Economic and circular economy analysis of including potato waste in beef feedlot diets: a Canadian case study

Introduction: The present study investigates the combined impact of adding a common agricultural waste by-product alternative feed (cull potatoes) to the diet of feedlot cattle on both economic profitability and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Methods: A standard enterprise budget model for beef feedlots was used to estimate economic impacts of replacing feed grains with cull potatoes in cattle diets in two beef feedlot regions in Canada. We compared economic outcomes with the estimated GHG emissions associated with these production systems, along with the offset potential from diverting cull potatoes from landfill to feed for finishing beef cattle.

Results: Inclusion of cull potatoes in beef feedlot diets generated a ‘win-win’ scenario, reducing both the per head feed costs and GHG emissions associated with finishing beef cattle. Diversion of cull potatoes from landfill to feed further offset beef finishing GHG emissions by more than 65% and up to 89% for scenarios with higher inclusion rates of cull potatoes.

Discussion: Increasing the use of palatable waste by-products like cull potatoes in feedlot diets can potentially reduce both the cost of production and GHG emissions, thereby improving both environmental sustainability and profitability. Facilitating greater diversion of agricultural by-products to livestock can enable the ruminant sector to realize its full potential to upcycle waste by-products in a circular bioeconomy.

1 Introduction

The Canadian beef finishing sector represents an important segment of the agricultural industry in the country, contributing $24 billion (Cdn) annually to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (Canadian Cattle Association, n.d.). The industry is committed to advancing both the environmental and economic sustainability of the sector, including by reducing the environmental footprint on natural resources (Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, n.d.). Improving natural resource sustainability in a complex agro-environmental system like beef production necessarily involves addressing both animal and feed production concerns, and identifying solutions that can reduce environmental impacts while maintaining animal production standards and feed quality and supply in a sector subject to environmental conditions and risks.

The inclusion of agriculture and food by-products in livestock diets is a long-standing (Minkler, 1914; Brinkley and Kingsley, 2018) and critically important feeding practice throughout the world (Herrero et al., 2013; Yanti and Yayota, 2017) that has been developed over time partly to increase animal feed options and management flexibility and reduce production risks and costs. There is also some historical evidence indicating that use of agricultural waste for livestock feed in North American livestock production systems is sensitive to fluctuations in the price of feed grains (Bath et al., 1980; Drake et al., 1994; Coffey et al., 2016).

More recently, the upcycling of agricultural by-products into animal feed is increasingly classified as an important circular economy strategy in the agricultural sector (Velasco-Muñoz et al., 2021) as it is a means of reducing both the environmental impact and cost of beef production (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Wijkman and Skånberg, 2017; Giampietro, 2019; Tayengwa et al., 2020). Use of alternative feeds and by-products also has the potential to reduce land and water use associated with beef production, as well as direct and indirect GHG emissions, by replacing the primary grains that are typically used in beef finishing diets. Upcycling of agricultural waste by-products as a means to reduce food waste can also be seen as a potentially important strategy for achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals #12, on Responsible Consumption and Production and #13, on Climate Action. However, there are few studies where both the economic and greenhouse gas (GHG) dimensions of the use of agricultural by-products as animal feed have been examined. For example, Lindberg et al., 2021 compares the carbon footprint of by-product concentrate feeds for dairy cattle and estimates some direct feed costs, but does not consider food waste as animal feed or the partial budget implications of this substitution. In this study, we aimed to fill this research gap, by analyzing beef cattle production costs alongside the GHG emissions associated with the substitution of cull potatoes in the diets of feedlot cattle in western and eastern Canada.

2 Methods

For the economic assessment, we used beef feedlot enterprise cost parameters from relevant Canadian federal and provincial databases to estimate the cost of beef production for two dominant Canadian beef feedlot regions in western and eastern Canada under different potato waste inclusion diet scenarios, for three distinct feedlot animal classes (calf-fed animals, yearlings, and yearling grassers). We assessed these cost of production changes alongside changes in GHG emissions, using feedlot management and emissions data from two previous studies on the same systems (Legesse et al., 2015; Mengistu et al., 2025). We also used enterprise costs to estimate per head profit margins for different potato waste diet inclusion rates, as well as conduct a break-even analysis for each diet and animal class. This allowed a joint examination of the relative impact of inclusion of varying amounts of cull potatoes in feedlot diets on both economic considerations for beef production and greenhouse gas outcomes.

2.1 Feedlot production system models

Representative beef feedlot models in both western and eastern Canada, as described in Legesse et al. (2015) and Mengistu et al. (2025), were used as the basis for the estimated economic outcomes and GHG impacts of incorporating different amounts of cull potato waste in beef cattle diets presented here. In Legesse et al. (2015), three typical Canadian beef finishing animal class systems were described and used to estimate their respective greenhouse gas emissions over time: calf-fed systems, yearling systems and yearling grass-fed systems. Calf-fed systems contain weanling calves that were immediately placed on finishing diets; yearling systems comprise calves fed a backgrounding diet before finishing; and yearling grass-fed systems comprise calves that are backgrounded, placed on pasture in the spring and then subject to a short finishing period. The feedlot production models from Legesse et al. (2015) were further refined in Mengistu et al. (2025) to explicitly allow for the inclusion of cull potato waste in the different finishing diets, based on consultation with beef cattle producers and crop and livestock specialists in Manitoba and Ontario, as well as the Beef Cattle Nutrient Requirement Model (NASEM, 2016) to guarantee constant dry matter intake (DMI) under different cull potato inclusion rates. Some of these beef producers are currently engaged in a barter trade agreement with their neighboring potato producers to obtain cull potato waste for animal diets (Mengistu et al., 2025), and provided estimated exchange costs based on their current arrangements. Thus, we used the beef production models from Legesse et al. (2015) and cull potato diet and GHG modeling of these production systems from Mengistu et al. (2025) to calculate the economic costs and returns to the different cull potato inclusion rates in this study.

The assumed locations of both feedlots were North Cypress-Langford, Ecodistrict 759, Manitoba, and in Melancthon, Ecodistrict 556, Ontario, as described in Mengistu et al. (2025). These study domains (Figures 1a,b) were located in Census Consolidated Subdivisions with a high number of both potato and feedlot cattle producers (Statistics Canada, 2021) and thus had increased potential to utilize potato waste. In each Census Consolidated Subdivision shown on the map, the total number of producers of both cattle and potato from the latest Canadian Census of Agriculture are indicated.

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) Location of potato and beef producers in Manitoba by Census Consolidated Subdivision (CCSD) and the location of the western representative feedlot in North Cypress-Langford, MB (outlined in turquoise) (Statistics Canada, 2022a). Red numbers in the CCSD boundary indicate the total number of beef producers, while blue numbers indicate the total number of potato producers in the same CCSD. (b) Location of potato and beef producers in Ontario and census consolidated subdivision location of the eastern representative feedlot in Melancthon, ON (in turquoise) (Statistics Canada, 2022a).

The cost of production, profit margin and break-even analyses in both feedlot systems was calculated for three animal classes: weanling calves that were immediately placed on finishing diets (calf-fed); yearling-fed calves fed a backgrounding diet before finishing; and yearling grass-fed calves that were backgrounded, placed on pasture in the spring and then subject to a short finishing period. Barley grain was the main energy source in western Canadian feedlot diets, and corn supplemented with soybean meal in feedlot diets is the energy source in eastern Canada (Legesse et al., 2015). Barley silage was assumed to be the main forage fed to feedlot cattle in western Canada, while it was corn silage in eastern Canada (Legesse et al., 2015). We thus estimated the economic impact of substituting barley and corn grain with cull potatoes at rates of 15 and 30% of the dietary dry matter intake (DMI) and compared these diets to the standard grain based diets for both regions. We considered a maximum of 30% replacement of grains for cull potatoes, as that is the highest level of substitution deemed feasible without potentially negatively impacting the growth performance of feedlot cattle (Charmley et al., 2006). A full description of the diets and nutritional profile can be found in Mengistu et al. (2025).

2.2 Feed costs

2.2.1 Feed grain and mineral supplement costs

Feed grain and supplement costs are impacted by the inclusion of potato waste in animal diets, as the substitution rate was based on direct exchange of feed grains for potato at a rate that maintained overall dry matter intake for the animals. In addition, due to the different nutritional profile of potato waste versus barley or corn and soybean meal, this substitution also resulted in an adjustment in the mineral supplements in the diet. In order to model the cost implications of this substitution, feed grains and minerals were assumed to be purchased locally off-farm, as described in Mengistu et al. (2025) and the costs of barley and corn grain and soybean meal were set at the 5-year average (Statistics Canada, 2022b; Index Mundi, 2025). At the time of analysis, current prices were utilized for other basal ingredients, which were primarily mineral supplements at 1% of the diet DM. Sources for the different unit prices used are outlined more specifically in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Cost of production parameters associated with three feedlot management systems (calf-fed, yearling-fed, and yearling grass-fed) in western and eastern Canada.

2.2.2 Potato waste costs

We modeled two contractual arrangements between a feedlot and a nearby potato producer to obtain cull potato waste for inclusion in feedlot diets. Potato waste consisted of discarded culls due to limited storage space, or imperfections that would render them unsuitable for processing. In one scenario, we assumed the potato waste was obtained through a simple barter trade agreement where the feedlot producer provided manure to the potato producer in exchange for free potatoes (Herman Peters, Birkland Farm, Manitoba, personal communication). In this case, the only cost incurred was the cost of trucking the potatoes from the source to the feedlot.

However, the regular inclusion of potato in feedlot diets depends on availability, which may affect the accessibility of this energy-rich ingredient by feedlot operators. Thus, to account for these potential changes in sourcing potatoes, we also examined the effect of potato waste priced at 8% of the table potato price ($0.03/kg for cull potato waste), FOB origin (Keith Van Dyk Furst-McNess Company, Ontario, personal communication). For this alternative scenario, the potato cost used in the cost of production included both the price of potato as well as trucking cost. Both scenarios were then compared to analyze the impact of different contractual arrangements on the overall profitability of using potatoes in feedlots.

Trucking cost of potatoes on an as fed basis at the time of analysis was estimated using a truckload capacity of ~25 metric tonnes /load, average locational prices of fuel per litre, and average transport distance of 32 km with truck fuel consumption of 2.48 km/L (Holtshausen et al., 2021). The high moisture content of cull potatoes (80%) increases transport costs so it is economically important to keep transport distances short (Hinman and Sauter, 1978). A distance of 32 km was used as many feedlots are within this radius of potato producers in western and eastern Canada (Keith Van Dyk Furst-McNess Company, Ontario, personal communication; Figures 1a,b).

2.2.3 Silage production costs

Silage feed costs for western and eastern feedlot diets remain constant across different rates of inclusion of potato, due to the constraint to maintain animal growth performance. However, total silage production costs vary between eastern and western regions, which impacts the overall comparisons of the profit margin between the feedlots as well as the breakeven analysis. Therefore, to account for silage feed costs for each region, the production cost of barley and corn silages was estimated for each location using provincial cost of production guidelines (Manitoba Agriculture, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; OMAFRA, n.d.). Silage production costs were assumed to include both variable input costs (i.e., seed, fertilizer, chemicals, land taxes, fuel, crop insurance, labor, and 5% operating interest) and fixed input costs (i.e., land, storage, owned farm machinery with depreciation and investment costs over 15 years). A 10-year average dry matter yield (Manitoba Agriculture, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; Statistics Canada, 2022a) and the number of hectares required (calculated for each cattle category using feed intake) were then used to estimate the total land input costs needed to produce barley or corn silage. The data necessary to estimate these values were obtained from Manitoba Agriculture, Ontario Agriculture, Statistics Canada and several other relevant sources (Table 1).

2.2.4 Additional cost of production parameters

In addition to feed costs, we accounted for the main operating and fixed costs for Canadian feedlots for overall profit and breakeven analysis. Operating costs included feeder cattle prices, bedding, veterinary medicine and supplies, fuel, utilities, marketing and transportation, insurance, manure removal and operating interest (Table 1). The fixed costs included depreciation and investment of buildings with 10% salvage value of the initial cost and 20-year useful life, and machinery and equipment with 20% salvage value of the initial cost over 10 years. As fixed costs were not assumed to vary between Eastern and Western systems, and did not impact the partial budget analysis on cull potato inclusion, the summarized estimated total per head level of these costs is shown in Table 1. Full calculations of these costs are available upon request.

2.3 Modeling cattle performance for different diets, market prices and returns

Animal diet composition was adjusted to maintain consistent animal growth performance for each level of inclusion of potato waste to ensure comparisons for each feedlot are not impacted by differential growth outcomes. The initial body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG) and average daily DM intake (kg) of the cattle types were as reported by Legesse et al. (2015) and Mengistu et al. (2025) and assumed to be similar between western and eastern Canada (Sheppard et al., 2015). Steer and heifer characteristics from Legesse et al. (2015) were averaged for ease of exposition. Thus, the average days on feed at the feedlot were 240, 153, and 105-d for calf-fed, yearling-fed and yearling grass-fed cattle, respectively. Average prices (in terms of $/hundredweight) for feeders and finished cattle between 2019 and 2024 (Statistics Canada, 2022b) were used to estimate economic returns for each of the feeding scenarios for each animal type and inclusion level (15 and 30%) of potato waste.

2.4 Partial budget analysis and break-even analysis

After calculating the associated costs of production and returns to different potato waste inclusion rate scenarios, a partial budget analysis was performed to assess the economic impact of inclusion of potato waste relative to baseline costs for the animals with standard diets without potato waste using a standard enterprise budgeting production calculator from Manitoba Agriculture (n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Partial budget analysis estimates the cost of production impact relative to a business as usual baseline, by comparing budget costs across scenarios and identifying budget gains (where costs decrease versus the baseline) and losses (where costs increase versus the baseline).

To further align the economic analysis of the impact of inclusion of potato waste with standard beef cattle industry tools, we also performed a break-even analysis across potato waste inclusion rates (Manitoba Agriculture, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Break even analysis estimates the cattle prices at which producers under different production systems will exactly break-even and fully offset costs of production with fed animal revenues. Feedlot producers have some flexibility in participating in feeder and fed animal markets, and can often arbitrage seasonal price fluctuations in these markets. Thus, the break-even analysis provides guidance on ranges of prices that allow for break-even economic outcomes.

2.5 Modeling greenhouse gas emissions and the social cost of carbon

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with inclusion of potato waste in feedlot diets were estimated using the Holos model (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Holos Software Program, n.d., Holos - agriculture.canada.ca) for each feeding scenario, as detailed in Mengistu et al. (2025). The system boundary included the beef cattle feedlot finishing operations with the associated crop land required for grain and silage production. On-farm GHG emission sources were: enteric and manure methane (CH₄), direct and indirect nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from run-off, manure, fertilized soils and cropping; and carbon dioxide (CO₂) from fuel energy use for on-farm cropping activities. Off-farm GHG emissions from inputs included the production and transport of cull potatoes, grains, and soybean meal (SBM), as well as the processing of SBM. Emissions estimates from fertilizer and herbicide manufacture and equipment use were also included. Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) were used to express emissions with a 100-year global warming potential of CO₂ = 1, CH₄ = 28, and N₂O = 265.

3 Results

Section 3 summarizes the economic analysis as well as the GHG implications of different inclusion rates of potato waste into feedlot diets. Section 3.1 presents the partial budget analysis and break-even analysis of the impact of inclusion of potato waste on these two important economic benchmarks for feedlot producers. For ease of exposition, the calculations and results are presented first in detail for calf-fed systems (Section 3.1.1) to fully summarize both the economic analytical method as well as the results. Section 3.1.2 then collates all of the partial budget and breakeven analysis for the other animal classes under investigation (yearlings and yearling grasser animals), to avoid repetition across the animal classes and note that the substitution of feed grains for potato waste represents a smaller proportion of the overall feed costs for these animal classes due to their time spent on pasture during finishing. Section 3.2 then jointly examines the economic and GHG impacts of greater incorporation of potato waste into beef feedlot diets.

3.1 Economic analysis

3.1.1 Calf-fed finishing systems

3.1.1.1 Partial budget analysis

Partial budget analysis for representative feedlots with calf-fed cattle with different dietary inclusion rates of potato waste (15 and 30%) for western and eastern Canada are summarized in Tables 2, 3, respectively. The results for yearling and yearling fed animals are similar and are summarized in the next section for ease of exposition. The different contractual arrangements (barter trade vs. market) for obtaining the potato waste are also presented. The partial budget analysis was performed relative to the standard feedlot diet for both methods of obtaining potato waste.

Table 2

Table 2. Enterprise budget analysis for calf-fed cattle with different rates of inclusion of potato waste (15 and 30%) in a western Canadian feedlot.

Table 3

Table 3. Partial budget analysis for calf-fed cattle with different rates of inclusion of potato waste in an eastern Canadian feedlot.

The main economic impact of inclusion of potato waste was a reduction in total operating costs for both western and eastern feedlots, primarily by lowering feed costs by substituting for grain as well as a minor reduction in the cost of the mineral supplement in the diet due to the nutritional content of potato for animal feed. Although there was a partial increase in per-head operating costs to obtain the potato waste, these access costs were more than offset by the reductions in operating costs via lower direct expenses for grains and mineral supplements. There was also a small reduction in operating interest as feed cost financing was reduced when potato waste was substituted for purchased feed grains, particularly under the barter trade arrangement.

A second broad pattern was that feed expenses generally decreased more with higher rates of inclusion of potato waste. If the feedlot was able to secure a barter trade arrangement, and only paid for the trucking costs of the potato waste in exchange for feedlot manure, the cost benefits would be even greater at both inclusion rates. The greatest cost of production benefits thus arise at higher inclusion rates and under a barter trade agreement, with an almost 30% reduction in feed costs at the 30% inclusion rate of potato under a barter trade scenario. These general patterns were observed for all cattle types across both regions.

3.1.1.2 Break-even analysis for inclusion of potato waste for calf-fed systems

A break-even analysis of the different feedlot diets was performed to assess the impact of using lower-cost by-product waste feeds like cull potatoes on the optimum purchase and sale price for finished animals as well as on profit margins. The break-even calculations were performed using the more strict assumption that the feedlot owner paid for trucking in potato waste as well as a nominal price for the potato waste itself (i.e., 8% of the value of table potatoes). Inclusion of potato waste increased the breakeven purchase prices for incoming feeder cattle and lowered the breakeven selling prices for finished cattle (Table 4). This provides feedlot producers with more market leverage when obtaining incoming feeders, as well as expands the range of market prices that would be profitable for finished cattle. Under 5 year average grain and cattle slaughter prices, profit margins were negative for most scenarios in the calf-fed model, which has been historically true for Canadian feedlots for the past 5 years (Canfax, n.d.). However, when potato waste was included in the diet at 30% substitution for feed grains, the returns per head are larger than operating costs and generate a positive margin (shown in green) for eastern feedlots. With potato waste inclusion at 30% and with a barter trade arrangement, the overall profit margins became positive in the eastern region, allowing coverage of labor and fixed costs per head in addition to operating expenses. In general, inclusion of potato waste improved these margins across all cattle classes and regions. Although the margin trend in feedlots remained negative for almost all scenarios, with the inclusion of potato waste, these losses have the potential to be smaller than for conventional systems, and in the best case scenario even result in a positive return on investment if a consistent supply of potato waste can be secured (see Table 5).

Table 4

Table 4. Western feedlot breakeven purchase and sale prices and marginal returns with different rates of inclusion of potato waste for calf-fed cattle.

Table 5

Table 5. Eastern feedlot breakeven and marginal returns with different rates of inclusion of potato waste for calf-fed cattle.

3.1.2 Yearling and yearling grass-fed finishing systems

Table 6 summarizes the partial budget and break even analysis for yearling and yearling grass-fed cattle as well as a comparison with calf-fed systems. Similar impacts from inclusion of cull potato waste as a substitute for feed grains for these animal classes can be observed for these yearling systems in parallel to the outcomes on calf-fed cattle systems previously described.

Table 6

Table 6. Partial budget analysis summary comparing differences in feed costs, operating interest and net cost of production with two potato waste inclusion rates (15 and 30%) and two potato waste contract arrangements (paid and barter) for all classes of cattle.

The impact on breakeven points for yearling systems was also positive, with the reduction in feed costs at higher levels of inclusion of potato waste leading to a greater range of purchase and sale prices for feedlots cattle. However, as yearlings spent fewer days in feedlots, the inclusion of potato waste (even under a barter trade arrangement) did not lower per head feed costs or improve profit margins to the same extent as in calf-fed systems. For yearling cattle, the highest rate of inclusion of potato waste (30%) in the eastern feedlot had the greatest impact on the breakeven point (Table 7). As can be seen, the inclusion of potato waste for yearlings was insufficient to raise marginal rates of return fully above operating costs, although in all cases, losses were reduced as compared to standard diets without potato waste. In Eastern feedlots, impacts were similar, as inclusion of cull potatoes improved marginal returns above standard diets, but not enough to cover operating costs. Nonetheless, high rates of inclusion of potato waste still enabled feedlot producers to broaden the range of purchase and sale prices of yearlings, expanding their purchasing and marketing opportunities.

Table 7

Table 7. Breakeven calculations for yearling and yearling grasser animals (eastern feedlot systems) with potato waste included at 30% of diet DM (purchased cull potato vs. barter trade arrangement).

3.2 Combined assessment of economic costs and greenhouse gas emissions of including potato waste in feedlot diets

In addition to the economic rationale for considering inclusion of potato waste in feedlot diets, reducing GHG emissions and the overall environmental footprint of the beef feedlot sector was also examined from a circular bioeconomy perspective (Ominski et al., 2021).

The inclusion of potato waste in feedlot diets has both direct and indirect impacts on feedlot GHG emissions. There are direct effects due to the GHG emissions associated with potato production, as well as changes in enteric and manure methane emissions from the animals due to the changes in diet composition. There are also indirect impacts as a result of potato waste being substituted for barley, corn and soybean meal in feedlot diets, which alters the emissions associated with animal feed production. Finally, as cull potatoes are can be considered waste by-products, diverting cull potatoes from landfill to cattle feed helps reduce the GHG emissions associated with this disposal practice (Gooch et al., 2019). Full estimation of the net GHGs from different inclusion rates of potato waste has been presented in Mengistu et al. (2025). These calculations assess both the direct enteric and manure methane emissions from the main feed ingredients (barley, corn, soybean meal, potato) as well as the indirect embedded GHG emissions associated with production of these main diet ingredients. As cull potatoes were incorporated into feedlot diets, the combined impact of both the direct and indirect effects of including more potato waste in feedlot diets reduced per head GHG emissions on net as compared to when standard feed grains were included in the diet. They also showed additional GHG offset potential due to avoiding the emissions associated with landfilling cull potatoes. The complete list of estimated GHGs for each animal class and feeding strategy is shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Table 8. Greenhouse gas emissions for different cattle classes and regions.

Extending the GHG assessment from Mengistu et al. (2025) to include the economic analysis, inclusion of potato waste was a clear ‘win-win’ for feedlots from both a feed cost and GHG emission perspective (Figure 2), rather than a trade-off between climate mitigation and economic cost of production considerations, as greater inclusion of potato waste also led to greater reduction in per head GHG emissions.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Feed costs vs. greenhouse gas emissions per head at different potato waste inclusion rates (0%/10%/15%) for calf-fed animals housed at either western or eastern feedlots. The blue data points and arrow show per head feed cost and emissions reductions for western calf-fed animals. The orange points and arrow show per head feed cost and emissions reductions for eastern calf-fed animals.

The proportional rate of change of feed costs and GHG emissions varied between western and eastern feedlots (Figure 2). More specifically, the relative impact of inclusion of potato waste on emissions vs. feed costs was less in western calf-fed systems (1.25 kg CO₂eq/$), than in eastern calf-fed systems (4.20 kg CO₂eq/$). This can be attributed to regional variation in feed costs between barley, corn and soybean meal, as well as their variable contribution to beef production and growth. It is also a reflection of the fact that GHG emissions associated with the production of barley grain are lower than those associated with the production of corn and soybeans (Desjardins et al., 2020).

Yearling systems also showed both an economic and GHG win-win as a result of including potato waste in the diets, with reductions in both per head feed costs and GHGs (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Feed costs and greenhouse gas emissions for yearling and yearling grasser animals, in western and eastern feedlots.

4 Discussion

Section 4 highlights the main conclusions to be drawn for the circular economy potential of using potato waste in beef feedlot production. Section 4.1 discusses the GHG offset potential from greater utilization of potato waste when considering both the beef and potato production sectors together in an enlarged system boundary. Section 4.2 examines the possibilities for scaling up the adoption of the practice of incorporating potato waste into beef production. Section 4.3 discusses possible long run implications for the agricultural sector if the livestock and crop system interactions analyzed in this research are more broadly considered in agricultural system design. Section 4.4 outlines the limitations of our research results and highlights directions for future analysis on the circular economy opportunities in the livestock production sector.

4.1 Greenhouse gas offset potential of the circular re-use of potato waste as cattle feed to avoid landfill emissions

Circular economy strategies look for different methods to decouple economic production from primary resource use, switching from a ‘take-make-waste’ linear economic system to one with a closed loop system that repurposes and upcycles waste into new productive uses. In the agricultural sector context, Velasco-Muñoz et al. (2021) highlight that strategies like using agricultural waste such as cull potatoes as feed for livestock was an example of ‘resource cascading’ and the establishment of a more closed loop circular economic system. They also indicate that economic analysis of such circular economy strategies for the agricultural sector is limited, and more research into the application of circular economy principles to agriculture is necessary. Analysis of the real world examples used in this manuscript from two current Canadian feedlots already partnering with neighboring potato producers to exchange resources offers an important opportunity to add to our body of knowledge of the precise economic and environmental costs and benefits of promoting a circular economy structure in Canadian agriculture.

For Canadian horticultural producers and processors, cull potato piles on farm and land application are the most common disposal methods for these waste by-products (Bell, 2015; Gooch et al., 2019). Landfilling and cull piles are sources of additional methane emissions from potato production (De Corato et al., 2018). Thus, the circular economy strategy of diverting cull potatoes into livestock feed avoids landfill emissions as well as minimizes pests or other vermin in cull potato piles (Olsen et al., 2001). Table 9 uses emissions factors from Lee et al. (2017) on landfill waste and applies them to the potato waste used in the feedlot diets in our study, following Mengistu et al. (2025). The practice of including potato waste in feedlot diets can therefore offset remaining GHG emissions from feedlots by reducing landfill emissions as a result of potato disposal. At 30% of dietary DM, upcycling potato waste into cattle feed offset the GHGs from the feedlot sector by more than 60% and up to almost 90% in the case of Western calf-fed animals.

Table 9

Table 9. Estimated net avoided emissions and greenhouse gas emissions offsets from inclusion of cull potato waste in the diets of feedlot cattle (Mengistu et al., 2025).

Consequently, diversion of potato waste to cattle feed can serve as an effective GHG mitigation tool for beef feedlots. By way of comparison, feed additives such as 3NOP have been estimated to reduce beef methane emissions by an average of 30%, but with potential negative animal production consequences (Zhang et al., 2021). In contrast, avoidance of landfill emissions by incorporating cull potato waste into feedlot diets reduced GHG emissions from the agriculture sector more broadly between at least 67% and up to 89% (Table 9) with little consequence to animal production indicators.

4.2 Logistic and scaling up challenges and potential opportunities for greater incorporation of potato waste into feedlot diets

From both the individual feedlot budget and greenhouse gas mitigation perspectives, encouraging diversion of agricultural by-products like cull potatoes into feedlot diets is clearly a win-win, by lowering production costs as well as per head GHG from feedlots. However, presently there are few formal systems in place to enable feedlot producers elsewhere in Canada to easily incorporate agricultural by-products into feedlot diets. These logistical costs may serve as a barrier for feedlots to more regularly incorporate potato waste and other food by-products into their operations despite the direct economic and GHG mitigation benefits. A recent review by Prokopy et al. (2019) highlights that the economic business case for management practices is a necessary condition for environmental BMP adoption, but not necessarily a sufficient one. More complex factors, like farmer awareness and confidence in the performance of management practices, information seeking and access, regulations and effective training and well-regarded stewardship programs are often much more important in explaining farm system changes. More investigation of what similar types of information and incentives (like cost sharing programs e.g.) might be required to facilitate more circular economic exchanges between field crop producers and feedlots are warranted.

On a broader, industry wide level, given our calculations, there may be further challenges in scaling up the practice and additional strategies may need to be considered to facilitate a switch to a more circular economic system of regularly using agricultural by-products for animal feed. In our analysis, we modeled emissions for feedlots with 1,000 head. For the best economic and GHG emissions case scenario with inclusion of 30% DM potato waste in feedlot diets, this would result in 11 to 13 kg of cull potato waste being consumed per animal per day. For feedlots with 1,000 head, this would require access to 11,000 to 13,000 kg of potato waste per day for a period of between 100–240 days on feed. Given our assumption of a truckload capacity of 25 metric tonnes, three to four truckloads of potato waste per week would be required to meet the needs of a 1,000 head commercial feedlot.

Precise estimates of the feedlot population of different provinces are not available through Canadian national statistics (Vergé et al., 2008). However, based on other sources, approximately 10% of Manitoba’s beef herd are in feedlots (Manitoba Agriculture, 2023) representing about 40,000 head. At a maximum 30% DM inclusion rate of about 12 kg per day per head, including potato waste in these diets over the course of 100 days on feed would require ⁓48,000 tonnes of potato waste for yearlings and more than 115,000 tonnes for calf-fed feedlot systems. The scale of the feedlot sector is much larger in Ontario than Manitoba, with hundreds of thousands of cattle (Vergé et al., 2008; OMAFRA, 2023). Consequently, Ontario would require a much larger volume of waste potatoes to ensure a consistent level in the diet of feedlot cattle.

Between 5 and 10% of potato yields end up as culls (Halliday, 2010). In 2024, Ontario produced more than 400,000 metric tonnes of potatoes, and Manitoba produced over 1 million metric tonnes (Statistics Canada, 2022a, 2022b). This would suggest that more than 40,000 tonnes of potato waste was potentially produced in Ontario and more than 100,000 tonnes in Manitoba. If we consider potato waste from other sources, such as potato processing facilities, this potential feed source becomes even greater. So, there appears to be significant scope for regular inclusion of potato waste in feedlot cattle diets in both provinces (Ominski et al., 2021), but transportation logistics would need to be addressed. A recent study by Second Harvest (Gooch et al., 2019) suggests that up to 25% of agricultural produce waste, such as cull potatoes, is currently landfilled or spread back on the land, with only about 12% of this waste stream being used as animal feed. Facilitating exchanges as described in this paper between rural feedlots and agricultural commodity producers would thus significantly reduce GHG from rural agricultural producers, as well as improve their economic bottom line. In addition, exchanges of waste by-products between agricultural producers have relatively small start up costs, vs. other potential systems for processing agricultural waste by-products such as anerobic digestion. There are currently no agricultural waste anaerobic digestion facilities in Manitoba (Canadian Biogas Association, 2023), and thus a waste by-product exchange between potato producers and feedlots in the province is a much more relevant option to reduce agricultural waste GHG.

4.3 Longer term impact of circular economy approaches to reduce emissions from the beef value chain

For the beef sector, a more circular economy approach would increase the use of agricultural by-products, like cull potatoes as a principal feed for beef production. This could be extended further into joint consideration of human food and animal feed production with a view to increasing production of human agricultural food products whose waste by products are most suited as livestock feed (Van Zanten et al., 2016). This would reduce the demand for grain as feed for livestock and increase it as a source of food for humans. This circular economy shift across the beef value chain may result in employment opportunities, as recycling of waste products tends to be more labor intensive than primary production sectors (Wijkman and Skånberg, 2017).

4.4 Study limitations

This study presents a detailed assessment of the immediate potential benefits of incorporation of potato waste into the standard diets for several typical Canadian beef feedlot production systems. Utilizing some standard modeling assumptions on both beef production, budget analysis and GHG emissions, these case studies suggest that the potential for ruminants to ‘upcycle’ food and agricultural wastes to improve circularity in our agricultural systems is high, in line with other analyses (Van Zanten et al., 2016; Ominski et al., 2021). Nevertheless, more research and information is needed to improve our understanding on the full consequences of more circular economic approaches to both the livestock and field crop sectors. The findings in this study apply currently to Canadian beef production and potato waste as the chosen agricultural waste by-product. The results for other livestock sectors or other waste feedstuffs might vary, and a similar exploration of both the economic and GHG mitigation impacts would be necessary to extend findings fully beyond the systems represented in this research. In addition, although the systems represented in this paper are modeled on real barter trade arrangements currently in place in the Canadian context, further analysis is required to understand the likelihood of similar arrangements between other livestock and field crop producers, or what factors are key to their success. Finally, the scaling up challenges are likely to be significant, as circular economy approaches require the investment of infrastructure to consistently divert waste products into secondary uses, such as livestock diets. Full upcycling of agricultural waste by-products may thus be constrained by the potential additional costs required to maintain animal nutritional value and to limit risks to animal health through proper processing and storage of these alternative feeds, which may be greater than for methods used for traditional forages used in animal production. Relatedly, the logistical challenges of securing sufficient access to high quality agricultural waste by-products, in terms of potential transportation challenges, as well as overall supply volumes, will represent barriers to shifting current Canadian beef finishing systems, and other comparable systems internationally, to more inclusion of agricultural waste by-products as feedstuffs. Analyzing the optimal agricultural waste diversion and processing systems to encourage greater circularity between the field crop and livestock production sectors is beyond the scope of this study, but is a critical next step in developing more circular agricultural systems.

5 Conclusion

In this study, we have evaluated the specific economic and greenhouse gas consequences to Canadian beef producers of greater inclusion of an agricultural waste by-product (cull potato waste) under current Canadian beef production conditions. We used industry-standard animal nutrition models to assess the impact of substituting potato waste for feed grains. We then conducted economic enterprise, breakeven and greenhouse gas analysis for Canadian beef finishing operations at different levels of inclusion for potato waste and found that, in addition to improving circularity and reducing agricultural waste, inclusion of a common alternative feed like cull potato can both improve a beef producer’s bottom line and break-even position, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a ‘win-win’ scenario. Although these calculations were performed specifically for Canadian beef finishing systems using cull potato as the waste by-product, the general conclusions of both the economic and environmental benefits of inclusion of agricultural waste by-products in beef finishing diets are likely to apply to other beef production and agricultural waste settings. This is due to the fact that currently, many agricultural waste by-products are often a low or no-cost feedstuff for livestock producers, that still have well established nutritional value, based on long-standing animal science research findings. And, many agricultural waste by-products, beyond the cull potatoes examined in this study, have high organic matter content, which under current disposal arrangements will generate methane emissions, which can be partly mitigated through their use in animal diets. Greater analysis and consideration of these interlinked crop and agricultural systems, like those in this study, is thus required to simultaneously optimize the production of food and feed and minimize the environmental footprint by exploiting these circular economy principles so that they can become embedded and mainstreamed within livestock and field crop production systems.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Author contributions

ES: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. KO: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The authors acknowledge the support from Beef Cattle Research Council and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Sustainable Beef and Forage Science Cluster (ENV.15.17; 2018–23) and Manitoba Beef Producers/the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Project 56838).

Acknowledgments

We also thank Dr. Elham Rahmani for assistance with preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Holos Software Program. (n.d.) Available online at: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/holos (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Bath, D. L., Dunbar, J., King, J., Berry, S., Leonard, R., and Olbrich, S. (1980). By-products & unusual feedstuffs in livestock rations. Western Regional Extension Publication (WREP) No. 39, October 1980. Available online at: https://wec.farmmanagement.org

Google Scholar

Bell, J. (2015). An organic waste inventory for Alberta’s agrifood sector. Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/organic-waste-inventory-for-albertas-agrifood-sector (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Brinkley, C., and Kingsley, J. S. (2018). “Urban agriculture” in Advances in agricultural animal welfare. ed. J. A. Mench (Woodhead Publishing), 241–257. doi: 10.1016/C2015-0-05920-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Canadian Biogas Association (2023). Canadian 2023 Biogas Market Report, Summary. Available online at: https://biogasassociation.ca/resources/page/2023_canadian_biogas_and_rng_market_report/ (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Canadian Cattle Association. (n.d.) “Canadian beef economics.” Available online at: https://www.cattle.ca/canadian-beef-economics (Accessed June 25, 2025).

Google Scholar

Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. (n.d.) Available online at: https://crsb.ca/about/ (Accessed June 25, 2025).

Google Scholar

Canfax (n.d.). Canfax Trends Report, Monthly Profit/Loss Margin 2012-2025. Members report. Available online at: Canfax.ca (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Charmley, E., Nelson, D., and Zvomuya, F. (2006). Nutrient cycling in the vegetable processing industry: utilization of potato by-products. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86, 621–629. doi: 10.4141/S05-118

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coffey, D., Dawson, K., Ferket, P., and Connolly, A. (2016). Review of the feed industry from a historical perspective and implications for its future. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 4:e3. doi: 10.1017/jan.2015.11,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Corato, U., De Bari, I., Viola, E., and Pugliese, M. (2018). Assessing the main opportunities of integrated biorefining from agro-bioenergy co/by-products and agroindustrial residues into high-value added products associated to some emerging markets: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 88, 326–346. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.041

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Desjardins, R. L., Worth, D. E., Dyer, J. A., Vergé, X. P. C., and McConkey, B. G. (2020). “The carbon footprints of agricultural products in Canada” in Carbon footprints: case studies from the building, household, and agricultural sectors, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. ed. S. S. Muthu (Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong: Springer Singapore).

Google Scholar

Drake, D. A., Foster, K. A., Perry, T. W., and Petritz, D. C. (1994). An economic analysis of alternative feeds in midwestern beef cattle finishing rations. J. Sustain. Agric. 4, 21–39. doi: 10.1300/J064v04n01_04

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). (2021). A healthy environment and a healthy economy : Canada’s strengthened climate plan to create jobs and support people, communities and the planet. Available online at: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/healthy-environment-healthy-economy.html (Accessed November 8, 2025).

Google Scholar

Giampietro, M. (2019). On the circular bioeconomy and decoupling: implications for sustainable growth. Ecol. Econ. 162, 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., Laplain, D., Dent, B., Whitehead, P., Felfel, A., et al. (2019) The avoidable crisis of food waste: Technical report. Value Chain Management International and Second Harvest, Ontario, Canada

Google Scholar

Halliday, L. (2010). Feeding cull potatoes to beef cattle. Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.beefresearch.ca/content/uploads/2023/12/feeding-cull-potatoes-to-beef-cattle.pdf (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M. C., Thornton, P. K., et al. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hinman, D. D., and Sauter, E. A. (1978). Handling potato waste for beef cattle feeding. Current Information Series-Idaho University. Available online at: https://objects.lib.uidaho.edu/uiext/uiext28665.pdf (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Holtshausen, L., Benchaar, C., Kröbel, R., and Beauchemin, K. A. (2021). Canola meal versus soybean meal as protein supplements in the diets of lactating dairy cows affects the greenhouse gas intensity of milk. Animals (Basel). 11:1636. doi: 10.3390/ani11061636,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Index Mundi (2025). Soybean Meal Monthly Price – Canadian Dollar per Metric Ton. Available online at: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=soybean-meal&months=60&currency=cad (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, U., Han, J., and Wang, M. (2017). Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 335–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Legesse, G., Beauchemin, K., Ominski, K., Mcgeough, E., Kroebel, R., Macdonald, D., et al. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared with 2011. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56, 153–168. doi: 10.1071/AN15386

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindberg, M., Henriksson, M., Bååth Jacobsson, S., and Lundberg, M. B. (2021). Byproduct-based concentrates in Swedish dairy cow diets – evaluation of environmental impact and feed costs. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 70, 132–144. doi: 10.1080/09064702.2021.1976265

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Manitoba Agriculture (2023). "Sector profile at a glance, beef cattle". Available online at: https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/markets-and-statistics/publications-and-proceedings/pubs/agriculture-sector-profile.pdf (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Manitoba Agriculture. (n.d.-a) Guidelines for estimating silage production costs. Available online at: https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/farm-management/cost-production/pubs/cop-forage-cereal-silage.xlsm (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Manitoba Agriculture. (n.d.-b) Cost of production guides & calculators, beef feedlot finishing costs. Available online at: https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/farm-management/cost-production/pubs/cop-beef-feedlot-finishing.xlsm (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Manitoba Hydro. (2022) Historical electricity and natural gas rates. Available online at: https://www.hydro.mb.ca/accounts_and_services/rates/historical_rates/ (Accessed May 6, 2023).

Google Scholar

Mengistu, G., McAllister, T., Fulawka, D., Aboagye, I., Legesse, G., Stanford, K., et al. (2025). Can using food waste as feed reduce the environmental footprint of Canadian beef production? A case study of cull potatoes. Agric. Syst. 227:104324. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104324,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Minkler, F. C. (1914). Hog cholera and swine production. New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 40.

Google Scholar

NASEM (2016). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 8th rev. Edn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

Olsen, N., Nolte, P., Harding, G., and Ohlensehlen, B. (2001). Cull and waste potato management. University of Idaho, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension System CIS Bulletin 814.

Google Scholar

OMAFRA (2023) Ontario livestock inventories: cattle. Available online at: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/4d2854a0-8b8c-45d9-82ed-065c5394cedf/resource/1347f6e6-f4d5-477d-863a-c7dd03e1c38a/download/cattle.xlsx (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

OMAFRA. (n.d.) Crops and livestock budgeting in Ontario. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/crops-and-livestock-budgeting-ontario#section-5 (Accessed May 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ominski, K., McAllister, T., Stanford, K., Mengistu, G., Kebebe, E., Omonijo, F., et al. (2021). Utilization of by-products and food waste in livestock production systems: a Canadian perspective. Anim. Front. 11, 55–63. doi: 10.1093/af/vfab004,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ontario Energy Board (2022). Historical electricity rates. Available online at: https://www.oeb.ca/consumer-information-and-protection/electricity-rates/historical-electricity-rates (Accessed 2023).

Google Scholar

Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Eanes, F. R., Gao, Y., et al. (2019). Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 520–534. doi: 10.2489/jswc.74.5.520

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheppard, S., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K., Small, J., et al. (2015). Beef cattle husbandry practices across ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95, 305–321. doi: 10.4141/cjas-2014-158

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Statistics Canada. (2021) Census of agriculture, farms classified by farm type. Statistics Canada. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210023101 (Accessed 2023).

Google Scholar

Statistics Canada. (2022a). Table 32-10-0359-01 Estimated areas, yield, production, average farm price and total farm value of principal field crops, in metric and imperial units. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.25318/3210035901-eng (Accessed May 6, 2025)

Google Scholar

Statistics Canada. (2022b). Table 32-10-0077-01 Farm product prices, crops and livestock. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.25318/3210007701-eng (Accessed May 6, 2025)

Google Scholar

Statistics Canada (2023). Value per acre of farm land and buildings at July 1. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210004701 (Accessed 2023).

Google Scholar

Statistics Canada (2024). Area, production and farm value of potatoes. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210035801 (Accessed January 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Tayengwa, T., Chikwanha, O. C., Dugan, M. E. R., Mutsvangwa, T., and Mapiye, C. (2020). Influence of feeding fruit by-products as alternative dietary fibre sources to wheat bran on beef production and quality of Angus steers. Meat Sci. 161:107969. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107969,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Zanten, H., Meerburg, B., Bikker, P., Herrero, M., and De Boer, I. (2016). Opinion paper: the role of livestock in a sustainable diet: a land-use perspective. Animal 10, 547–549. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115002694,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., Mendoza, J. M. F., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., and Gallego-Schmid, A. (2021). Circular economy implementation in the agricultural sector: definition, strategies and indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 170:105618. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105618

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vergé, X., Dyer, J., Desjardins, R., and Worth, D. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry. Agric. Syst. 98, 126–134. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.05.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wijkman, A., and Skånberg, K. (2017). The circular economy and benefits for society: Jobs and climate clear winners in an economy based on renewable energy and resource efficiency: A study pertaining to Finland, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, Club of Rome.

Google Scholar

Yanti, Y., and Yayota, M. (2017). Agricultural by-products as feed for ruminants in tropical area: nutritive value and mitigating methane emission. Rev. Agric. Sci. 5, 65–76. doi: 10.7831/ras.5.65

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, X. M., Smith, M. L., Gruninger, R. J., Kung, L. Jr., Vyas, D., McGinn, S. M., et al. (2021). Combined effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol and canola oil supplementation on methane emissions, rumen fermentation and biohydrogenation, and total tract digestibility in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 99:skab081. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab081,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar