This paper reconciled the soil ecology benefits of forages and ruminants with reducing GHG emissions from beef. A scenario analysis compared four integrated systems for beef, pork and broilers. Slaughter cattle diets were either business as usual (BAU) or grass fed (GF), and the combined red meat consumption could not exceed the recommendation for human health. The four consumption scenarios included (PS1) equal beef and pork with BAU beef, (PS2) equal beef and pork with GF beef, (PS3) more pork and less beef with GF beef and (PS4) more pork and less beef with BAU beef. Broiler consumption was increased to force all four scenarios to provide the same amount of protein. All four scenarios required similar feed grain areas (2.5 to 3 Mha). At 2.3, 4.4, 2.2 and 1.2 Mha for PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4, respectively, the areas in harvestable forage showed much greater variation. From high to low GHG emissions, the ranking of scenarios was PS2, PS1, PS3 and PS4. Although allowing for avoidance of soil organic matter loss changed this ranking, the carbon footprint of beef production was still double or more that of pork in all four PS. To reconcile the agro-ecological benefits of beef with reducing GHG emissions, PS3 may be better than PS4. Along with eating more pork and broilers, and less red meat overall, consumers can choose GF beef as an occasional alternative.

中文翻译：

---

协调加拿大减少的红肉消费与再生放牧：对温室气体排放、蛋白质供应和土地利用的影响

本文将牧草和反刍动物的土壤生态效益与减少牛肉的温室气体排放相协调。情景分析比较了牛肉、猪肉和肉鸡的四种集成系统。屠宰牛的饮食要么照常营业（BAU），要么吃草（GF），红肉的总消费量不能超过对人类健康的建议。四种消费场景包括（PS1）牛肉和猪肉与BAU牛肉等量，（PS2）牛肉和猪肉与GF牛肉等量，（PS3）更多猪肉和更少牛肉与GF牛肉和（PS4）更多猪肉和更少牛肉与BAU牛肉. 肉鸡消耗量增加以迫使所有四种方案提供相同数量的蛋白质。所有四种情况都需要相似的饲料谷物面积（2.5 到 3 Mha）。PS1、PS2、PS3 和 PS4 分别为 2.3、4.4、2.2 和 1.2 Mha，可收获草料的面积表现出更大的差异。从高到低的温室气体排放，情景的排名为 PS2、PS1、PS3 和 PS4。尽管允许避免土壤有机质损失改变了这一排名，但在所有四个 PS 中，牛肉生产的碳足迹仍然是猪肉的两倍或更多。为了兼顾牛肉的农业生态效益和减少温室气体排放，PS3 可能优于 PS4。除了多吃猪肉和肉鸡，少吃红肉，消费者还可以偶尔选择 GF 牛肉。为了兼顾牛肉的农业生态效益和减少温室气体排放，PS3 可能优于 PS4。除了多吃猪肉和肉鸡，少吃红肉，消费者还可以偶尔选择 GF 牛肉。为了兼顾牛肉的农业生态效益和减少温室气体排放，PS3 可能优于 PS4。除了多吃猪肉和肉鸡，少吃红肉，消费者还可以偶尔选择 GF 牛肉。