1h,i). Increased GHG emissions per unit of land for this region were primarily related to Fertilizer Use Change strategies that increased fertilizer application (Figure S1j,k). Intensive Rotational Grazing reduced beef GHG emissions per unit of beef in this region (Figure S1n), but increased emissions per unit of land (Figure S1 o). Thus, while there were no overall improvements in W. Europe across strategies tested, there are still some promising avenues for reducing beef GHGs, particularly in relation to reducing use of inorganic fertilizers.

The largest increases in beef GHGs with "improved" management, on a per unit of land basis, were in Canada (Figure 4b), due almost entirely to large GHG emission increases with manure applications (Figure S1 j,k).

In Asia, management changes had no overall significant effect on beef GHG emissions (Figure 4a,b), although Breed Comparisons reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1a), and Intensive Rotational Grazing reduced GHG emissions per unit of beef (Figure S1n), indicating the potential for reduced GHG emissions in this region. There were relatively few comparative LCAs for Asia ( n = 8 total), so conclusions about regional trends and potential to reduce beef GHG emissions in Asia require more LCA studies.

3.6 Influence of LCA parameters on GHG effect sizes

There were some differences in Effect Sizes related to the parameters used within different LCA studies.

3.6.1 Inclusion of soil C sequestration

Overall, studies that included soil C fluxes ( n = 69) had significantly more reductions in net GHG emissions with management change than studies that did not ( n = 221). On average, studies that included soil C fluxes had 42 ± 10% reductions in GHG emissions, whereas studies that did not include soil C fluxes had 12 ± 3% reductions in GHG emission. While the direction of the effect of a given management change on GHG emissions (increase vs. reduction) was not altered by the inclusion or omission of soil C fluxes, calculating an accurate C footprint for a management strategy is the main goal of LCAs. Since soil C sequestration is one of the primary ways to offset cattle GHG emissions, future LCAs should explicitly include soil C fluxes. Inclusion of soil C sequestration was distributed across management change categories (Lifecycle Management n = 19, Improved Feed/Supplements n = 17, Extensive vs. Intensive grazing n = 9, Integrated Field Management n = 8, Conventional vs. Organic n = 5, Breed Comparison n = 4, Fertilizer Use Change n = 4, Feedlot vs. Grazing n = 3). Within management change categories, studies that included soil C fluxes had significantly larger reductions in beef GHG emissions for Breed Comparison, Extensive versus Intensive grazing, Fertilizer Use Change, and Integrated Field Management, whereas inclusion of this C flux did not influence average Effect Sizes for the other management categories.

3.6.2 Inclusion of soil and manure GHG emissions

Inclusion of soil or manure GHG emissions in LCA models was not a significant predictor of Effect Sizes in this study. In general, fewer studies included measures of GHG emissions from soil ( n = 114) versus studies with neither of these measures ( n = 179). Soil N ₂O fluxes were the most commonly included among soil GHGs (CO ₂: n = 56, CH ₄: n = 15, N ₂O: n = 104). In contrast with soil GHGs, more studies included GHG emissions from manure ( n = 218) versus no inclusion ( n = 75), and again, manure N ₂O fluxes were the most commonly included (CO ₂ n = 0, CH ₄ n = 72, N ₂O n = 193).

3.6.3 Unit of measure

Effect Sizes for two management categories, Fertilizer Use Change and extensive versus Intensive Rotational Grazing, were sensitive to the unit of measure. There were increased beef GHG emissions per unit of land area, but decreased beef GHG emissions per unit of beef for both of these management categories (see above). That is, extensive grazing systems had greater GHG emissions per unit of land, but less GHG emissions per unit beef, compared with Intensive Rotational Grazing systems. Similarly, Fertilizer Use Change increased beef GHG emissions per unit of land, but decreased beef GHG emissions per unit of beef, which some authors explained as an increase in beef production efficiency, despite greater GHG emissions per unit of land. Thus, future LCAs should include beef GHG emissions both per unit of beef or protein, and per unit of land area, for a more comprehensive assessment of the warming effect of changes in beef management.

3.6.4 Boundary and timespan effects

The physical boundary of the LCA was not a significant factor in ANOVA. The vast majority of Effect Sizes were calculated from partial LCAs that considered beef GHG fluxes from cradle‐to‐gate ( n = 229), followed by studies that considered only the "finishing" or fattening phase prior to slaughter ( n = 23), while cradle‐to‐slaughter ( n = 11) and cradle‐to‐consumption ( n = 5) were much less common. Although there were no significant differences, all studies that used the first three of these boundaries had average negative Effect Sizes, whereas cradle‐to‐consumption studies found that management changes increased beef GHGs by 10 ± 16%. This trend might suggest that using partial LCAs that ignore distribution and consumption may over‐emphasize the potential reductions in GHGs possible through management changes. More LCAs should consider a full GHG accounting from cradle‐to‐consumption.

Timespan of study was not a significant factor in our ANOVA, and did not vary greatly among studies. The period of most studies was either 1 year, or the lifespan of one generation of cattle (2-4 years). On average, studies were conducted over 2.3 ± 0.3 years, with only three studies considering timespans ≥10 years, which makes it particularly difficult to assess the longer‐term success of C sequestration strategies.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Land‐based carbon sequestration can help offset beef GHGs in the near‐term

Our results indicate that improved pasture and rangeland practices that promote land‐based C sequestration in plant biomass and in soil have the potential to contribute to climate change mitigation, at least on decadal timescales. On average, application of these strategies could reduce net beef GHGs by almost half (46%). Notably, we saw large regional variation in the magnitude of the success of these management changes, which could reflect differences in native ecosystem type (e.g., grassland vs. forest), plant community, climate, soil characteristics, land‐use history, and the type of integrated field management or intensive grazing undertaken (McSherry & Ritchie, 2013). Thus, land‐based C sequestration strategies must be finely tuned to local contexts to maximize their potential for climate change mitigation. Further exploration of these management strategies and how they can be fine‐tuned to regional contexts over the longer‐term deserves attention.

Reductions in beef GHG emissions in Brazil and Latin America would be of particular global significance, because these areas produce more beef than any other region globally, and have greater GHG emissions per unit of beef than other regions (FAO, 2019), in part because of the CO ₂ emissions from ongoing deforestation of tropical rainforests for pasture and feed crops. Fertilizer Use Change was particularly successful in Brazil and Latin America in this meta‐analysis, indicating successful local decisions balancing reduced inorganic fertilizer use in some studies/areas to minimize soils N ₂O emissions, with increased fertilizer use in other studies/areas to promote plant growth and soil C sequestration. Land‐based C sequestration strategies were particularly successful in Brazil and Latin America. Silvo‐agro‐forestry systems can sequester more C than tree plantations or pastures alone because of greater plant biomass production in roots vertically beneath the soil surface (Sharrow & Ismail, 2004), and these systems can also be more productive and profitable than conventional grazed pastures (Murgueitio et al., 2011). These systems can also divert deforestation that could otherwise occur to create new grazing lands, particularly in rainforest regions (Schroth et al., 2004), with avoided forest conversion representing the largest mitigation potential for GHG production from tropical regions overall, and particularly in Latin America (Griscom et al., 2020). Globally, the climate mitigation potential of improved nutrient management in agriculture and grasslands (706 TgCO ₂ eq/year) is nearly as much as the mitigation potential from agroforestry (1040 TgCO ₂ eq/year; Griscom et al., 2017), yet even combined these two strategies are unlikely to provide the same level of climate change mitigation as avoided tropical forest conversion (2580 TgCO ₂ eq/year) and reforestation of marginal grazed land in the tropics (1250 TgCO ₂ eq/year; Griscom et al., 2020), which would likely require diet shifting away from beef. National policies to reduce deforestation are likely needed to support and promote Integrated Field Management, Fertilizer Use Change, and Intensive Rotational Grazing on existing pasturelands (Bowman et al., 2012).

Temperate grassland Integrated Field Management studies took the approach of diversifying forage species and applying C‐rich organic soil amendments, with a few USA studies successfully doubling rates of soil C sequestration (Drinkwater et al., 1998), and reducing beef GHG emissions by over 100% with on‐site waste management and compost production (DeLonge et al., 2013; Ryals & Silver, 2013). Thus, soil amendments that contain C and nutrients and promote plant growth without large increases in soil GHG fluxes represent an important potential strategy for reducing grazed beef GHG emissions in grassland regions, although nutrient runoff challenges must be addressed (Gravuer et al., 2019). Furthermore, while one‐time applications of compost may not negatively impact some grassland plant communities (Ryals et al., 2016), nutrient addition can reduce natural grassland diversity (Bobbink et al., 1998; Suding et al., 2005), so more research on biodiversity impacts in native grasslands is necessary. It is promising that adoption of C sequestration management on grazed lands in temperate regions appears to be growing, as indicated by increased funding for and promotion of adding C‐rich organic compost in Californian and adoption of soil health programs in US beef production (CalCAN, 2019; N 4E, 2018), and projections of increased global adoption rates of improved grazing management and other land‐based strategies for reducing GHG emissions, like forest and grassland protection, methane digesters, and nutrient management (ProjectDrawdown, 2020). A more comprehensive analysis of current and potential adoption rates of improved beef management strategies within existing beef production systems at national and sub‐nations levels would help indicate how much more improvement is possible and likely.

Grazing‐based strategies for climate mitigation have been shown to have varying effects on C sequestration rates among sites and over time (Henderson et al., 2015). In particular, the extent of soil degradation varied among regions (Figure S2b), leading to different baselines for comparison with increased soil C storage. Promotion of soil C sequestration is typically more successful on degraded lands that have lost large portions of their native soil C (Figure S2c), and it has been estimated that restoring depleted C stocks represents 47% of the potential for climate change mitigation on agricultural and grasslands (Bossio et al., 2020; Lal, 2004). A full spatial analysis of the extent to which beef management practices could increase soil C sequestration would require better data than is currently available about which strategies are being used on different degraded lands. Long‐term dynamics of soil C sequestration on grazed lands must also be assessed, since C sequestration rates in soils typically decline after initial increases that can occur with improved management (Schmidt et al., 2011; Six et al., 2002). For example, soil C stocks increased rapidly for 6 years after conversion of degraded row cropland to intensive rotational grazing in three farms in the southeastern USA, but then C sequestration rates plateaued (Machmuller et al., 2015), and soil C stocks appeared to increase for the first 13 out of 20 years in a chronosequence study in similar sites in the southeastern USA using multi‐species pasture rotation (Rowntree et al., 2020). Nonetheless, even the shorter‐term recovery of previously existing soil C on grazed lands presents a feasible and substantial reduction in beef GHG emissions, and should be pursued to mitigate climate change.

4.2 To what extent can efficiency strategies reduce beef emissions?

In this meta‐analysis, improved efficiency practices provided an average 8% reduction in beef GHG emissions globally, with most of these GHG reductions related to Breed Change, which alone reduced beef GHGs by 30%, a smaller contribution from Improved Feed, and no change with Lifecycle Management. This result contrasts with previous global estimates that Improved Feed could mitigate roughly three times more CO ₂‐eq than Breed Changes and lifecycle management combined (Griscom et al., 2017). While these GHG reductions related to efficiency gains present a substantial opportunity for climate mitigation, it seems unlikely that increased efficiency alone will reduce net global beef production GHG emissions on par with growing demand (Springmann et al., 2018). Consumption of meat products has more than doubled since 1961 (IPCC, 2019), and an 80% increase in global food GHG emissions is projected from 2009 to 2050 due to population growth and income‐related dietary shifts toward more meat (Tilman & Clark, 2014). Even with increased efficiency, greater production to meet greater demand will increase net beef GHG emissions.

Also, in regions where growth efficiency is already nearly maximized, the potential for further gains appears small. For example, in the United States, where feedlots make up 97% of US cattle finishing phases (vs. 3% that are grass‐finished; Cheung et al., 2017), efficiency techniques had no overall effect on beef GHGs, possibly because there is already low GHG emission intensity per unit of beef in the United States compared to other regions (Herrero et al., 2016). Large efficiency gains in US beef production in recent decades could actually open the possibility for restoration of some pasture lands back to natural forest and grassland, for further C sequestration opportunities related to United States beef (Fargione et al., 2018). In contrast with the results for the United States, Australia, Brazil, and Asia had significant reductions in beef GHG emissions in studies that implemented efficiency strategies. This regional contrast is probably linked to the lower baseline efficiency of beef production in Australia relative to the United States and W. Europe, and even lower baseline efficiency in parts of Latin America, SE Asia, and Africa, where beef demand is growing fastest (Herrero & Thornton, 2013; Searchinger et al., 2019). Thus, regions with relatively lower baseline efficiency and rapidly increasing demand for beef have a significant opportunity to reduce beef GHG emissions by broader implementation of efficiency management strategies like improved feed, breed and lifecycle changes. More information on which strategies are already saturating in different regions, and the rates of adoption of new strategies, would facilitate calculation of the remaining reductions in beef GHG emissions that are possible and likely.

Considering the strategies that blend efficiency and C sequestration, or trade off one for the other, whether finishing cattle in feedlots versus field grazing is more likely to reduce net beef GHG emissions has been a point of contention in the literature. Many studies show that feedlots are the more GHG‐efficient beef finishing strategy because of reductions in enteric CH ₄ emissions resulting from more digestible feed and greater stocking densities, compared to more fibrous diets and longer finishing times in grazed beef (Capper, 2012; Desjardins et al., 2012; Eldesouky et al., 2018; Lupo et al., 2013; Pelletier et al., 2010; Stackhouse‐Lawson et al., 2012; Swain et al., 2018). Other studies argue that finishing cattle on pasture or rangeland, rather than in feedlots, is more beneficial to the climate because it promotes land‐based C sequestration and requires less climate‐intensive feed crops while also supporting natural grassland conservation and animal welfare (Chiavegato et al., 2015; Garnett et al., 2017; Llonch et al., 2017; Rowntree et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018; Teague et al., 2016). Also, greater growth efficiency on feedlots versus grazed lands is often counter‐balanced by other negative environmental impacts, including greater water pollution (Hilborn et al., 2018), soil erosion (Janzen, 2011), and broader land degradation and GHG emissions from associated agricultural areas where feed is grown (USDA, 2015), which may or may not be included in LCA calculations. The majority of comparative LCAs on this topic assessed feedlots versus extensively grazed lands, rather than the Intensive Rotational Grazing strategies that presented the most potential for C sequestration. Also, iIntegrated Field Management and Fertilizer Use Change with Intensive Rotational Grazing during finishing phases have the potential to further improve fodder quality, increase growth efficiency, and promote land‐based C sequestration. Thus, more LCAs should compare feedlot efficiency gains with efficiency plus C sequestration gains on lands withIntensive Rotational Grazing plus other improved management strategies.

5 CONCLUSION

Overall, this meta‐analysis suggests that substantial GHG emissions reductions are possible in beef production systems, both via increased efficiency and land‐based C sequestration. To improve these estimates, LCA studies should uniformly include soil C sequestration fluxes, be conducted over longer timespans to assess the stability of added C storage, and expand boundaries to include cradle‐to‐consumption for a full accounting of beef GHG emissions. The broad‐scale feasibility of large reductions in beef GHG emissions is difficult to assess because of a lack of data on the proportion of beef production in different management systems for most regions. Future research should assess which management shifts are saturating in different regions in terms of reduced beef GHG emissions, versus which strategies still present "low‐hanging fruit" for increased broad‐scale adoption. Emissions transition costs between beef management systems are also largely unknown, and such transitions would need to be considered within a larger sustainability context of local livelihoods, environmental impacts, food waste prevention, and animal welfare. Broad‐scale implementation of more sustainable beef production practices would require political, economic, and institutional support, which have been intermittent and unreliable, particularly for many of the tropical regions that hold the greatest technical potential for reducing net beef GHG emissions. In conclusion, many of the efficiency and land‐based C sequestration strategies assessed here hold broad‐scale potential for mitigating the climate change impact of beef production, particularly if applied as suites of strategies tailored to particular regions. Nonetheless, given the unlikelihood that these strategies will be applied globally to maximum effect, beef management changes for increased efficiency and C sequestration should be considered as complements to efforts to curtail the growing global demand for beef in order to achieve large‐scale, sustainable reduction in food GHG emissions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Climate and Land Use Alliance and The Nature Conservancy for support, and D. Zarin for initial discussions and input on early drafts of the manuscript.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

DFC, ALC, AH, and KC conceived of the project and undertook the initial literature review. DFC undertook statistical analyses and productions of figures and tables. DFC, RR, JK, and CK wrote and edited the manuscript.

Figures 1-4 have all associated raw data available as online Table S1. Data for Table S1 are also publicly available data from FAO GLEAM for cattle distribution globally ( http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/). Supplementary Figures also uses the FAO Gleam dataset, plus publicly available data for Olson's global ecoregions distribution ( https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial‐ecoregions‐of‐the‐world), soil C stocks from SoilGrid ( https://data.isric.org/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search), soil degradation from FAO ( http://www.fao.org/soils‐portal/soil‐degradation‐restoration/global‐soil‐health‐indicators‐and‐assessment/soil‐heath‐physical/en/).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing climate impacts of beef production: A synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Daniela F. Cusack Corresponding Author Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Warner College of Natural Resources, B205 Natural and Environmental Sciences Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA Correspondence Daniela F.

# data[].attributes.headline
Choosing Sustainability Over Steak?  Think Again

# data[].attributes.subject
Choosing Sustainability Over Steak?  Think Again

# data[].attributes.body
Check out this article by Stephanie A Meyer for MPls St Paul Magazine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite misperceptions about beef-and there are many-it would be hard to create a more sustainable, nutrient-rich, and naturally delicious meal than a sizzling steak alongside a bounty of garlicky roasted vegetables. Or carne asada tacos rolled up in fresh tortillas with homemade salsa and creamy avocado, garnished with wisps of cilantro. Or-or!-a juicy burger piled high with ripe tomato, crisp lettuce, and the bite of sweet onion, devoured while standing next to the grill. Mayo, mustard, ketchup, or all three? Your choice.

If you've been missing those family-favorite meals, thinking you were protecting the environment and your health, then it's time to come up to speed with the science.

Let's break down two of the most common misperceptions about beef so that you can welcome one of the most nourishing, pleasurable foods in the world back to your table. (Spoiler alert: red meat does not always mean red alert.)

The Misunderstood Belch Heard 'Round the World

Mike Landuyt, of Landuyt Land and Livestock, is a fourth-generation farmer based in Walnut Grove, Minnesota (yes, that Walnut Grove, of Little House on the Prairie fame).

The Landuyt operation, which was awarded a regional Environmental Stewardship Award from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) for its sustainability practices, is both a farm and cattle feedlot. The crops feed the 700 head of cattle, and the manure from the animals fertilizes the crops.

"Our family has been farming in this community since 1928 because we've been good stewards of the land, our animals, and our business. [We] plan to be here for another 93 years, working with the descendants of the same neighbors we've worked with for generations. To me, that's a big part of sustainability." Mike Landuyt, Landuyt Land and Livestock

Landuyt's definition of sustainability is all-encompassing. When his grandfather farmed post-World War II, he was still using mules, without the ability to precisely measure soil health, use manure for fertilizer, or manage water. Today, technology has transformed the business, from machinery to practices to structures. In fact, the only original building remaining is the house.

The technology-based, sustainable practices employed by Landuyt conserve fuel, use less fertilizer, preserve topsoil, better protect the animals, and manage run-off. And equally as important, they also make economic sense.

"I enjoy taking care of cattle, and it just so happens that we make more money when they're happy and well cared for," says Landuyt. He also enjoys knowing his family business is constantly improving.

"Farming is a long game-this is chess, not checkers," he says. "Our family has been farming in this community since 1928 because we've been good stewards of the land, our animals, and our business. We've been open to new practices and a lot of change. And I'm always motivated by my family's legacy and our connection to Walnut Grove. Our family plans to be here for another 93 years, working with the descendants of the same neighbors we've worked with for generations. To me, that's a big part of sustainability."

The Landuyt Land and Livestock operation is but one example of how farms and ranches all over the U.S. have come to produce the most sustainable beef in the world. Due to the technological improvements employed by Landuyt and others like him, beef cattle in the U.S. are responsible for just two percent of direct emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

And if cattle belching methane has you concerned about beef and climate change, know that unlike carbon, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, the life cycle of methane is about 12 years. So while cow belching grabs headlines, methane isn't accumulating in the atmosphere.

The Nutritional Whiplash of Red Meat

For years, Americans were warned to stave off beef in order to avoid heart disease. But that's old news. With more than 20 gold standard clinical studies showing that beef consumption actually supports heart health, including lowering cholesterol and blood pressure, it's time to finally put this myth to rest.

"The truth is that beef is high in protein and has an impressive nutrient profile, rich in Vitamin B6, B12, zinc, heme iron, choline, and five more nutrients that humans need for optimal health and can't get all in one place from other food sources," says Shalene McNeill, PhD, RDN, executive director of Nutrition Science, Health & Wellness at NCBA. "The science shows, beef is not the problem. Cattle are amazing in their ability to take land that isn't good for growing other food and turn it into a nutrition powerhouse. I joke with my kids that sometimes beef gets a bad rap for hanging out with the wrong crowd. Some of the studies that have raised questions about beef and health are looking at unhealthy diets with beef-people eating beef with refined starches, sugars, fats, and other forms of empty calories."

Dr. McNeill notes that diets devoid of beef are lower in overall nutrition, and that including beef in a diet comprised of too much processed food-aka, the standard American diet-can offset the lack of protein and minerals in otherwise nutrient-poor meals.

"Sometimes beef is the most nutritious food in an adolescent's diet. Our efforts should not be to limit beef consumption-currently, the average American consumes only 2 ounces of beef per day-but to teach people how to surround beef with other heart-healthy foods."

With nearly one-third of the U.S. population at risk of vitamin deficiency, Dr. McNeill explains that "beef is uniquely nutrient rich, high in protein, and low in environmental impact. And it tastes incredible, which is important when planning meals for growing (and picky!) children and teens. You can't beat lean beef for having the most nutrients for the least number of calories and outright deliciousness."

Ultimately, sustainability is about the ability to sustain human life. That encompasses both environmental stewardship and eating food that provides adequate nourishment. Beef meets both of those measures, so when planning dinner tonight, enjoy those tacos guiltlessly and give thanks for the time, effort, and care that went into bringing sustainable, delicious beef to your table.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Choosing Sustainability Over Steak? Think Again (And Fire Up the Grill)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite misperceptions about beef-and there are many-it would be hard to create a more sustainable, nutrient-rich, and naturally delicious meal than a sizzling steak alongside a bounty of garlicky roasted vegetables. Or carne asada tacos rolled up in fresh tortillas with homemade salsa and creamy avocado, garnished with wisps of cilantro.

# data[].attributes.headline
Young Women Herding Family School Careers and Cattle

# data[].attributes.subject
Young Women Herding Family School Careers and Cattle

# data[].attributes.body
On National Ag Day during Women’s History Month, NCBA shares just a few stories about the diverse women who help produce nutritious beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With March being National Women's History Month and March 23 being National Ag Day, special attention is being brought onto female beef farmers and ranchers all across the country

DENVER, March 22, 2021 - Western heritage has painted the picture of a rugged cowboy on the ranch. However, according to the most recent Agriculture Census, more than 230,000 farms or ranches across America have a woman at the helm.

As National Women's History Month and National Ag Day converge on March 23, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, is sharing just a few of the stories of the thousands of women across the country who produce delicious high-quality beef.

The following are three profiles are of women who illustrate this growing group of cattle ranchers, and the daily demands they meet at the ranch, in their homes, and at their professions.

Terryn Drieling, 36, and her husband, live and work on a large ranch in the Sandhills of Nebraska. Drieling spends her days caring for the land, cattle and their three young children, and still finds time to manage a family business and various social media profiles.

"Ranching and raising beef cattle is more than our livelihood: It's our passion. It's what lights our fire and gets us out of bed in the morning. It's our calling," she said.

The ranch is always a busy place as the family works through weather and temperature swings and the demand of caring for cattle. May marks the beginning of calving season, and family is even busier as they help cows give birth and tend to the calves' needs throughout summer.

In addition to the family's dedication to animal care, Drieling and her family, like beef farmers and ranchers across the country, are committed to preserving the land they live on and keeping their operation environmentally sustainable. They move the cows and their calves every 3-5 days through their growing season grazing rotation. The grazing rotation - or grazing plan - is mapped out at the start of every year and helps ensure they are not over-using the land, but rather are helping to improve the soil health. The plan considers what has taken place in past years, grass quality and availability and herd events like calving season.

"While it is a plan and nothing is set in stone, having this grazing plan year-in and year-out helps us make the best decisions we can for the land and livestock in our care," said Terryn. "No matter what Mother Nature throws at us, we're better prepared."

Play a external video

Three sisters support their family's multi-generational cattle ranch while balancing school, work, and household. Kinzie, 20; Karly, 20; and Avery Burtrum, 17, are instrumental in caring for Black and Red Angus Cattle at Burtrum Cattle LLC Ranch in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

When not attending class or working at Farm Data Services, Inc. - the family's agriculture accounting firm - the Burtrum sisters take on the daily chores of feeding and caring for cattle and helping with calving and everything in between.

"Ranching never stops," said Kinzie. "The cows don't know it is Christmas, Easter, or an anniversary of some sort. Whether there is a foot of snow on the ground or it is over 110 degrees, these animals we care for still need to be fed and taken care of, and there is nothing else we would rather be doing."

Caring for others and juggling numerous responsibilities comes naturally to the three siblings. Their mother also balanced a career, home responsibilities, and ranch work, until her recent passing, which only inspired the young women to take on more responsibility.

"I learned how to buy groceries and pick proteins for the home," said Avery. "Also, because my dad is busy at the ranch and office, I have had to learn to cook some meals, as well. This has taught me how to do meal prep and diversify my skills. Because of the pandemic, we switched to online grocery ordering. I utilize various resources including the Beef. It's. What's For Dinner. website to find healthy recipes."

Play a external video

Brandi Karisch, Ph.D., 37, finds the balance between lectures and livestock as a State Beef Cattle Extension Specialist for Mississippi State University, co-owner of MBK Cattle, wife, and mom to two young boys.

She and her husband started MBK Cattle in 2012. Today, they spend mornings, evenings, and weekends in the fields with their young children raising registered Simmental and SimAngus cattle.

"We choose to raise cattle because we love it, and we cannot imagine a life without cattle in it," Karisch said. "Our goal is to give these cattle the best possible life we can while they are entrusted in our care. For our family, cows are something we eat, sleep, and breathe."

When not raising kids and cattle on the farm, Karisch is never far from agriculture. She works full time providing research and training for beef cattle producers in Mississippi, and across the southeast, equipping them with the latest research and techniques needed to optimize cattle care and produce beef in a sustainable way, hopefully ensuring they can pass their farm to the next generation.

Whether it's her job at the University or at the ranch, the animal care is a top priority. " We take care of our cattle similar to how we take care of our kids," Karisch said. "One thing that I was always taught as a child, and they we are teaching our kids is that the cattle come first. If it's hot, or cold, or wet it doesn't matter because the cattle are taken care of because it is our responsibility to provide for them."

These women remain steadfast advocates for the agriculture industry. Yet, advancing cattle ranching is their true passion.

"Knowing that taking care of the land and livestock, and bringing delicious, nutritious beef to tables across this country and abroad is so much bigger than ourselves," Drieling said. "And that's not something we take lightly."

"Training the next generation, particularly the next generation of young women in the cattle industry is something that is very important to me," Karisch said. "I look at it as a way to give back to the industry that helped to mold me. I find it so fulfilling when I see that spark of confidence start to develop in a student, and see them step out of their comfort zone and become a leader."

"Growing up, I always knew strong women were the backbone to cattle ranching because that's what I saw day after day," said Karly Burtrum. "Now that I'm older and have more responsibilities - whether that's at the ranch, at school, or at home - I have a whole new level of appreciation for all of the women who came before me. I want to continue the legacy of balancing cattle ranching and our lives outside of it, with as much strength, grace, and heart as they did."

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States may retain up to 50 cents on the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.

About NCBA, a Contractor to the Beef Checkoff
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is a contractor to the Beef Checkoff Program. The Beef Checkoff Program is administered by the Cattlemen's Beef Board, with oversight provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Michelle Yi Alexander
Director, Public and Media Relations
9110 E. Nichols Ave, Suite 300
Centennial, CO 80112
PH: 303.850.3392 | [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Lesser-Known Faces of the Cattle Industry: Young Women Herding Family, School, Careers and Cattle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DENVER, March 22, 2021 - Western heritage has painted the picture of a rugged cowboy on the ranch. However, according to the most recent Agriculture Census, more than 230,000 farms or ranches across America have a woman at the helm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Don’t Think You Rely on the Cattle Industry?  Think Again

# data[].attributes.subject
Don’t Think You Rely on the Cattle Industry?  Think Again

# data[].attributes.body
The Beef Industry is important to our every day lives and economy

# data[].attributes.body
Why humans can’t thrive on plants alone, an informative article by Georgia Ede, MD and published in Psycology Today March 31, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you think of animal fat, what comes to mind? Unsightly blobs of cellulite? Artery-clogging strips of gristle to be trimmed off your steak and tossed into the trash? Or a sophisticated substance that contains within it the secret to human intelligence?
Fun facts about fat
We think of fat as bad-the less of it we eat, and the less of it we carry on our bodies, the better-but this isn't the right way to think about it. Fat is not just for insulation and energy storage, it's also for nutrient absorption, cell signaling, immune function, and many other critical processes. Many people think the main difference between plant and animal fats is that animal-sourced foods contain more saturated fat, but here are a few fun, fatty facts that may surprise you:

All whole plant and animal foods naturally contain a mixture of saturated and unsaturated fats.

Some plant foods are higher in saturated fat than animal foods, with coconut oil topping the charts at 90 percent saturated fat. That's more than twice the saturated fat found in beef fat (tallow).

The primary type of fat found in pork is a monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) called oleic acid, the same fat found in olive oil.

For decades now, we've been told to avoid saturated fats-particularly those from animal foods-and to consume "heart-healthy," cholesterol-free fats from plant foods such as seeds, nuts, and olives. Public health officials say these plant fats are important because they contain two essential PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) that the human body can't manufacture:

The essential dietary omega-3 PUFA is called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA for short)

The essential dietary omega-6 PUFA is called linoleic acid (LA for short)

What often goes unsaid is that both ALA and LA are found in a wide variety of both plant and animal foods, so it is rather easy to obtain both of these PUFAs regardless of your dietary preferences, so long as you include enough fat in your diet.

But here's the rub: Our bodies really aren't looking for ALA and LA; they're looking for something better. ALA and LA are considered "parent" omegas, because they are used to manufacture the omegas we actually need: EPA, DHA, and ARA-none of which exist in plant foods.

EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) is an omega-3 PUFA that serves primarily anti-inflammatory and healing functions.

ARA (arachidonic acid) is an omega-6 often thought of as a "bad" fatty acid, because it promotes inflammation and is only found in animal foods (and algae). Yet ARA shoulders countless other responsibilities, and even promotes healing. Arachidonic acid recently stepped into my office for a long-overdue therapy session [links to my Psychology Today post entitled Do You Have Arachiphobia?, which takes you inside the tortured mind of this beneficial molecule and explains why there's no need to fear consuming it.

But what about DHA? So glad you asked...
Introducing DHA
Our brains are extremely rich in fat. About two-thirds of the human brain is fat, and a full 20 percent of that fat is a very special omega-3 fatty acid called docosahexanoic acid, or DHA.

DHA is an ancient molecule so useful to us and our fellow vertebrates (creatures with backbones) that it has remained unchanged for more than 500 million years of evolution. What makes this particular PUFA so irreplaceable?

DHA's job description is a lengthy one. Among many other functions, DHA participates in the formation of myelin, the white matter that insulates our brain circuits. It also helps maintain the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, which keeps the brain safe from unwanted outside influences.

Perhaps most importantly, DHA is critical to the development of the human cortex-the part of the brain responsible for higher-order thinking. Without DHA, the highly sophisticated connections necessary for sustained attention, decision-making, and complex problem-solving do not form properly. It has been hypothesized that without DHA, consciousness and symbolic thinking-hallmarks of the human race-would be impossible.

DHA plays a "unique and indispensable role" in the "neural signaling essential for higher intelligence." - Simon Dyall PhD, Lipid Research Scientist Bournemouth University, UK

Professor Michael Crawford, a pioneering British scientist who has been studying essential fatty acids for 50 years, theorizes that DHA's special configuration lends it unique quantum mechanical properties that allow it to buffer electron flow. This may explain why we find it in places throughout the brain and body where electricity is important: synapses where brain cell signaling takes place; mitochondria, where the electron transport chain is busy turning food into stored energy; and the retina of the eye, where photons of sunlight are transformed into electrical information.

This is a truly miraculous molecule. Plants don't have it, because plants don't need it.
Baby, have we got a molecule for you...
The most rapid phase of development of the infant cortex takes place between the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy and age 2. If enough DHA isn't available to the baby during this critical 27-month window, it is unclear whether the consequences can be completely undone. In fact we do see lower levels of DHA in people diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, including those which manifest early in life, such as autistic spectrum disorders and ADHD.

"Similar to children and adolescents born preterm, patients with ADHD, mood disorders, and psychotic disorders also exhibit decreased frontal white matter tract integrity and reduced functional connectivity within cortical networks. Together these findings support the hypothesis that perinatal deficits in DHA accrual may contribute to diminished cortical circuit development observed in major psychiatric disorders." [ McNamara RK 2015]
Plant foods contain absolutely no DHA
For those who choose vegan diets, it is important to know that plant foods contain no DHA. The omega-3 fatty acid found in plant foods like flax, walnut, and chia is alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). Unfortunately, it appears to be rather difficult for the adult human body to make DHA out of ALA, with most studies finding a conversion rate of less than 10 percent:

Note that quite a few studies find a conversion rate of 0 percent.

Whether this pathway can generate adequate amounts of DHA in all adults under all circumstances continues to be a topic of debate. Some scientists have advocated that DHA, rather than ALA, should be officially considered the essential omega-3 fatty acid. Even vocal advocates of plant-based diets, such as the authors of the recent EAT-Lancet report, acknowledge that it is unclear how much ALA one needs to consume to fulfill DHA requirements.

Indeed, it appears that the fewer animal foods we eat, the lower our DHA levels tend to be:

However, when it comes to children younger than 2 years old, the science is clear that this conversion pathway cannot and should not be relied upon to keep pace with the DHA demands of the rapidly growing body and brain. Therefore, most experts agree that caretakers should provide infants and very young children with dietary or supplemental sources of DHA, as ALA alone is not sufficient to support healthy infant development.

DHA status and intake recommendations are based on blood levels, not brain levels. Unfortunately there is no way to measure brain DHA levels in living human beings, and it's unclear whether blood levels reflect brain levels.

Bearing this in mind, it has been estimated that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suboptimal blood levels of DHA.
DHA: Don't leave home without it Include animal-sourced foods in your diet if you can
The USDA has not established specific DHA intake targets for the general population; instead it recommends everyone consume at least eight ounces of seafood per week. The easiest way to obtain DHA is to include some fatty fish in your diet, but as you can see from the table below, there are other options.
Minimize consumption of vegetable oils
Nearly all processed foods, prepared hot foods, packaged snacks, and convenience foods are made with refined vegetable oils, such as soybean or sunflower oil. Most vegetable oils are extremely, unnaturally high in LA (linoleic acid), an omega-6 fatty acid that reduces the production and effectiveness of DHA within your body. Excess linoleic acid can tilt your immune system too far towards inflammation and away from healing, so there are many reasons to minimize your consumption of vegetable oils. Your best plant oil choices are olive oil, avocado oil, coconut oil, or red palm oil. If you must include refined vegetable oil, canola oil and palm kernel oil are low in linoleic acid. Lowering your vegetable oil intake can increase the availability of DHA in your body, decreasing your need for dietary and/or supplemental DHA. The presence of high amounts of linoleic acid in the typical modern diet may help to explain why so many people appear to have low DHA levels despite the fact that most people do include animal foods in their diet already.
If you choose a plant-based diet, supplement properly
Thankfully, vegetarian and vegan-friendly DHA supplements extracted from algae are available. [Algae are neither plants nor animals . . . discuss!] These supplements are more expensive and contain lower concentrations of DHA than fish or krill oil supplements (meaning higher doses are recommended), but may be important for maintaining healthy DHA levels, particularly in mothers and babies during pregnancy and while breastfeeding. Directly consuming seaweed and other forms of edible algae instead of taking algae oil extracts is unreliable, because it's unclear whether the DHA within these fibrous foods can be released and absorbed by the human body; in other words, the DHA in edible algae may not be bioavailable. All baby formula in the U.S. is supplemented with DHA already, in an effort to mirror human mother's milk, which naturally contains DHA. If weaning your child before age 2, be sure to include DHA in your child's diet as food or supplements.
If you have psychiatric symptoms, consider supplementation
There have been numerous clinical trials of omega-3 supplements in the management of psychiatric disorders. You may be surprised to hear that most of these studies have generated only weak or mixed results. There are many possible reasons for this, not the least of which may be that the amount of linoleic acid in the diet was not taken into consideration. In other words, taking a decent dose of omega-3s without also lowering your linoleic acid consumption (by avoiding vegetable oils) may not be very helpful. However, supplementation is widely viewed as safe, and some studies noted modest benefits at doses of (combined EPA+DHA) of 1,000 to 2,000 mg per day, particularly for people with depression.
Unanswered questions
I titled this post "The Brain Needs Animal Fat," because although DHA does exist in algae, algae are not plants, and we don't know if we can access the DHA within edible algae without special extraction methods. Prior to the manufacturing of algae-derived supplements (which only became available recently), the only pre-formed DHA naturally bioavailable to everyone would have come from animal foods. For those who choose a vegan diet, I fully support and recommend algae-based supplements.

It is difficult to be sure precisely how much DHA we need, and both conversion rates and availability can vary significantly depending on age, gender, genetics, and dietary composition.

There are many questions left unanswered that go beyond the scope of this post and may deserve a follow-up post. For example, if most land animals are extremely low in DHA, does that mean everyone needs to eat seafood? Are wild land animal foods higher in DHA than standard land animal foods we find in the grocery store? How do adults choosing plant-based diets know whether they can rely on their ALA conversion pathway? Could eliminating processed foods and vegetable oils completely eliminate the apparent requirement for animal-sourced DHA (or algae oil supplementation)? Does eating a low-carbohydrate diet affect the conversion rate from ALA to DHA? Should you get tested for omega-3 deficiencies, and if so, how? Are there any disadvantages to obtaining DHA from supplements as opposed to obtaining them from animal foods?
The bottom line about DHA
Until next time, minimizing refined vegetable oils and other processed foods, and either including some animal foods in the diet or supplementing appropriately, seem to be reasonable options that likely minimize our risk.

One thing is clear. DHA is a wondrous fatty acid that the human body cannot function without, and it deserves our admiration and respect. While it is important for all of us, when it comes to building the brains of the future, it is precious and irreplaceable.
Facebook Image Credit: Rido/Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you think of animal fat, what comes to mind? Unsightly blobs of cellulite? Artery-clogging strips of gristle to be trimmed off your steak and tossed into the trash? Or a sophisticated substance that contains within it the secret to human intelligence?

# data[].attributes.headline
Better Muscle Performance - Thank you beef! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Better Muscle Performance - Thank you beef! 

# data[].attributes.body
Research shows beef helps with stronger older muscles as well - and more independence as we age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

NDSU researchers in the Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences are part of a team that has published an important study on how eating animal-based protein can impact muscular performance in adults.

"Measures Derived from Panoramic Ultrasonography and Animal-Based Protein Intake Are Related to Muscular Performance in Middle-Aged Adults" has been published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine as part of a special issue titled "Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia."

"Maintenance of physical functioning such as the ability to walk, do chores, dress and bathe oneself, and get up and down from a chair, is critical to overall health and well-being. Loss of physical abilities is associated with increased risk of not only falls and fractures, but also heart and respiratory disease not to mention decreased quality of life," Sherri Stastny, professor of dietetics, said. "Beginning as early as age 40, we start to lose strength and muscle mass, at a very slow, but unfortunately, annual rate. Our study showed that animal-based protein intake had a positive influence on both upper and lower body strength and endurance measures.

"We wanted to study protein intake overall, and divided it into either plant-based or animal-based protein because we know that plant-based foods tend to have proteins that may be used as energy instead of stimulating muscle maintenance and building," she said. "Key sources of protein-rich animal-based foods that contain more of needed proteins include low-fat milk and yogurt, lean beef and pork, whey protein drinks and other foods. Getting enough key protein in the diet could slow loss of muscle as we age."

The team, which included more than a dozen graduate and undergraduate students, collected data during 2016 to 2018 by recruiting 91 middle-aged adults. Three-day food diaries estimated dietary intakes and muscular performance was assessed using isokinetic dynamometry, a chair stand test and handgrip strength test.

The researchers investigated skeletal muscle size using panoramic ultrasonography images of the upper-leg muscle. The study results found that animal-based protein intake is related to better muscular performance.

The work was funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Minnesota Beef Council, with longtime support from the North Dakota Beef Commission.

More information: Nathaniel R. Johnson et al. Measures Derived from Panoramic Ultrasonography and Animal-Based Protein Intake Are Related to Muscular Performance in Middle-Aged Adults, Journal of Clinical Medicine (2021). DOI: 10.3390/jcm10050988

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef council-backed research links animal-based protein intake to better muscle performance versus plant protein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NDSU researchers in the Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences are part of a team that has published an important study on how eating animal-based protein can impact muscular performance in adults.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vintage Cowboy - American Grown, My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.subject
Vintage Cowboy - American Grown, My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.body
100 year old Castle Ranch begins a diversification that goes so well with beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vintage Cowboy - FULL EPISODE American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag

# data[].attributes.headline
A Young Native American rodeo star makes an impact 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Young Native American rodeo star makes an impact 

# data[].attributes.body
Vogue magazine shares a story about a young female bull rider Najiah Knight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The secrets to a successful ride: "Keep your feet in, chest out, your head tucked, shoulders back. If the bull twists around to the left, I drop my handle down a little bit." And the secret to getting bucked off? "Try to land good and get up and get outta there."

Despite best-laid plans, though, sometimes things go very wrong. I ask Najiah about the scar over her right eye. "That's from Louisiana-I got my face stepped on, and my cage [the face mask at the front of her helmet] kind of ground into my face. I woke up the next morning with my eye swollen shut." And just how long did getting her face stomped on keep her down? "Not long," she says. "I rode the next day."

When she's not riding bulls, Najiah's working out, every day: arms, legs, core; sit-ups, pull-ups, crunches. When she's not riding bulls or working out, she's likely playing basketball or volleyball or hip-hop dancing. "I'm not really into makeup and that kind of stuff," she says.

After a shaky start at the Garden on Friday night, Najiah brushed herself off-though when I saw her after her ride, she still had dirt on her forehead-and got back on that, er, bull, winning Sunday's final round and going back home with an even bigger smile on her face.

The world is starting to take notice: "Najiah is as committed as any athlete I have ever met," says Sean Gleason, the CEO of the Professional Bull Riders tour. So are the sponsors. Najiah recently landed her first endorsement (the first endorsement, as it happens, for any rider on the Mini Bull Riders tour) when Ariat boots-a major and longtime sponsor of PBR-signed her up to join their roster, which includes former PBR world champions Cooper Davis and Jess Lockwood, along with former rookie of the year (and fellow Native American rider) Keyshawn Whitehorse and up-and-coming rider Ezekiel Mitchell.

Mitchell, the rare African American PBR star, debuted a shocking-by PBR standards-sartorial statement at the Garden: While bull riders' dress has long consisted of a standard-issue uniform (Wranglers, starched white shirts, a black protective vest riddled with sponsor patches), Mitchell flew out of the chute in a matching (right down to the helmet) blue Ariat ensemble that turned more than a few behatted heads.

"I'm an out-there kind of guy," Mitchell said on the Garden's dirt floor after Friday night's event, "so I thought, well, might as well play it up. The designer said he wanted to go for a kind of superhero-meets-Evel Knievel vibe."

What, I wondered, did the other riders think of his razzle-dazzle? "They think it's dope. I mean, I'm a trendsetter. At the end of the day, though, you put me out there in a tutu and I'll ride-this is my job. This is what we do."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet Najiah Knight, the 13-Year-Old Girl Upending the World of Professional Bull Riding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The secrets to a successful ride: "Keep your feet in, chest out, your head tucked, shoulders back. If the bull twists around to the left, I drop my handle down a little bit." And the secret to getting bucked off? "Try to land good and get up and get outta there."

# data[].attributes.headline
Cattlefornia - My Job Depends on Ag and PBS 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cattlefornia - My Job Depends on Ag and PBS 

# data[].attributes.body
A part of the American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag  series by PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Grown: My Job Depends on Ag | Cattle-Fornia | Season 2 | Episode 9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legendary CA Cattlemen Mike Urrutia's life is memorialized through his wife and friends.

# data[].attributes.headline
Early Nutrition - Beef for the Early Years

# data[].attributes.subject
Early Nutrition - Beef for the Early Years

# data[].attributes.body
Learn how can you include this nutrient packed option for the littlest eater

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At around 8-10 months of age, babies develop a pincer grasp and learn to self-feed, making food textures, flavors and feeding methods -- like traditional parent-led spoon feeding, baby-led weaning or a combined method -- important considerations. For optimal health, make sure babies are meeting their nutrient needs, learning new feeding skills, and enjoying food. Sit with your baby when eating and monitor for choking.

Babies will start with thin pureed foods at around 6 months and advance to complex textures including chopped foods, finger foods and family food by the end of the first year.

Around 6 Months

When your baby is 6-8 months, they may be ready to make the transition from watery purees to smooth, pureed, single-ingredients foods such as pureed beef, pureed squash or pureed pears.

6 - 8 MONTHS

In this stage your baby may be ready to transition to mashed, lumpy texture foods and combinations of single-ingredient foods. These include mashed banana or avocado, pureed beef and pureed green beans. Your baby may also be ready for soft, dissolvable finger foods like puffs, buttery toast or crackers.

8 - 10 MONTHS

During 8-10 months of age your baby can transition to chopped table foods such as shredded or chopped beef, well-cooked pasta, chopped cooked veggies or soft-cooked beans.

10 - 12 MONTHS

Between 10-12 months of age babies can start transitioning into chopped family food and practice with self-feeding using the spoon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef - It's What's For Dinner - Beef In the Early Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At around 8-10 months of age, babies develop a pincer grasp and learn to self-feed, making food textures, flavors and feeding methods -- like traditional parent-led spoon feeding, baby-led weaning or a combined method -- important considerations. For optimal health, make sure babies are meeting their nutrient needs, learning new feeding skills, and enjoying food.

# data[].attributes.body
Make the best corned beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Corned Beef recipes this good, there's no reason to wait for St. Patrick's Day. Make the classics with cabbage and potatoes or use it to make a Rueben or Corned Beef Hash, the possibilities are endless.

# data[].attributes.body
Nutrient packed foods are key to staying healthy.  Here’s how Beef can upgrade your nutrient intake!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While we're on the subject of other protein options, let's also take a look at a comparison of Ground Beef and Ground Turkey - you just might be surprised by the results! Before you decide to swap Ground Turkey for Ground Beef, check the Nutrition Facts Label to make sure you're making the best substitution for your health. Ground Beef has more of many essential micronutrients and lean ground beef can be lower in calories, fat and cholesterol than Ground Turkey. Here are the facts when comparing USDA's data on 93% lean/7% fat cooked patties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef - It's What's For Dinner - Beef Nutrients

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While we're on the subject of other protein options, let's also take a look at a comparison of Ground Beef and Ground Turkey - you just might be surprised by the results! Before you decide to swap Ground Turkey for Ground Beef, check the Nutrition Facts Label to make sure you're making the best substitution for your health.