Diet characteristics, average daily gain, and time to finish steers of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 1.</b>  Diet characteristics, average daily gain, and time to finish steers of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. (Note: BW: body weight.) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Coefficients and emission factors to calculate GHG emissions of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 4.</b>  Coefficients and emission factors to calculate GHG emissions of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. (Note: <em>Y</em>_m: conversion methane factor (% of gross energy lost as methane); GE: gross energy intake (MJ d⁻¹); <em>Bo</em>: maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category (m³ CH₄ kg of VS/excreted); VS: excreted volatile solids (kg MS animal d⁻¹); MCF: methane conversion factors for manure management system in the climate region; EF₃: emission factor according to the manure management and region; EF₄: emission factor according to manure management system; EF₅: emission factor according to manure management system; EFc: fuel factor emission (gas oil) (2.98 kg CO₂ eq kg fuel⁻¹).) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Greenhouse gas emissions of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay and previous published results

<p><b>Table 9.</b>  Greenhouse gas emissions of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay and previous published results. (Note: RL: rangeland systems; SP: seeded pasture systems; FL: feedlot systems.) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Solubility (Ksp), adsorption (Koc), time for 50% decomposition (<em>T</em>^1/2) and lethal dose-50 (LD-50) for pesticides used in two background and three beef-finishing systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 7.</b>  Solubility (Ksp), adsorption (Koc), time for 50% decomposition (<em>T</em>^1/2) and lethal dose-50 (LD-50) for pesticides used in two background and three beef-finishing systems of eastern Uruguay. Values used to calculate the pesticide contamination risk (PPDB <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/035052/article#erl455951bib36" target="_blank">2009</a>). </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Greenhouse gas emissions per gas and total emissions by source of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 8.</b>  Greenhouse gas emissions per gas and total emissions by source of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. (Note: RL: rangeland systems; SP: seeded pasture systems; FL: feedlot systems.) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Inputs and estimated area to produce the feed consumed by animals in two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 3.</b>  Inputs and estimated area to produce the feed consumed by animals in two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Yield and nutritional content of feedstuffs considered

<p><b>Table 2.</b>  Yield and nutritional content of feedstuffs considered. </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Percentage changes in GHG emissions from the default IPCC values when changing EF₃,EF₄ and EF₅ to the minimum and maximum values in the reported range

<p><b>Table 10.</b>  Percentage changes in GHG emissions from the default IPCC values when changing EF₃,EF₄ and EF₅ to the minimum and maximum values in the reported range. (Note: RL: rangeland systems; SP: seeded pasture systems; FL: feedlot systems. EF₃: emission factor of N for N₂O emissions from urine and dung deposited on grazing systems; EF₄: emission factor of N for N₂O emissions from volatilization; EF₅: emission factor of N for N₂O emissions from leaching.) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

GHG emissions, fossil fuel energy consumption, soil erosion, N and P imbalance ratio and pesticide contamination risk of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay, presented as relative to RL–FL system, taken as a reference for comparison (100)

<p><strong>Figure 1.</strong> GHG emissions, fossil fuel energy consumption, soil erosion, N and P imbalance ratio and pesticide contamination risk of five background-finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay, presented as relative to RL–FL system, taken as a reference for comparison (100). (Note: RL: rangeland systems; SP: seeded pasture systems; FL: feedlot systems.)</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Coefficients and equations used in nutrient (N and P) imbalance calculations

<p><b>Table 6.</b>  Coefficients and equations used in nutrient (N and P) imbalance calculations. (Note: NBF: nitrogen biological fixation; EBW: empty body weight (55% of the animal's live weight, assuming British breed steers).) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p