English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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 CO2e from the 20.6 Mt CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) for current consumption. Replacing the feedlot beef diet by grass fed beef (Scenario 2) increased GHG emissions by 1.5 Mt CO2e over Scenario 1. Halving the consumption of grass fed beef and increasing pork by 50% (Scenario 3) reduced GHG by 7.7 Mt CO2e. 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 CO2e. 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 CO2e, 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.

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