Grass versus grain finishing would be considered in the top 5 debates amongst many beef consumers. Citing climate change, natural management and healthy eating as reasons for looking at alternative production models to the traditional system that produces tasty grain-fed beef.
The production segment is more likely to debate the best calving time, sire breed, or feedlot design than whether or not cattle should be finished using grain. There is one time when the consumer and production debates intersect, when grain prices are high. Many research trials around forage-based alternatives to grain feeding coincides with expensive grains.
A recent article by Sarah Klopatek and co-workers from the University of California in the Journal of Animal Science revisited the grass versus grain topic, addressing the performance and economic perspectives but this time adding an environmental evaluation. The article’s justification centered around how the “food elite” perceive the impact modern management is having on climate change as well as the growing consumer interest in grass-fed beef.
The experiment looked at four production models where all cattle grazed irrigated summer pastures for 5 months after weaning. After this stocker period the traditional cattle were grain-fed in the feeyard for 128 days. The remaining 3 groups grazed native range for another 7 months. At the end of this grazing period the short grass-fed cattle were harvested (20 months), short grain-fed cattle entered the feedyard for 45 days, and the long grass-fed group grazed for another 5 months (25 months).
This combination of experimental systems provided a wide range of production, financial and environmental comparisons consistent with normal western regional management.
The performance aspects of the different systems were not surprising, short grass-fed cattle gained the least and had lightest finish and carcass weights. The long grass-fed cattle finished at comparable weights to the short grain-fed group, suggesting 5 months of grazing resulted in similar total performance to 45 days in the feedyard. Dressing percent ranged from 50.3% for short grass-fed cattle to 61.8% in traditional cattle. Low carcass weights due to lighter final body weight and poor dressing percent impacted many aspects of the grass-fed systems.
As expected, traditional management resulted in higher marbling and quality grades. System costs were lowest for the short grass-fed group but when expressed relative to output, breakeven costs for the 3 grass-finishing systems were at a minimum 33% greater than the traditional system.
The research group didn’t evaluate per head profitability. One would assume grass-finished beef would be priced at a premium to the consumer. The higher break-even costs suggest this premium is needed at the production.
This experiment demonstrated research projects are not immune to problems faced by producers everyday. The authors highlighted the challenge of naturally raised program fallouts where cattle treated for pinkeye were no longer eligible for natural premiums. This was not included in the financial analysis but a good reminder for those evaluating alternative system budgets.
From an environmental perspective the traditional system produced the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per unit of carcass weight. Global warming potential was 73% higher for long grass-fed cattle due to low carcass weights, extended days on feed and the methane emissions associated with digesting forages. The global warming potential for short grass and short grain-fed groups were 39% higher than traditional management.
Traditional management was the most energy intensive system due to transportation and farming inputs associated with feed. Water use followed the crop and pasture irrigation inputs. Water use was lowest for the short grass-fed system due to limited irrigated pasture grazing whereas highest water use was observed in long grass-fed cattle who grazed irrigated pasture for 5 months.
The limited water use by the short grass-fed system was offset by the highest land use area. Without feed or water inputs the land needed for the short grass-fed system was 8.8 times higher than the traditional system. Land use was comparable for short grain-fed and long grass-fed models, both requiring about 7.5 times more land than the traditional feedyard system. While the numbers are large, the real question is how else would this land be used if not grazed?
This work highlights the challenges facing the modern food system. Consumers want environmentally sustainable tasty protein. We already have multiple proteins with flavor that’s meh. While the demand for grass-finished beef may be growing, the taste panel data continue to support grain finishing as the path to tender, juicy and flavorful beef. No matter the production system, a steak sent back to the kitchen is unsustainable.
This work suggests the environmental footprint of modern grain-based finishing systems is contrary to consumer perception. While there are areas to tweek at the finishing phase there are perhaps greater areas of opportunity closer to the cow herd.
Ruminants are the best method to convert forages into protein, management enhancing forage digestion will reduce system greenhouse gas output. Little research has evaluated the impact selection for increased genetic potential has on sustainability. As bull sale season hits full stride, consider raising your hand for a better bull on behalf of the environment.
