Potential Role for Consumers to Reduce Canadian Agricultural GHG Emissions by Diversifying Animal Protein Sources

James A. Dyer, Raymond L. Desjardins, Devon E. Worth and Xavier P.C. Vergé
Additional contact information
James A. Dyer: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 122 Hexam Street, Cambridge, ON N3H 3Z9, Canada
Raymond L. Desjardins: Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada
Devon E. Worth: Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada
Xavier P.C. Vergé: Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 13, 1-15

Abstract: The discussion of diversified protein sources triggered by the 2019 Canadian Food Guide has implications for Canada’s livestock industry. In response to this discussion, a scenario analysis is conducted on the potential impact of reducing red meat consumption on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian livestock production. This analysis uses medical recommendations as a proxy for healthy servings of red meat. For simplicity, it was assumed that red meat is either beef or pork and that broilers are the only nonred meat choice. The medical scenario is combined with four livestock production scenarios for these three livestock types. Broiler consumption is allowed to expand to maintain national protein intake in all four scenarios. Under the medical scenario, red meat consumption in Canada would decrease from 2.5 Mt to 1.9 Mt of live weight. A feedlot diet for slaughter cattle, and a 50:50 split of the medically recommended red meat intake of beef and pork (Scenario 1), reduced GHG emissions by 3.9 Mt CO 2 e from the 20.6 Mt CO 2 e (carbon dioxide equivalent) for current consumption. Replacing the feedlot beef diet by grass fed beef (Scenario 2) increased GHG emissions by 1.5 Mt CO 2 e over Scenario 1. Halving the consumption of grass fed beef and increasing pork by 50% (Scenario 3) reduced GHG by 7.7 Mt CO 2 e. Reverting back to the feedlot diet, and the same 25:75 beef–pork ratio (Scenario 4), increased the GHG emissions reduction to 8.9 Mt CO 2 e. Without including the emission savings from the medical scenario, GHG reductions from Scenarios 3 and 4 dropped to 3.8 Mt and 5.0 Mt CO 2 e, respectively. No scenario exceeded the feed grain area required to meet the 2017 consumption of these commodities, but Scenario 2 required more forage area compared to consumption in 2017.

Keywords: national protein intake; scenario analysis; red meat; greenhouse gases; livestock carcass commodities; live weights; beef diet; livestock crop complex; cropland (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5466/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5466/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5466-:d:381307

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().