研究と協働を通じた持続可能な牛肉生産の推進

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:農業・食料システムの脱炭素研究における学際的ロードマップ策定と、メタン会計の方法論的論点を把握できる。

🏢実務担当者:食品・畜産関連企業がScope 3 排出や水・土地利用の開示目標を設計する際、split-gas 会計や領域別優先課題の整理に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:食料・農業分野の脱炭素政策や研究資金配分において、業界主導のロードマップと分野横断ガバナンスの設計例として参照できる。

Sustainable food systems are challenging, as they encompass environmental, economic, and social dynamics, which require subjective discernment based on individual values. As such, what is considered sustainable by one individual may not be deemed sustainable for another. The beef industry has made significant strides towards becoming a sustainable food system; however, as with all industries, there is room for improvement. In this case, the sustainability domains that have the largest potential for improvement are air, water, and land. However, research undertaken to enhance beef industry sustainability must be transdisciplinary and collaborative to ensure that strategies do not cause unintended consequences or pollution swapping. Recognizing the complexity of the task ahead of the beef industry, a collaborative roadmapping workshop was conducted to bring together researchers with a range of expertise to identify knowledge gaps. This workshop aimed to develop a strategic approach to future research in enhancing beef sustainability, and this special issue of Animal Frontiers stems from the workshop. Sustainability can be defined as meeting our needs today without compromising our capabilities to meet our needs in the future (Brundtland, 1987). Classically, sustainability encompasses environmental, economic, and social pillars and the interactions and trade-offs therein. If a single aspect of sustainability is focused upon, trade-offs may result in other metrics, leading sustainability to be considered as a “wicked problem,” where no right or wrong solution exists, only better or worse (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Furthermore, as the three pillars of sustainability are multifaceted, measured on different scales (dollars, kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), water quality, ecosystem health, etc.), and vary in importance according to individual values, classifying a production system as sustainable or not is eminently subjective (Rowley et al., 2012). Given this subjectivity, a system or practice that one stakeholder might consider sustainable could be considered unsustainable by another. The U.S. beef industry provides a case study for the global industry and provides an example of this dichotomy. Manzano et al. (2023) suggested that the global beef industry is already sustainable through providing economic gains, food security, landscape maintenance, and multiple other benefits. However, as with every industry, there is room for improvement—in this case by focusing on air, water, and land issues. Research ­progress and strategies to improve these domains must take a ­collaborative, holistic approach to avoid unintended trade-offs or pollution swapping, where improving one sustainability metric hinders another. No single researcher has all the requisite knowledge to embrace all three domains, and transdisciplinary collaboration is required across multiple areas of expertise to understand and develop management practices that will enhance beef production sustainability. Realizing this, the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB) hosted a roadmapping workshop in October 2024. This workshop convened 80 experts from 50 different organizations to identify knowledge gaps and therefore facilitate opportunities for future collaborative research (USRSB, 2025). The current ­special issue is a result of this original workshop and aims to coalesce the findings. The remainder of this introduction provides a brief overview of the manuscripts that make up this special issue. The beef industry is unique in being segregated across cow-calf, stocker/backgrounder, and finisher sectors. Each sector comprises a wide range of stakeholders varying in geographic location, climatic conditions, operation size, resource access, and priorities. To develop and implement sustainable improvements in air, water, and land domains, strategies must be region-specific, with minimal unintended consequences. Consequently, the need exists for a coordinated plan, with transdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration. Lai et al. (2026) describes and discusses this need, further extrapolating on the need for an action plan (i.e., a research roadmap). Importantly, although the U.S. beef industry is already one of the most efficient in the world, they highlight that prioritizing research to enhance U.S. beef industry sustainability will also extend solutions globally. Scientists within the USRSB workshop determined that air and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), water, and land were the domains within the U.S. beef industry with the greatest opportunities for sustainability improvement. Subject area expert teams leading these discussions have authored publications related to these domains within the current special issue and are described in the remainder of this section. Enteric methane emissions represent the largest contributor to GHGe from the beef industry, and the majority of total GHGe arise from the pastoral cow-calf sector. Ammonia and volatile organic compound emissions also arise from beef production, and while these emissions are not necessarily greenhouse gases, they can damage vulnerable ecosystems and lead to poor air ­quality. Thompson et al. (2026) broadly describe where the beef industry currently stands in terms of gas emissions, the knowledge that needs to be generated, and areas in which potential mitigation strategies exist. A major conclusion from this research is that there is no single “silver bullet” solution to this challenge, but that advances must be made across multiple research fields. Stanley et al. (2026) discuss the status, gaps, and challenges facing grazing land science across four critical research areas: grazing management, soil carbon, other ecological indicators, and land use. The authors describe the general underlying ­principles of grazing management and the potential wider adoption of adaptive grazing management. Some of the challenges identified include inadequate record keeping, inconsistent terminology in peer-reviewed literature, difficulties in conducting long-term grazing management studies, and accounting for ­spatial soil carbon variability. Water availability is a significant driver of regional cattle production practices, and water quality must be maintained to avoid ecological issues and to protect potability in both grazing and feedlot systems. Wagner et al. (2026) describe important issues facing these enterprises and describe steps that should be taken to increase beef system resilience. In grazing systems, water ­quality, drought severity, and low adoption of best management ­practices reduce system sustainability. The authors identify management practices to protect riparian areas, adaptive grazing management, precision livestock technologies, and coordination between Extension and USDA-NRCS personnel as important solutions to these issues. Water-related challenges to feedlots identified by the authors include nutrient runoff, high water use for feed production, and diminishing water availability. Manure management, recycling wastewater, and development of low-water forages for feed production were identified as promising strategies for feedlot production. Data requirements at the water-shed scale, greater technology testing and validation, practical water reclamation strategy development, and drought-tolerant crops are important research areas going forward (Wagner et al. 2026). Research and innovation in the U.S. beef supply chain has led to substantial improvements in efficiency and reduction in environmental impacts on a per unit of product basis. Werth et al. (2026a) describes several of these innovations, including emerging technologies across the air, land, and water domains. These authors proceeded to outline six research priorities to enhance the sustainability of beef production. These include development of grazing management plans, optimization in the feedyard, technology innovation, model development to evaluate impacts, genetic improvement, and producer practicality and trade-offs to implement strategies (Werth et al. 2026a). Planning a sustainable beef research roadmap will ultimately be unsuccessful unless action occurs and deliverables are met. Werth et al. (2026b) describes three main phases toward coordinated research and action. These phases span short (0–2 years), medium (2–5 years), and long-term (5+ years) horizons and represent a programmatic approach, where a framework is established with aligned sustainability indicators. A key aspect of the needed framework is a secure data sharing platform and relevant program governance. Regional expansion then leads to the integration of producer-led research trials. Finally, deployment of decision support tools to aid producers and other stakeholders is needed to enhance system resilience and sustainability. To achieve these goals, there must be access to funding, and Werth et al. (2026b) discusses a mechanism to raise these funds. The following section will describe the manuscripts that further describe funding mechanisms but also other challenges and opportunities facing the beef industry to enhance its sustainability. Reducing GHGe offers a significant opportunity to enhance global beef industry sustainability, yet accounting for biogenic methane, the predominant GHGe produced by beef production, has a key influence on this metric. Typically, GHGe are expressed as CO2e based on the global warming potential (GWP) on a 100-year time horizon (GWP100). However, methane only lasts in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years. Consequently, the warming impacts of methane are highly dependent on changes in emission rates over time. This nuance is not adequately captured by GWP100, and, as such, targets based on this metric may not align with actual temperature responses. Jones et al. (2026) recommend a split-gas accounting framework so that proposed targets can more appropriately align with desired outcomes. The authors provide exam

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfag045first seen 2026-10-22 04:58:51 · last seen 2026-10-31 05:10:09