Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using conventional productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs) with or without other natural PETs on the growth performance, carcass traits, and environmental impacts of feedlot cattle. A total of 768 cross-bred yearling steers (499 ± 28.6 kg; n = 384) and heifers (390 ± 34.9 kg; n = 384) were offered a barley grain-based basal diet and divided into implanted or non-implanted groups. Steers were then allocated to diets that contained either: (i) no additive (control); natural feed additives including (ii) fibrolytic enzymes (Enz), (iii) essential oil (Oleo), (iv) direct-fed microbial (DFM), (v) DFM + Enz + Oleo combination; conventional feed additives including (vi) Conv (monensin, tylosin, and beta-adrenergic agonists [βAA]); or Conv with natural feed additives including (vii) Conv + DFM + Enz; (viii) Conv + DFM + Enz + Oleo. Heifers received one of the first three dietary treatments or the following: (iv) probiotic (Citr); (v) Oleo + Citr; (vi) Melengesterol acetate (MGA) + Oleo + βAA; (vii) Conv (monensin, tylosin, βAA, and MGA); or (viii) Conv + Oleo (ConvOleo). Data were used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, as well as land and water use. Implant and Conv-treated cattle exhibited improvements in growth and carcass traits as compared to the other treatments (P < 0.05). Improvements in the performance of Conv-cattle illustrated that replacing conventional feed additives with natural feed additives would increase both the land and water required to satisfy the feed demand of steers and heifers by 7.9% and 10.5%, respectively. Further, GHG emission intensity for steers and heifers increased by 5.8% and 6.7%, and NH3 emission intensity by 4.3% and 6.7%, respectively. Eliminating the use of implants in cattle increased both land and water use by 14.6% and 19.5%, GHG emission intensity by 10.5% and 15.8%, and NH3 emission intensity by 3.4% and 11.0% for heifers and steers, respectively. These results demonstrate that the use of conventional PETs increases animal performance while reducing the environmental impacts of beef production. Restricting use would increase the environmental footprint of beef produced for both domestic and international markets.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
