Abstract:Abstract At 27% of U.S. methane (CH4) emissions (3% of U.S. total emissions), enteric CH4 emissions represent the largest source of U.S. CH4 emissions, surpassing natural gas systems according to the latest report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Total manure CH4 emissions represent 1% of total U.S. emissions. Enteric and manure CH4 emissions from the beef industry represent 2.1% and 0.03%, respectively, of U.S. total emissions. These contributions of CH4 emissions to total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are determined by relating CH4 emissions to a carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent basis (CO2-e) by multiplying the amount of CH4 emissions by its global warming potential (EPA uses 25 for CH4 on a 100-y basis; GWP100). The GWP100 method was adopted following the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and ever since this time its appropriateness for short-lived climate forcers (SLCF; e.g., CH4 has a 12-y atmospheric lifespan) has been debated. This debate exists because GWP100 is a misnomer, as it is known to have no relationship with the contribution of a gas to warming. Since CH4 is a SLCF, when emission rates are decreasing there is a decreasing concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere. To account for SLCF, an alternative accounting methodology, termed GWP-star (GWP*), has been proposed to convert SLCF to a CO2-warming equivalence (CO2-we). The CO2-we values from GWP* methodology has been demonstrated to closely relate to warming contributions compared with the CO2-e value from the GWP100 method. Applying the GWP* metric to enteric and manure CH4 emissions from the beef industry reduces the implied contribution to climate warming of these emission sources by 92% and 62%, on average from 2010-2020, respectively, compared with the GWP100 methodology. There are currently promising mitigation technologies emerging for mitigating enteric CH4 emission. For example 3-nitrooxypropanol may reduce enteric CH4 by 30% and Asparagopsis seaweed may reduce it by 80%. We explored the effects of these technologies on CO2-we if they had 100% adoption by the beef industry and if these mitigation potentials were consistent across all production systems (admittedly a big assumption). Both technologies would result in negative CO2-we for 20-y, after which a new baseline would be achieved and the CH4 emissions would begin contributing to warming again (i.e., accumulating CH4 in the atmosphere). During the 20-y of net-cooling, a 30% and 80% reduction in enteric CH4 would result in -143 (3% of U.S. total CO2 emissions) and -461 (10% of U.S. total CO2 emissions) million metric tons of CO2-we/y, respectively. Ultimately, adopting GWP* not only provides estimates that actually relate to contributions to climate warming, therefore providing a more appropriate metric than what is currently used, but also provides a means for the beef industry to leverage mitigation strategies to be a solution for climate change.

147 Use of Productivity Enhancing Technologies in Beef Steers Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity

Mitigating Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Feedlot Production: A System Meta-Analysis.

Climate impacts of alternative beef production systems depend on the functional unit used: Weight or monetary value

Greenhouse gas emissions in US beef production can be reduced by up to 30% with the adoption of selected mitigation measures

Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems

Phenotypic relationship and repeatability of methane emissions and performance traits in beef cattle using a GreenFeed system

Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Production in Brazil through Animal Management

168 Use of Genomic Tools to Improve Production Efficiency, Health Resilience and Carbon Footprint of Beef Production

The Key Role of Production Efficiency Changes in Livestock Methane Emission Mitigation

Cattle, climate and complexity: food security, quality and sustainability of the Australian cattle industries

Enteric Methane Emissions and Animal Performance in Dairy and Beef Cattle Production: Strategies, Opportunities, and Impact of Reducing Emissions

Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems

20 Methane Accounting and Its Importance to the Beef industry’s Implied Contribution to Climate Warming

218 Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Crossbred Beef Cattle Fall-Grazed on Native Aspen Parkland Pastures

Impact of plant-based meat alternatives on cattle inventories and greenhouse gas emissions

143 Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in midwestern USA beef finishing systems

Cattle production strategies to deliver protein with less land and lower environmental impact

Greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient use efficiency assessment of six New York organic dairies.

209 Effects of Biochar in Finishing Beef Cattle Diets on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Beef Feedlot System in South-East Australia During Summer Conditions

Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of pasture-based beef cattle production systems in the tropical region (Atlantic Forest biome)