Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs

Area of Science:

• Animal Science
• Environmental Science
• Agricultural Economics

Background:

• Increasing consumer demand for grass-fed beef due to climate change concerns and social media trends.
• Existing gaps in understanding the product quality, economic viability, and environmental impacts of different grass-fed beef systems.

Purpose of the Study:

• To holistically investigate and compare four distinct grass-fed and grain-fed beef production systems.
• To evaluate animal performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental footprints.

Main Methods:

• Comparison of four treatments: CON (pasture and feedyard finished), GF20 (20-month grass-fed), GR45 (20-month grass-fed with 45-day grain finish), and GF25 (25-month grass-fed).
• Analysis of performance and carcass data using mixed models (R) and Tukey HSD for significance.
• Life cycle assessment (LCA) using the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems (SPARCS) model for environmental impact evaluation (GWP, water use, energy, land occupation).

Main Results:

• Significant differences in final body weight and dressing percentage across treatments.
• CON system yielded highest final body weight and dressing percentage, while GF20 had the lowest.
• CON system showed significantly higher marbling scores; breakeven costs varied, with GF20 being the highest.
• Global Warming Potential (GWP) was lowest for CON, while GF25 had the highest.
• Water consumptive use was lowest for GF20, but highest for GF25; energy use was lowest for GF20 and GF25.

Conclusions:

• Grass-fed beef systems exhibit considerable variation in animal performance and carcass quality.
• Environmental and economic sustainability present trade-offs among the evaluated beef production systems.
• No single grass-fed or conventional system demonstrated absolute superiority across all assessed metrics.