Synopsis

The global population is predicted to grow to (9.5) nine point five billion people in the year 2050 (United States (US) Census Bureau, 2008), along with a widespread increase in milk and meat requirements per capita conferred by increased affluence (Keyzer et al., 2005). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2009) suggests that food production will have to increase by (70%) seventy percent to fulfill the caloric and nutritional needs associated with this population increase. Existing competition for energy, land, and water supplies is likely to continue as urban development encroaches upon agricultural land that is already micronutrient deficient. The United States livestock producers, therefore, face the challenge of producing sufficient, safe, affordable beef to meet consumer quality demands, using a finite resource base. Environmentally, sustainable food supply can only be achieved through the adoption of systems and practices that make the most efficient use of available resources and reduce environmental impact per unit of food (Capper et al., 2008, 2009). This sustainability factor is as accurate decades ago as it is today and a decade or to hereafter. The increasing communications and educational tools, already in place, are fostering transference of that knowledge to the agricultural markets all over the world.  Adding to the efficient listing are the improvements in management, marketing, the nutritional facts, which collectively are resulting in higher current demand for grass-fed beef.

However, understanding the relationship between environmental sustainability and efficiency requires a certain amount of conceptual change to occur. The role of efficiency in improving US beef system sustainability has been called into question by individuals and agencies promoting a social or political agenda as opposed to animal agriculture (Nierenberg, 2005; Koneswaran and Nierenberg, 2008). Nonetheless, improved productive efficiency (resource use per unit of food output) considerably reduced the environmental impact of a unit of milk produced by the US dairy industry between 1944 and 2007 (Capper et al., 2009). Trend component analysis to analyze the effects of efficiency changes in the US beef industry over the past (30 yrs.) thirty years was undertaken. A deterministic whole system model based on ruminant nutrition and metabolism was used to evaluate the comparative environmental impact [defined in this paper as resource use, waste outputs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] of the US beef industry in 1977 and 2007].

Commentary                    

This limited series of the occasional e-letters are comprised of (2) two articles. They will appear fortnightly and are published during July, though they will be accessible through our social media pages. The respective article’s content has raw data sources from many years ago when those sources were written. Indeed, the resulting articles premise, commentary, and analysis were applicable then and are now just as relevant, if not more so in most respects. Moreover, the trends in place some (15) fifteen years remain in trend along with their current directions with the advent of industry, mechanization, efficiency, and the ever-improving food and agricultural processing practices. The importance of this aggregation of knowledge remains true and evolutive even if a decade or so has passed. However, it allows us to now illustrate changes in the interim decade while better defining those for the next (3) three decades. Reprinting the data records within this forum allows for a critical review by a discerning audience to facilitate the opportunities, challenges, and the natural evolution of events underway in the respective markets. Though progress is made, the proofs herein are meaningful, extensive, and so allow for several deductions and projects to proceed that would otherwise be problematic. 

Analysis

Results & Discussion

The Relationship Between Efficiency and Environmental Impact

Livestock industries face an ongoing challenge in producing sufficient food to fulfill consumer demand while reducing resource use and GHG emissions per unit of food. A recent FAO (2006) report concluded that livestock production contributes (18%) eighteen percent of total global GHG. Despite a subsequent public admission that comparisons between GHG emissions from livestock production and transport were flawed after in-depth scientific review by independent scientists (Pitesky et al., 2009). The report is often used to support claims that animal agriculture should be abolished (Deutsch, 2007. Humane Society of the United States, 2009), despite the obvious inadmissibility of using global data to represent the environmental impact of regional production systems. Improved productive efficiency (resource input per unit of food output) is a major factor affecting variability in GHG emissions per unit of food. Global data are not yet available for the beef industry; however, an FAO (2010) report detailing GHG emissions from the worldwide dairy industry demonstrated the inverse relationship between efficiency and CO2-equivalents per kilogram of milk produced.

Gains in productive efficiency allow increases in food production to be achieved concurrently with reductions in environmental impact. A case-in-point is the US dairy industry, which produced (59%) fifty-nine percent more milk, using (64%) sixty-four percent fewer cows in 2007 than in 1944, with a consequent (41%) forty-one percent decrease in GHG emissions from the dairy industry (Capper et al., 2009). Nonetheless, improved efficiency is often perceived by the consumer as being achieved at the expense of animal health and welfare (Singer and Mason, 2006). The reduction in the environmental impact of livestock conferred by an improvement in productive efficiency is achieved through the “dilution of maintenance” effect (Capper et al., 2008, 2009). Within the beef industry, this may be better defined as a population-wide “reduction and dilution of maintenance,” (RDM), which encompasses the individual effects and interaction between meat yield per animal, daily maintenance requirement, and time period from birth to slaughter.

On a single animal basis, this concept is exemplified by Figure (2) two, which shows the difference in maintenance and growth requirements on a daily basis between (2) two steers, representative of these classes of animals within the 1977 and 2007 beef finishing systems. Although the total daily energy requirement is increased in the 2007 animal, a combination of reduced time from birth to slaughter and increased BW at slaughter decreases total energy use per kilogram of beef produced. As shown in Figure (3) three, the average beef yield per animal has increased from 274 kg in 1977 to 351 kg in 2007. Although total beef production was increased in 2007 (11.9 billion kilograms (kg)) eleven point nine billion kilograms, compared with 1977 (10.6 billion kilograms) ten point six billion kilograms. It is noticeable that the slaughter population was reduced by 825 × 103 animals per billion kg of beef over the same time period, a direct consequence of the increase in yield per animal. When assessing the environmental impact of livestock production, it is not sufficient to simply consider the animals directly associated with food output (i.e., the slaughtered animal), but also the supporting population.

In a homogenous beef market such as that seen in 1977, where all animals reared specifically for beef originate from the beef supporting population, slaughter population size is the major driver for the magnitude of the supporting population. However, over the (30-yr) thirty-year period between 1977 and 2007, a growing number of dairy calves entered the beef system. It was finished as “calf-fed” animals, reaching approximately (12.9%) twelve-point nine percent of the feedlot population in 2007 (USDA, 2000a). The provision of surplus calves from the dairy industry allows more beef to be produced without a concurrent increase in the supporting population. Through a combination of the reduced slaughter population size, calf input from the dairy industry, and reduced mortality rates is conferred by a better understanding of nutrition, health, and animal management over the past (30 yr.) thirty years. The total population (support beef animals plus slaughter animals) required to produce (1) one billion kg of beef was reduced by (30.1%) thirty-point one percent (4,446 × 103 animals) in 2007 compared with 1977.

It is also worth noting that the proportion of cull animals within the slaughter population was considerably less in the 2007 system (18.5%) eighteen-point five percent than in the 1977 population (25.7%) twenty-five-point seven percent. A proportional reduction in cull animals entering the slaughter system shifts pressure up the chain, necessitating an increase in feedlot beef production to maintain supply. This serves to further highlight the improvements in efficiency that allow the modern production system to use fewer animals to produce (1) one billion kg of beef. The hierarchy of nutrient partitioning dictates that the maintenance requirement of an animal must be satisfied before productivity (pregnancy, lactation, or growth) can occur. The daily maintenance nutrient requirement can, therefore, be considered to be a fixed cost of beef production, both on an individual animal and herd basis. Management practices that improve animal and herd productivity and reduce the nonproductive proportion of the lifetime of an animal will reduce the total maintenance cost per unit of beef produced.

Within the supporting population, the major factors that improve productivity are reproductive efficiency (number of live births per cow, calving interval), age at first calving (heifers) or service (bulls), replacement rate, and mortality rate. In terms of nutrient requirements, pregnancy, lactation, and growth are classified as a production process, requiring extra nutrients above basal daily maintenance. However, in contrast to pregnancy or lactation in which a product (calf, milk) is harvested from the live animal, the time period between growth and slaughter in growing and finishing animals may essentially be considered a nonproductive period. Because animal protein is only collected after the point of slaughter. The total daily maintenance cost was increased in both growing animals and the supporting herd as a consequence of genetic selection for mature BW and growth rate. Nonetheless, a considerable portion of the total maintenance requirement associated with beef production may, therefore, be reduced by improving growth rate through nutrition, genetics, and productivity-enhancing technologies, the combination of which reduces the time taken to reach slaughter BW.

The previously defined “reduction and dilution of maintenance” interaction is, therefore, demonstrated by the reduction in total feed energy [nutrients required for maintenance (all animals), pregnancy (dry cows), and growth. (All growing, replacement, and finishing animals) per billion kilograms of beef from 251,090 × 106 MJ in 1977 to 230,898 × 106 MJ in 2007. It is notable that the average number of days on feed was increased in the 2007 population compared with the 1977 population (Table (1) one, which seems counter to the earlier argument regarding improved productivity. However, this is simply a question of semantics; days on feed accounts for the time within the feedlot, hence the increase in the 2007 population, which contained a greater proportion of calf-fed animals. Simply accounting for days on feed may be misleading in systems that contain a stocker stage as in the 1977 example; thus, the total time to slaughter should be the metric under consideration.

Carbon is the fundamental unit of energy within animal systems; thus, differences in total maintenance energy can be considered to be a proxy for both resource use and GHG emissions. It is biochemically impossible to maintain a system with a greater net carbon (C ) output than input. For example, forage-based extensive systems with characteristically low growth rates have increased land, energy, and water use and GHG output per unit of beef produced (Capper, 2010). In contrast to previous studies examining the environmental impact of production systems separated by both time and typical management practices (Rydberg and Jansen, 2002; Capper et al., 2009). The current study was designed to compare similar systems, separated on a temporal basis, to allow identification of opportunities for environmental impact reduction in future years.

The infrastructure similarities between the 1977 and 2007 production systems mean that the former cannot be classified as an extensive production system. Yet, efficiency gains within the 2007 system reduced resource use per unit of beef (Table (2) two). For example, it is acknowledged that, despite the low adoption rate of AI in the beef industry (USDA, 2009b), genetic advances between 1977 and 2007 have resulted in modern-day beef animals that differ phenotypically from the Angus and Hereford breeds of 1977.

Feedstuff and Land Use

Improvements in efficiency between 1977 and 2007 reduced total feedstuff use within the beef production system by (18.6%) eighteen-point six percent (13,563 × 106 kg) per billion kilograms of beef. The magnitude of this difference compared with the difference in total energy use can be attributed to the increase in the nutrient concentration of total feedstuffs in 2007 vs. 1997. Resulting from an increase in concentrate feed use and reduced reliance on pasture as a greater proportion of animals entered the feedlot as calf-fed dairy and beef animals. It should be noted that the quantity of harvested feed (i.e., feed produced on cropland or as hay/straw rather than pasture) used within the beef production system does not necessarily represent total feed use. Because estimates of the amount of feed wasted range from (5) five to (25%) twenty-five percent within production systems (Bolsen and Bolsen, 2006). Because of a paucity of comparative data for 1977, feed wastage is not included in the current analysis.

If feed wastage were included, the difference between the two systems would be expected to increase slightly because there is no reason to expect that wastage was proportionally less in 1977 than in 2007. An intrinsic link exists between the quantity and quality of feed required for beef production and the area of land required to support this system. As the global population continues to be an issue of major debate. The previously discussed effects of improved productivity upon population size and time to slaughter, in combination with increased cropping yields within the time period covered by this study, reduced land use per billion kilograms of beef from 9,116 × 103 ha in 1977 to 6,106 × 103 ha in 2007, a (33.0%) thirty-three percent decrease. The quantity of land required per unit of US beef produced in 2007 is greater than the upper limit of (43) forty-three m2/kg of beef reported for European beef production systems by Nguyen et al. (2010). The reason for this difference is not immediately clear but may be attributed to the underlying assumption that highly productive pasture was used for grazing and silage production in the European model.

Several authors claim that world hunger could be abrogated if meat consumption decreased considerably (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003; Millward and Garnett, 2010) because the quantity of land currently used to raise livestock could instead be used for human food crop production. There are several implicit flaws contained within this theory, including the assumption that a vegetarian or vegan diet would be acceptable to the global population. Which is negated by the predictions of increased global milk and meat requirements by the FAO (2009), and the false assumption that crop production could be maintained for a wholly vegan population without increasing reliance on fossil fuel-based fertilizers (Fairlie, 2010). Aside from these issues, the major point of contention is the supposition that land currently used to graze livestock could equally be used to grow corn, soybeans, or other human food crops.

Partitioning out the quantity of land used for cropping (corn, soya, alfalfa) vs. pasture land in the current study shows that between 1977 and 2007, cropland use was reduced by 1,208 × 103 ha/billion kg of beef and pasture land by 1,803 × 103 ha/billion kilograms of beef. The proportionally greater decrease in pasture land resulting from the smaller number of beef cows (for whom pastureland is the main dietary component) required for beef production in 2007. The quantity of both cropland and pasture land available for agricultural use in the United States has continually decreased since 1945 (Lubowski et al., 2006). It is not possible to determine whether the land released from beef production by improved animal efficiency would have been used for other animal production systems, human crop production, recreation, or urbanization. The cropping land released from the beef system could be used to grow different human food. Yet, pastureland used for ranching operations is generally unsuited for growing other crops due to climatic, topographic, or soil limitations.

Indeed, data from the Economic Research Service of the USDA (Lubowski et al., 2006) indicates that only (8%) eight percent of US grazed land is sufficiently productive to be classified as cropland pasture. Yet, it may remain marginal for crop use and be used for pasture for long periods of time. Given that forage is the major dietary component for animals within the cow-calf and stocker system and that (50 to 70%) fifty to seventy percent of the lifespan of a beef animal finished in a feedlot. Is spent grazing forage crops, the supposition that ruminants compete with humans for nutrient resources is unfounded. Nonetheless, increasing competition for land resources between food production, industrial, and social uses is an inevitable consequence of population growth. One indicator is as the body of knowledge relating to the nutrient requirements and ration formulation for ruminant livestock has become more advanced, the beef industry has served as an invaluable receptacle for by-products from the human food and fiber industries.

Incorporation of nutrient-rich by-products such as distillers’ grains, potatoes, and citrus pulp into cattle rations has allowed for further reductions in land use and the conversion of unwanted vegetable material into high-quality animal protein (Fadel, 1999). By-product use within cattle rations is inherently region-specific and was, therefore, not accounted for within the current study; however, this omission overestimates the amount of land required for beef production in 2007. The importance of by-product feed utilization as a tool to reduce resource use in beef production should be noted.

Water Use

At a superficial level, water appears to be an entirely renewable resource within the beef production system, with an ongoing cycle of water use from the atmosphere, through plant material into the animal, and then back into the atmosphere. Although (110,000) one hundred and ten thousand (km3) kilometers cubed of precipitation falls onto the surface of the earth annually (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006), freshwater supplies are increasingly scarce due to a combination of excessive withdrawals, contamination, and loss of wetlands. All food production has an embedded water cost, but livestock production is often cited as a major consumer. Estimates of water use for beef production range from (3,682) three thousand six hundred eighty-two (L) liters per kilogram of boneless beef (Beckett and Oltjen, 1993) to (20,555) twenty thousand five hundred fifty-five (L) liters per kilogram of beef. The second number is originating from the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the greatest values often being used to promote the suggestion that livestock production is too resource-intensive to be environmentally sustainable.

The Water Footprint Network (http://www.waterfootprint.org/) has published the most often-quoted figure for water consumption per kilogram of beef (15,500 L), fifteen thousand five hundred liters which are used as a means to compare beef with other food products. However, the authors used global averages to calculate water usage, which was then assumed to be representative of individual beef production systems, regardless of region or productivity. By contrast, the thorough analysis of water consumption within beef production published by Beckett and Oltjen (1993) with system boundaries extending from feed production to processing reports the aforementioned water-use figure of (3,682 L), three thousand six hundred eighty-two liters per kilogram of boneless beef. Furthermore, the analysis of the Water Footprint Network included estimates of “green” water (i.e., supplied by precipitation to crops, rivers) and “grey” water (i.e., polluted or rendered unfit for other use by the production process) in addition to the more commonly used “blue” water (i.e., withdrawn from aquifers or other sources for direct production purposes), thus inflating the estimated consumption per unit of beef.

The results are shown in Table (2) two demonstrate that water use as modeled within the current study is equivalent to (1,763 L), one thousand seven hundred sixty-three liters per kilogram of beef in 2007. A decrease of (12.1%) twelve-point one percent compared with the corresponding resource use in 1977. System boundaries within the current study were extended as far as the slaughterhouse door. Subsequently, the metrics are modified whereby processing was excluded and the functional unit was based on HCW rather than boneless weight. However, it is predicted that values similar to those obtained by Beckett and Oltjen (1993) would be reported if the system boundaries were extended to include the processing stage. As demonstrated by the other resource use metrics within the current study, improved animal productivity was the main factor affecting the reduced water use per kilogram of beef in 2007 compared with 1977. A second factor for considering is crop productivity (yield per hectare) also played an important role.

The proportion of irrigated cropland (corn for silage and grain, soybeans, pasture) increased between 1977 and 2007 for all crops within the current study, with changes in irrigation water use per hectare varying between crops. Average US precipitation and temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center (2011) for the (2 yr.) two years in question demonstrate that the (2) two-time points were climatically similar; thus, differences in irrigation use may have been skewed by region-specific weather. Nonetheless, increased crop yields per hectare resulted in a reduction in water use per kilogram of feed of (19%) nineteen percent for corn silage, (65%) sixty-five percent for corn grain, (89%) eighty-nine percent for soybeans, and (14%) fourteen percent for pasture in 2007 compared with 1977.

Nutrient Excretion

Livestock production industries within the United States have undergone considerable consolidation since the end of WWII, and the number of operations within all subsystems of the beef industry has declined over the past (30 yr) thirty years as production has become increasingly specialized and region-specific. The quality of knowledge and modern computational resources relating to animal nutrient requirements and ration formulation are far superior to those available in 1977. In combination with the previously discussed improvements in productivity that have reduced manure output per unit of beef by 9,560 × 106 kg, N excretion has decreased by (12.3%) twelve-point three percent (438,858 × 103 kg vs. 500,162 × 103 kg), and P excretion by (10.3%) ten-point three percent (43,088 × 103 kg vs. 48,055 × 103 kg) between 1977 and 2007. This represents a critical move forward in US beef industry sustainability, which must continue to improve in the future. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that an industry-wide reduction in nutrient excretion does not imply a concurrent reduction in point-source water pollution incidents.

GHG Emissions and Fossil Fuel Use

The C footprint of livestock production is one of the most widely discussed environmental issues within the current agricultural arena because of its association with nonrenewable resource consumption and climate change. Historical analyses always carry a certain burden of uncertainty based on the data available; however, the current study suggests that the shift toward agricultural intensification between 1977 and 2007 reduced fossil fuel use per billion kilograms of beef from 9,996 × 109 BTU to 9,139 × 109 BTU. This is energetically equivalent to 25,991 × 103 L of gasoline. This is notable given that corn production is one of the major contributors to fossil fuel use within beef production, and the average time period on a corn-based diet was increased in the 2007 production system. It is difficult to assess the C footprint of any production process in isolation. Without reference to a baseline number, the final result lacks context and is of limited value save for as a marker comparison for future studies.

A paucity of data is available on the changes in C footprint of other animal protein sources within the US livestock industry over time, with published literature to date being confined to dairy production (Capper et al., 2009). The C footprint per billion kilograms of beef within the current study was 17,945 × 106 kg CO2equivalents in 2007. This number is compared with 21,445 × 106 kg CO2-equivalents in 1977, the (16.3%) sixteen-point three percent reduction resulting from improved efficiency and productivity that reduced C emissions from crop production, enteric fermentation, manure, and fossil fuel combustion. Variations in methodology and system boundaries make interstudy comparisons difficult to validate. However, it is worth noting that the C footprint of the 2007 system was at the lower end of the range of values for beef reported by de Vries and de Boer (2010) and was within limits reported by Nguyen et al. (2010) for European beef systems.

Life cycle analyses of (3) three beef-finishing scenarios (calf-fed, yearling-fed, and grass-finished) in the upper Midwestern United States were undertaken by Pelletier et al. (2010). Who reported GHG emissions of (23.9 kg) twenty-three-point nine kilograms of CO2-equivalents/kg of beef and (26.1 kg) twenty-six point one kilogram of CO2-equivalents/kg of beef for calf-fed and yearling-fed scenarios. Respectively when corrected for a predicted dressing percentage of (62%) sixty-two percent. Although these scenarios were undertaken as whole-system analyses, it is difficult to make a direct comparison or validation of the results as the finishing systems within each scenario in Pelletier et al. (2010). That contained animals from beef breeds (i.e., calf-fed or yearling-fed only) and did not contain any input from the dairy sector. Nonetheless, the trend for improved productivity and efficiency to reduce environmental impact was consistent with the calf-fed system in Pelletier et al. (2010 with increased growth rates and reduced days to finish. Because of the greater nutrient density of the diet) compared with the yearling-fed system, as it is in the current study comparing 1977 and 2007.

Recent studies evaluating the C footprint of beef production practices characteristic of Brazil (Cederberg et al., 2009a), Sweden (Cederberg et al., 2009b), and Japan (Ogino et al., 2004) have reported greater total GHG emissions than those from the current study. Ranging from (19.8 kg) nineteen point eight kilograms of CO2-equivalents/kg of beef (Sweden) to (32.3 kg) thirty-two point three kilograms of CO2-equivalents/kg of beef (Japan) per retail kilogram of beef at a (40%) forty percent yield. By contrast, Peters et al. (2010) calculated that Australian grain-finished beef production emits (9.9 kg) nine point nine kilograms of CO2-equivalents/kg of beef. The time point and methodology-specific nature of these studies mean that conclusions cannot be drawn as to the relative environmental ranking of different global regions; however, it underlines the effect of system and efficiency variation upon environmental impact. The US beef and dairy production systems are connected by the movement of dairy calves into the growing/finishing beef system and cull dairy cows into the beef processing chain. Because all surplus dairy calves were diverted into veal rather than beef production in 1977. It is not surprising that the proportion of the total C footprint per unit of beef attributable to dairy production was less in 1977, (2.6%) two-point six percent compared with 2007 (4.0%) four percent.

The extent to which resource use and waste output can be attributed to either system depends entirely on the allocation method used; thus, further research is recommended to gather an indication of the environmental impact of the entire US large ruminant system. Reduced GHG emissions resulting from a decrease in feed and animal transportation is often claimed as an environmental advantage of “local” or extensive production systems (Nicholson et al., 2011). Whole-system sustainability can only be achieved by making improvements within each individual component of the beef system. However, within the current study, the contribution of transportation to the total C footprint of a billion kilogram of beef constituted less than (1%) one percent (0.71%) point seventy-one percent in 1977, (0.75%) point seventy-five percent in 2007), with the majority of GHG emissions resulting from enteric fermentation and manure. Due to the lack of published data for animal and feedstuff transport for either year, the distances used within the current study had to be derived from crop and animal production site data and transport information from Foster et al. (2006). They were therefore assumed rather than verified distances.

Nonetheless, reliable data for vehicle carrying capacity and fuel efficiency were used to calculate fuel use and GHG emissions from transport; thus, the proportional contribution of transportation to the total C footprint of beef production is unlikely to vary considerably from the results obtained. These data suggest that the potential opportunity to mitigate the environmental impact of beef production through transportation efficiency is limited. The rationale behind the current study was not to definitively define the C footprint or environmental impact of US beef production, but rather to assess the effects of efficiency gains within the system between 1977 and 2007. It should be noted that the time point-specific nature of this data and the continuing evolution of the science behind environmental impact assessment means that the definition of a single number to represent beef production is dangerous, if not impossible. Given the uncertainties involved with gathering historical data relating to resource use, the data presented are not intended to represent the exact quantities of resource use or waste output within this study. However, the environmental impact differences between systems are essential indicators of the effects of improved efficiency.

Conclusions

We remain appreciative of scientific and poignant authors as conversations relative to sustainability continue, it is crucial to identify areas for future improvement within all sections of the chain, with the results of this paper and others within the literature used as benchmarks. It is clear that improving productivity is the key to reducing the environmental impact of beef production. Yet, anecdotal evidence from the current beef industry suggests that beef yield per animal has reached a plateau. The processing/packing industry infrastructure is not currently equipped to deal with animals weighing considerably more than (600 kg), six hundred kilograms’ and consumers are unlikely to demand more significant portion sizes in the future. Further investigation into the contributions made by improved growth rates, fertility, morbidity, mortality, and forage management is, therefore, essential in at least two ways.

First, to better understand and second, apply the màanagement practices by which the industry can continue to provide sufficient animal protein to satisfy the market, while continuing to reduce resource use, and waste output per unit of beef. Therefore, please follow us on social media and join us on the (1^st) first and (15^th) fifteenth of each month for our fortnightly delivery of insightful, informative must-reads from some of the world’s scientific thinkers. Selected by our editors is a collection of current topics with a profound ability for beneficial improvements, guidelines, and process practices. Thank you for reading our publication entirely; please share it with others who also care. We look forward to your comments and having you with us again fortnightly; we will be thrilled in having you with us; thus, we will take your trust in us with great honor and appreciation.