Beef Production 25 of Global Land Us

WHAT DOES SUSTAINABILITY Hateful FOR DIETS AND THE Nutrient Organisation?

Sustainability in our nutrient system is a circuitous topic. It encompasses multiple domains (economic, environmental, social) and long-term time scales (generational impacts). Issues as varied every bit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, wildlife habitat, rural livelihoods, the affordability of food, nutritional quality, and animal welfare tin all fall under the broader umbrella of sustainability. Farther complicating sustainability is the reality that there can exist tradeoffs and interrelationships across domains. For example, animate being source foods in full general produce more than GHG per kilocalorie than plant source foods; withal, fauna source foods besides tend to provide more of several essential nutrients in bioavailable forms per kilocalorie, such as iron, calcium, and vitamin B₁₂.¹ Finally, the multiple issues that fall under the umbrella of sustainability are subject to value judgments, cultural differences, and traditions. What is most valued past one individual may be different for another, which means that sweeping statements about ane-size-fits-all dietary advice or generalized public policy recommendations are difficult to provide.

Given the complexity outlined higher up, what are some of the definitions of sustainable nutrient systems and diets? The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a sustainable food organisation as "a nutrient arrangement that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are non compromised." The same organization defines sustainable diets as "those with depression environmental impacts which contribute to nutrient and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and futurity generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, attainable, economically off-white and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and good for you; while optimizing natural and human resources."²

The lesser line is sustainability is a complex balancing act total of dash and shades of gray. This article will highlight this complexity and provide practical advice with a food that is frequently in the crosshairs in healthy, sustainable diet discussions: beefiness. The following information on beef production, sustainability, consumption patterns, and food waste material will exist largely focused on the U.s.a..

BEEF CATTLE Product IN THE UNITED STATES

The Usa beefiness supply concatenation is ane of the most complex of whatsoever food. Beef cattle product starts in the United states of america on operations called cow-calf operations, more commonly known every bit farms or ranches depending on the region of the country. Co-ordinate to the 2017 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census, in that location are more than than 720 000 beef moo-cow-dogie operations in the United States, with operations in all 50 states. This makes beef the single largest segment of the United states of america agriculture, equally cow-calf operations represent 36% of The states farms and ranches. Cattle and calves were the top ranked commodity in The states agriculture in 2017, with $77.2 billion in sales.ⁱⁱⁱ

Cow-calf production is all-encompassing, meaning that most cows in the United states are housed on pasture or rangeland and spend virtually of their time grazing and eating forages, such every bit hay. On these operations, a beef cow will accept a calf ideally once per yr (the gestation period of cattle is similar to humans—approximately 285 days), and the cow will nurse the calf until weaning, which typically occurs when the dogie is 6 to 10 months old and weighs 450 to 700 lb. One time weaned, cattle may remain on grass and graze for another 2 to 6 months, or the cattle may enter a feedlot, while still consuming a loftier-forage diet (>50% of their feed intake). Cattle during this time are referred to every bit stockers or backgrounders, respectively. The concluding phase of cattle production is known equally finishing, where cattle will continue to gain lean muscle, just will also add a higher proportion of fat, in particular intramuscular fat known as marbling. At the end of finishing, cattle will weigh between 1200 and 1400 lb. About cattle in the United States (~97%) are finished in feedlots and fed a grain-based diet for approximately 4 to 6 months before slaughter; however, proportionally, approximately 2-thirds of the animal'due south lifetime is spent exterior of feedlots. A much smaller proportion of cattle volition be finished on grass or by consuming a 100% provender diet (eg, hay, silage, or fermented whole plants such equally alfalfa) for approximately 6 to ten months. In addition, dairy cattle will enter the beef supply, both in terms of culled dairy cows and male dairy calves that are raised as steers just as beef breed cattle (eg, Angus, Herefords). The United states veal industry is small-scale (74.5 million lb of veal production compared with 27.two billion lb of beef production in 2019) within the United States and full-bodied in the Northeastern and Midwest U.s.a..^4,v

Most beef cattle in the United states of america are not in a feedlot at any given point in time. For case, on January 1, 2019, the USDA estimated that at that place were 14.4 million cattle in feedlots, with the remaining 82% of the United states beef cattle herd located exterior feedlots primarily on pasture and rangeland (Figure 1).⁶ The Us beef cattle industry is a combination of grass-based and grain-based feed intakes, with almost of cattle's lifetimes and feed consumption resulting from grass and other forages.

FIGURE 1.:

Cattle inventory and cattle product life cycle in the U.s. beef production system.^four,5

HOW BEEF FITS INTO A SUSTAINABLE FOOD Organisation

The nature of beefiness cattle product is key to its contributions to a sustainable nutrient system. Nigh of the land and feed resources used by the U.s. beefiness cattle industry are not in direct competition with human food product, significant that near of the land used by cattle cannot be cultivated to abound crops nosotros eat directly (eg, fruits and vegetables) and most of the feed that cattle eat is inedible to humans. Fauna feed–human nutrient competition is a key topic in sustainable nutrient system discussions as it potentially reflects natural resource competition and tin influence how many people can be nourished in total from the food system.

A multiyear survey of U.s. cattle farmers and ranchers found that the feed resource required to produce beef are 82% human-inedible fodder (eg, grass, hay), 7% byproducts or human-inedible establish leftovers (eg, dried distillers grains), and 11% grain (eg, field corn, which is unlike from sweetness corn consumed by people).^vii This translates into 2.6 kg of grain per kg of beefiness produced in the United States. Given the most recent twelvemonth'due south beefiness production, corn yields, and corn acres harvested, corn grain harvested and fed to beef cattle in the United States was derived from approximately 8 1000000 acres.⁸ This is equivalent to x% of harvested corn acres, two% of cropland acres, and 0.3% of the land area in the U.s.a..⁹

The feed resources required to produce a pound of beef, or any animal source nutrient product, is oft of involvement in sustainability assessments as a reflection of feed-food competition. Ofttimes cited statistics include half dozen lb, 3 lb, and 2 lb of feed to make 1 lb of beef, pork, or chicken, respectively. Withal, this feed conversion for beef does not account for the other segments of the beef industry outside of the finishing phase (cow-calf and stocker/backgrounder) and fails to brand the stardom betwixt the diet limerick consumed by these different species.

Cattle are ruminants, which ways their digestive systems are uniquely evolved to apply fibrous constitute materials (forage) for free energy and nutrients by way of microbes so that they practise not have to depend on high-quality dietary sources of protein to meet their amino acid requirements. The microorganisms within cattle's specialized stomach compartments pass on to the beast's gastric stomach compartment (abomasum) and small intestine and are a source of high-quality, readily digestible poly peptide for the animal. Similarly, the microorganisms are sources of essential vitamins such equally vitamin B₁₂, which is why ruminant products (beefiness, lamb, cow's milk, etc) are such first-class sources of vitamin B₁₂ for humans.

Pigs and chickens are similar to humans in that they are monogastric animals and depend upon the dietary intake of loftier-quality poly peptide to come across their daily amino acrid requirements. Equally a result, diets fed to pigs and chickens in the United States typically include soybean meal every bit a high-quality protein source. Ultimately, which species is considered about efficient at converting feed into homo nutrient depends on how feed conversion efficiency is expressed (Table one).

TABLE 1 - Comparing of Feed Conversion Efficiency Expressed iii Different Ways

Species	Dry out Matter Feed Conversion, lb of Feed Dry Affair/lb of Live Weight	Human-Edible Feed Conversion, lb of Potentially Human being Edible Feed (Corn, Soy)a/lb of Alive Weight	Net Protein Contributionb (Values >1 Mean More High-Quality Protein Generated Than Used)
Us average grain-finished beef for full life cycle7	thirteen.1	ane.half dozen	two.66
Broiler chickenx	one.6	1.4	0.85
Pork11	two.five	two.0	0.71

This case demonstrates how a conclusion near which animal production organization is nigh efficient is dependent upon how the sustainability metric is expressed.

^aAnimal feedstuffs such as corn grain and soybean meal could exist consumed past people and thus are classified as human being-edible feeds. Forages like grass and hay cannot be consumed past people and thus are classified equally human-inedible feeds.

^bNet protein contribution is human-edible protein return * poly peptide quality ratio (PQR). Human-edible protein return is the kilograms of human-edible crude protein in the beef, chicken, or pork divided by the corresponding kilograms of human-edible feed rough poly peptide consumed by the cattle, chickens, or pigs. Protein quality ratio is the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of beef (111.6), pork (113.ix), or chicken (108.2) divided by the DIAAS of the animal's diet (beef cattle, 42.2; pigs and chickens, sixty.9). The diets of pigs and chickens have a college PQR because of the inclusion of soybean meal. Internet protein contribution values greater than i indicate more high-quality protein generated in the course of meat than the animals eat (ie, adding to the homo food poly peptide supply).¹²

CONTEXT ON Beefiness'South GHG EMISSIONS

A quick Internet search of beefiness and GHG emissions will result in a wide range of statistics, and 3 types of conflation typically occur that can make understanding which statistic is the most appropriate to employ confusing to a nutrition professional. Beginning, globally relevant statistics are oftentimes conflated with U.s. emissions; 2d, all emissions from livestock production are often ascribed to beef; and third, directly and life wheel emissions are often used interchangeably without explicit depiction equally to what emission sources are or are non included inside a percentage.

According to the US Environmental Protection Bureau (EPA) GHG emissions inventory, 2% of US emissions come direct from beef cattle (methyl hydride from cattle belches, methane and nitrous oxide from managed manure which is mostly the manure in feedlots). Total direct emissions from all agricultural production, crops and livestock collectively, were 8.iv% of US emissions in 2017. Agriculture, country apply, state employ change, and forestry combined in the United States are a cyberspace sink of CO₂ equivalent (CO_iie) emissions, pregnant they removed 172 million metric tons of CO_iidue east from the temper in 2017.¹³

Globally, life bike emissions from livestock production (emissions from feed production to consumer) are estimated to be 14.5% of GHG emissions. Global beef life cycle emissions are vi% of the globe's GHG emissions.¹⁴ The disparity between these ii percentages is the other forms of livestock agriculture accounted for in the 14.v% figure, such as poultry, pork, and dairy production. Beefiness cattle do represent a higher proportion of total GHG emissions from animate being agronomics than monogastric animals similar pigs and chickens. This is one example of a sustainability tradeoff: beef cattle production has less feed-food competition and beefiness cattle are able to use more nonarable country than pigs and chickens; however, considering cattle are ruminant animals, they produce more methane gas (a GHG 28 times more than stiff at trapping heat over a 100-year timeframe than carbon dioxide) from their digestive tracts.^xiii

In the Usa, beef cattle production produces 3.7% of The states GHG emissions from a life wheel perspective. This partial life cycle assessment (LCA) estimate adds in emissions from feed production (eg, emissions from soil, manure on pasture lands), fuel and electricity use, and others, to the ii% estimation from the EPA inventory, hence why an LCA GHG estimate is higher than the EPA's straight emissions from the animals and their managed manure.^seven The GHG emissions produced by US beef cattle contribute only a fraction of the GHG emissions attributed to global beef product, as most cattle in the earth are located outside Usa borders: United states beef cattle production emissions are less than 0.5% of the earth's GHG emissions.

Importantly, emissions from cattle and other livestock are non static, and at that place remain many opportunities to reduce emissions farther. Both in the United States and around the earth, beef production has become more than efficient, and GHG emission produced per pound of beef has declined. In the United states of america, according to Un' FAO data, straight GHG emissions from beefiness cattle take declined 33% from eighteen lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 1975 to 12.ane lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2016 per pound of beefiness produced.¹⁵ This reduction in beef's carbon emissions is a result of a turn down in the size of the US cattle herd. In 1975, the United states had 132 million beef and dairy cattle and produced 24 billion lb of beef. In 2016, the US cattle herd had shrunk to 92 million heads, but beef production was slightly college at 25 billion lb.⁶ The global average carbon emission intensity of beef has declined 20% from 1975 to 2016, falling from 32 to 25.seven lb of carbon dioxide equivalents per pound of beefiness, respectively.¹⁵ The ability to produce more beef with fewer animals means fewer natural resources are required and less GHG emissions are produced to generate homo nourishment. This improvement in efficiency was gained primarily through improvements in animal genetics, creature nutrition, and husbandry practices. Standing improvement in these areas of beefiness cattle production tin further reduce environmental impacts within the United states of america and effectually the world.

Research and extension and adoption of new noesis are a continuous process that delivers on incremental improvements in reducing beefiness cattle production'southward resource use and ecology impacts. Advancements in grazing land management, animal breeding decision making enhanced by genomic information, methyl hydride inhibitors, integrated ingather-livestock systems, h2o recycling engineering science, and manure composting are only a few of the examples of new technologies being deployed and tested that volition further enhance the sustainability of United states of america beef production in the years alee. These efforts are beingness driven by private businesses within the beef supply chain, public entities like Land Grant Universities and the USDA, and multistakeholder groups such as the U.s. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

THE SUSTAINABILITY-Diet CONNECTION

Defining a Sustainable Nutrition

As referenced previously, the FAO's definition of sustainable diets makes clear that many dietary patterns can be sustainable. The definition also presents the complexities involved in determining whether a dietary blueprint is sustainable. I must consider many factors, including location, climate, civilization, economics, nutritional adequacy, and available natural and man resources. A sustainable diet in one role of the world may not be in some other part of the world or even a given country.

People, Planet, and Profit Considerations

In considering the defining variables of a sustainable nutrition, the triple lesser line is an accounting framework that evaluates its affect on people, planet, and profit.^16,17 This framework can then be used to determine the touch of a particular dietary blueprint and ascertain if that dietary design meets the criteria for a sustainable nutrition.

Evaluating Bear upon on People

Equally shown in the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, there are many dietary patterns that are nutritionally adequate, providing enough calories and essential nutrients.^eighteen Nutritional adequacy is cardinal to healthy, sustainable diets. Human biology allows for flexibility with food pick regarding coming together nutrient requirements and achieving optimal diets, which is especially fortunate because lifestyle, culture, tradition, and values are often more than powerful daily drivers of food option than the quest for acceptable or optimal food intake.

There are many cultural factors that will influence food intakes, including ethnicity, race, and religion. The term "food civilization" historically has referred to where people live and the traditional dietary patterns of that region or expanse (eg, Mediterranean nutrient civilization). More recently, research has focused on the bear upon of dietary patterns on an individual's food culture.

Costa and colleagues¹⁹ looked at how young women choosing to eat a vegan nutrition practise not consider it a diet to follow only rather a lifestyle to live. This finding starts to blur the lines between considerations of culture and lifestyle. Nutrition practitioners need to not only sympathize the nutrition implications of various dietary patterns only also the lifestyle implications. When a dietary blueprint becomes role of a person's identity rather than but a style of eating, recommendations to change the diet can accept a profound touch on a person'south sense of cocky, well-being, and conviction.

Other factors to consider when evaluating a dietary design include lifestyle. A sustainable dietary pattern for a woman with 3 young children who works 2 jobs, lives in an urban nutrient desert, relies on public transportation, and is at risk of food insecurity is very different from that of an educated, upper centre form adult female with no children who works at home, lives in the suburbs, orders dwelling meal kits, joyfully cooks each evening during the week, and dines out with friends and family unit on the weekend.

Over the by 10 years, much as been published on the negative impacts of "food elitism," the practice of making food, beverage, or diet recommendations that require more money and/or more fourth dimension like recommending fresh fruit and vegetables over processed forms including frozen or canned. Lawrence and colleagues²⁰ write of marketers that target LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) consumers who "have a potent interest in wellness, fitness, personal development, and social justice, and put a high value on sustainability and environmental protection." These marketers hope college quality and charge premium prices. Although their marketing is targeted, their messages are oft far reaching, imparting feelings of fear or failure for consumers who believe their messaging but cannot afford their prices or exercise not take access to their products.

Huang and colleagues²¹ reported the negative impact of organic marketing on depression-income shoppers and their fruit and vegetable purchases. Messaging about product methods (eg, organic and conventional production) and pesticide residues in 12 fruits and vegetables highlighted by the Ecology Working Group "Dirty Dozen" report resulted in shoppers reporting they were less likely to buy whatever fruits and vegetables. If nutrition professionals believe fruits and vegetables are an important part of sustainable diets, efforts must be made to communicate in means to motivate people to buy and consume more fruits and vegetables versus less. The same applies to letters virtually beef production. Production information that creates a negative perception of a nutrient'south nutritional value is non helpful; nutrition professionals should strive to provide information about the role of beefiness in healthful diets that permit patients and clients to make informed not fear-based choices.

Evaluating Impact on the Planet

Dietary choices may take an impact on soil, air, and water also as GHG emissions and their potential impact on climate change. Dietary choices also have an impact on other natural resources like fossil fuel utilise for production, processing, distribution, and storage. When considering the touch of a specific dietary pattern or individual food, it is critically important to evaluate LCA data and not focus solely on individual measurements or metrics. Many refer to an LCA analysis as a "cradle-to-grave" assessment from the birth or showtime of a nutrient product to its final use or when it becomes waste material. According to Satpute and colleagues,²² "LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle." Readers interested in learning more about how LCAs utilize to foods can read Cucurachi and colleagues'²³ "Life Cycle Assessment of Food Systems" primer and Halpern and colleagues'²⁴ opinion piece "Putting All Foods on the Aforementioned Table: Achieving Sustainable Food Systems Requires Total Accounting."

Although information technology is tempting to compare foods based on a single metric like water apply, doing so does non tell the full story of ecology affect. Also, sharing data on global averages is non a fair and balanced utilise of the data. For example, about 45% of GHG emissions in Ethiopia come up from enteric fermentation from livestock.²⁵ Meanwhile, in the United states of america, GHG emission from livestock is iv%.¹³ Yet, when GHG data are reported, many volition report a global average that makes the impact of US livestock production look worse than it is.²⁶ Perhaps ane of the biggest challenges facing nutrition professionals today is the fact that nutrition scientific discipline is a relatively new field and we accept much to learn. Coupled with that, our colleagues in environmental scientific discipline work in an even younger subject field with less than twenty years of robust peer-reviewed literature. As a result, we demand to be mindful that we currently know much more than virtually healthful dietary patterns than we practice near the environmental impact of our nutrient choices.

Evaluating Touch on on Profits

Farm and ranch families comprise less than two% of the United states of america population. Meanwhile, as a result of the productivity and efficiency of these US farmers and ranchers, people in the United States accept access to an abundant, affordable, and rubber food supply.²⁷ As with whatever concern operation, a farmer's or a rancher'due south ability to make a turn a profit is part of his/her sustainability story; no farm or ranch can be environmentally sustainable without as well existence financially sustainable. Information technology is therefore critically important for farmers and ranchers to be able to operate in ways that maximize their ability to produce a turn a profit while protecting natural resource.

In the U.s.a., nigh two-thirds of country for agriculture cannot exist used to abound crops.²⁸ The soil quality may be too poor, topsoil depth likewise shallow, land also rocky, slope too steep, or trees too dense to successfully grow crops. Farmers and ranchers with this type of pasture, range, or forestland tin can employ information technology to produce food by grazing livestock on information technology. Proceeds from the sale of livestock contribute to the overall economic viability of the farming or ranching operation with marginal land that cannot back up crops.

So how does the financial sustainability of farmers and ranchers affect consumers? When US farmers and ranchers are productive, efficient, and financially stable, they tin can continue to produce food for the 98% of the population not involved in agriculture. If we lose farmers and ranchers, we lose nutrient security, relying on producers in other parts of the earth to feed united states of america, which can touch nutrient quality, availability, and toll.

TRANSLATING THE EVIDENCE

The Role of Fauna Protein in Sustainable Diets

If we go back to the FAO definition of sustainable diets and evaluate what "nutritionally acceptable" means, we must look at both macronutrient and micronutrient needs. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines included a Healthy Vegetarian Eating Pattern showing that nosotros can get acceptable poly peptide from a variety of plant-based foods as well equally dairy products and eggs.^eighteen Just in that location are certain micronutrients like choline, heme atomic number 26, zinc, and the essential fat acid EPA that are easier to consume in acceptable amounts when animal-based foods are included in healthful dietary patterns. According to the USDA National Nutrient Database, the top sources of each of these nutrients are animate being-based products like eggs (choline), oysters (fe), beef (zinc), and salmon (EPA).²⁹

Beef is an example of a nutrient-rich food that can contribute significant nutrients with relatively few calories. According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey information, individuals aged xix to 50 years swallow one.seven oz of beef per day; adults older than fifty years eat slightly less beef per solar day (ane.3 oz).³⁰ In this aforementioned assay, lean beef contributed less than five% full fat and less than 4% total saturated fatty. A divide analysis shows that beef contributes approximately 5% of full calories to Americans' diets while contributing more than 5% of these essential nutrients: potassium (6.1%), phosphorus (7.three%), fe (viii%), vitamin B₆ (ix.two%), niacin (9.9%), poly peptide (15.2%), zinc (23.1%), and vitamin B₁₂ (25%).³¹ Teaching patients and clients how to choose lean beef helps them obtain optimal poly peptide and micronutrient benefits while limiting total fat, saturated fat, and calories from beef. The USDA defines "lean" beefiness as 100 g (3.five oz) of uncooked beef with less than ten chiliad of fatty, 4.v g or less of saturated fatty, and less than 95 mg of cholesterol.³² Counseling patients and clients to cull nutrient-rich foods similar lean beef is a powerful role diet professionals can play when it comes to helping individuals and populations overcome nutrient deficiencies.

In addition to nutrient capability, we must also accost and respect food preferences and cultural food patterns. Many people similar the taste, texture, mouthfeel, aroma, and other sensory properties of animate being-based foods like milk, cheese, craven, pork, and beef. All these foods tin be included in healthful, balanced dietary patterns that are besides sustainable.

The Mediterranean dietary pattern is an example of a cultural food design that has been widely adopted considering of both flavor and health benefits. A recent report by O'Connor and colleagues³³ demonstrated the benefits of including lean beef in a Mediterranean-style dietary design. In this randomized, controlled feeding trial with 41 overweight or obese adult subjects, participants in the ruby-meat group who consumed 500 1000 (18 oz) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork each week had greater reductions in full and depression-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with participants in the command group, who ate 200 g (7 oz) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork each week along with other protein-rich foods. Patients who enjoy lean beef can be encouraged to eat it as part of healthful dietary pattern, like the Mediterranean diet, that includes other nutrient-rich foods more than commonly associated with healthy, sustainable diets.

The Demand to Reduce Food Waste

Food waste material is one of the biggest opportunities to address when information technology comes to promoting sustainable diets. In the United States, we currently waste product xxx% to 40% of available nutrient.³⁴ Food waste matter occurs throughout our food system, starting in agriculture (16%) and food processing (<2%), moving to losses in restaurants and retail (forty%), and finally to in-home losses (43%).³⁵ Meat, poultry, and fish are the elevation wasted foods in the home based on value.^35,36 Teaching patients and clients how to properly store, handle, freeze and thaw, cook, and/or reheat these foods can reduce nutrient waste product in the abode.

The environmental impact of food waste material ranges from the extensive losses of natural resources that go into producing food (eg, state and h2o for crops; land, feed, h2o for animals; fossil fuels for machinery; etc) to the production of methane as wasted nutrient in landfills decomposes through the work of methane-producing microorganisms. Municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest emitter of methane in the U.s..³⁷ Reducing the amount of wasted food that goes into landfills is an important and effective strategy for enhancing nutrient security while reducing GHG emissions.

PRACTICAL Awarding OF THE Science

The Role of the Nutrition Professional

Although the issue of sustainability is undoubtedly complex, the role of the nutrition professional in promoting sustainable diets is clear. Science- and testify-based information that motivates our patients and clients to prefer healthful eating patterns should be used equally the foundation of our recommendations, while recognizing and respecting that at that place are different ways for our patients and clients to attain healthy, sustainable dietary patterns. In that location are ecology, social, fiscal, and health benefits to including nutrient dense, fauna-based foods in a healthful dietary pattern; further, the inclusion of these foods may improve adherence to a healthful dietary pattern if our patients and clients enjoy them. Finally, beef tin can fit into a sustainable food organisation to deliver proficient nutrition because it is responsibly produced, affordable, attainable, acceptable, and food-rich. With expert judgment and practiced science applied to beast husbandry, it is possible to feed people beef in a sustainable way.

REFERENCES

1. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD, Martin A, Verger EO, Voinnesson M, Imbert P. Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:184–191.

2. United nations FAO. 2018. Sustainable nutrient systems: concept and framework. http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2019.

• Cited Hither

3. US Section of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Demography of agronomics. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php. Accessed October 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Printing. https://doi.org/10.17226/19014.

• Cited Here

5. US Section of Agronomics Economic Enquiry Service. Livestock & meat domestic data. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-information/livestock-meat-domestic-data/. Accessed Feb ten, 2020.

• Cited Here

vi. US Department of Agriculture National Agronomical Statistics Service. Cattle inventory. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_Inventory/. Accessed October two, 2019.

• Cited Hither

7. Rotz CA, Asem-Hiablie S, Place S, Thoma G. Ecology footprints of beefiness cattle production in the U.s.. Agric Sys. 2019;169(February.):1–13.

• Cited Here

viii. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed October 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

9. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Major land uses. https://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/. Accessed October 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

eleven. Wilkinson JM. Re-defining efficiency of feed employ past livestock. Animate being. 2011;5(7):1014–1022.

12. Ertl P, Knaus Due west, Zollitsch W. An arroyo to including protein quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human food supply. Animal. 2016;10(11):1883–1889.

13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-u.s.-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2017. Accessed Oct 6, 2019.

• Cited Here

14. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling Climate change Through Livestock—A Global Cess of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.

• Cited Here

fifteen. United nations Nutrient and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT: emissions intensities. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EI. Accessed February 10, 2020.

• Cited Here

16. Burlingame B, Dernin S, eds. Sustainable diets and biodiversity. Direction and solutions for policy, research and action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger; Nov 3–5, 2010; Rome, Italy. FAO, 2012. http://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf. Accessed Baronial 27, 2019.

• Cited Here

17. University of Wisconsin Sustainable Management. The Triple Bottom Line. https://sustain.wisconsin.edu/sustainability/triple-bottom-line/. Accessed Feb 5, 2020.

• Cited Here

18. US Department of Health and Human Services and Us Section of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2005. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Accessed Baronial 27, 2019.

• Cited Here

19. Costa I, Gill PR, Morda R, Ali L. "More than a diet": a qualitative investigation of immature vegan women'south human relationship to nutrient. Appetite. 2019;143:104418. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104418.

twenty. Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2010.

• Cited Here

21. Huang Y, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman BM. Low income shoppers and fruits and vegetables: what do they recollect?Nutr Today. 2016;51(5):242–250. doi:10.1097/NT.0000000000000176.

22. Satpute MS, Lamdande AG, Kadam VD, Garud SR. Life bicycle assessment of nutrient. Int J Agric Eng. 2013;6(ii):558–563.

• Cited Here

23. Cucurachi South, Scherer Fifty, Guinfe J, Tukker A. Life cycle assessment of nutrient systems. One Globe. 2019;1(3):292–297.

24. Halpern BS, Cottrell RS, Blanchard JL, et al. Putting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U Southward A. 2019;116(37):18152–18156.

26. Usa Environmental Protection Bureau. Sources of greenish business firm gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed September 9, 2019.

• Cited Hither

27. American Subcontract Agency Foundation for Agriculture. Nutrient and subcontract facts book (2019 edition). https://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts. Accessed Oct thirty, 2019.

• Cited Here

28. Bigelow D. A primer on land employ in the U.s.. USDA Economic Research Service. https://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/december/a-primer-on-land-use-in-the-united-states/. Accessed September nine, 2019.

• Cited Here

29. US Department of Agriculture. USDA food limerick databases nutrient lists. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/index. Accessed September 9, 2019.

• Cited Here

30. U.s. Section of Wellness and Human Services and United states of america Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Eighth Edition. December 2015. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/.

• Cited Here

31. Zanovec M, O'Neil CE, Keast DR, Fulgoni VL 3rd, Nicklas TA. Lean beef contributes significant amounts of key nutrients to the diets of U.s.a. adults: National Health and Diet Exam Survey 1999–2004. Nutr Res. 2010 Jun;xxx(half dozen):375–381.

32. US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Beef from farm to table. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/c33b69fe-7041-4f50-9dd0-d098f11d1f13/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table.pdf?Modern=AJPERES. Accessed February 5, 2020.

• Cited Here

33. O'Connor LE, Paddon-Jones D, Wright AJ, et al. A Mediterranean-mode eating pattern with lean, unprocessed red meat has cardiometabolic benefits for adults who are overweight or obese in a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 108(i):33–xl.

• Cited Hither

34. United states Department of Agriculture. Food waste FAQs. https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs. Accessed September x, 2019.

• Cited Here

35. ReFED. An economic analysis of food waste solutions. https://www.refed.com/. Accessed September 10, 2019.

• Cited Hither

36. USDA Economic Inquiry Service. Economic Information Bulletin Number 121. Feb 2014. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2020.

• Cited Hither

37. US Ecology Protection Bureau. Basic information nearly landfill gas. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-nigh-landfill-gas. Accessed September 10, 2019.

• Cited Here

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

schillersains1999.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/fulltext/2020/09000/beef_production__what_are_the_human_and.7.aspx

Share this post