CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems

Open access
Stanley, Paige L., Rowntree, Jason E., Beede, David K., DeLonge, Marcia S., Hamm, Michael W.·2018·Agricultural Systems
DOI 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Beef cattle have been identified as the largest livestock-sector contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using life cycle analysis (LCA), several studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater GHG intensities than feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems. These studies evaluated only one grazing management system – continuous grazing – and assumed steady-state soil carbon (C), to model the grass-finishing environmental impact. However, by managing for more optimal forage growth and recovery, adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing can improve animal and forage productivity, potentially sequestering more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous grazing. To examine impacts of AMP grazing and related SOC sequestration on net GHG emissions, a comparative LCA was performed of two different beef finishing systems in the Upper Midwest, USA: AMP grazing and FL. We used on-farm data collected from the Michigan State University Lake City AgBioResearch Center for AMP grazing. Impact scope included GHG emissions from enteric methane, feed production and mineral supplement manufacture, manure, and on-farm energy use and transportation, as well as the potential C sink arising from SOC sequestration. Across-farm SOC data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas FL emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink. However, FL production required only half as much land as AMP grazing. While the SOC sequestration rates measured here were relatively high, lower rates would still reduce the AMP emissions relative to the FL emissions. This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This comparative partial LCA found that adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing finishing in the Upper Midwest could be a net GHG sink after including on-farm soil C sequestration, whereas feedlot (FL) finishing remained a net source. AMP required about twice as much land as FL, but its estimated net emissions were −6.65 vs 6.12 kg CO₂-e kg carcass weight (CW)⁻¹.

Key findings

  • Across-farm SOC data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ in AMP grazed pastures; after including SOC, AMP finishing emissions changed from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO₂-e kg CW⁻¹, while FL emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO₂-e kg CW⁻¹ due to soil erosion.
  • FL required half as much land as AMP: 0.30 vs 0.67 ha to produce 500 kg beef CW, and FL produced 1655 vs AMP 751 kg CW ha feed⁻¹.
  • Enteric CH₄ was the largest source for AMP (53%) and intermediate for FL (31%); feed emissions were the largest FL source (37% vs 19% for AMP); manure emissions represented 30% of FL and 26% of AMP emissions.
  • Sensitivity analysis: using on-farm SF₆ data instead of IPCC default Yₘ reduced AMP enteric CH₄ footprint by 36% and overall GHG footprint by 1.81 kg CO₂-e kg CW⁻¹ (19% decrease); reducing Yₘ from 6.5 to 5.5 reduced AMP enteric CH₄ by 15%.

Methods

  • ISO-compliant partial LCA limited to the finishing phase, comparing FL and AMP grazing in the Upper Midwest; functional unit was 1 kg CW; a deterministic Excel model summed CH₄, CO₂, and N₂O from enteric fermentation, manure, feed production, on-farm energy/transportation, plus soil C sequestration and erosion.
  • AMP data: 5 years (2012–2016) of on-farm data at MSU Lake City AgBioResearch Center, Red Angus steers (n = 210), finished at 530 kg live weight in 200 days; FL data: 2 years (2015–2016) at MSU Beef Center, n = 16 steers, with 90-day observed data simulated to 170 days; soil C sampled in 2012 and 2016 at 0–30 cm, with 2016 sampling at nine transects across sandy, sandy loam, and clay loam soils.
  • Analysis used IPCC Tier 2 methods for enteric CH₄ and manure CH₄/N₂O, the Farm Energy Analysis Tool for feed production emissions, and soil C stock via elemental combustion and bulk density; net GHG flux summed production emissions, soil erosion, and SOC sequestration.

Limitations

  • Stated: locational variation between 2012 and 2016 soil sampling sites could influence results; FL 90-day data were simulated to 170 days because 90 days is not representative, a trade-off lacking complete 170-day field data; uncertainty remains about soil C change over time and how long high sequestration rates continue, so the authors caution against extrapolating rates for extended periods and note different regions likely show different outcomes.
  • Stated: enteric CH₄ accounting using IPCC default Yₘ has high uncertainty, motivating the SF₆ and lower-Yₘ sensitivity analyses.
  • Evident from the text: system boundaries exclude cow-calf and backgrounding, so results apply only to the finishing phase; on-farm energy use was taken from Ryan and Tiffany (1998) in the absence of current data; land-use change and irrigation were excluded; FL soil erosion relied on literature values and AMP assumed zero soil erosion.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

23 of 84 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    There remains substantial uncertainty about soil carbon change over time in managed grasslands.

    “However, there remains substantial uncertainty about soil C change over time in managed grasslands”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Desjardins et al., 2012 source

      The Discussion and Conclusions section says uncertainty in soil carbon change remains, estimating it at ±20% nationally and likely higher at smaller spatial scales. But this discussion concerns land management and agricultural soils generally, not specifically managed grasslands; Section 3.1 says the impact of grazing on soil carbon sequestration was not included. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Olson et al., 2017 source

      The section ‘Management of Intensified Cropping Systems and Soil Organic Carbon Stocks’ describes soil-carbon changes after perennial grassland was converted to cropping, but does not say that change over time in managed grasslands remains substantially uncertain. Searches for uncertainty and long-term soil-carbon change in grasslands found no passage addressing that claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Paustian et al., 2016 source
  • Premisecitation

    Previous beef life cycle assessment studies modeled grass-fed or grass-finished systems using simplified grazing parameters typically representative of continuous grazing and assumed steady-state soil carbon.

    “These studies evaluated only one grazing management system continuous grazingand assumed steady-state soil carbon (C), to model the grass-finishing environmental impact.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “In previous beef LCA literature, grass-fed (over the entire life cycle) or grass-finished (referring exclusively to the finishing stage) systems are often modeled using simplified grazing parameters typically representative of continuous grazing, a simplistic management strategy in which cattle graze the same pasture continuously through an entire grazing season”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Crosson et al., 2011 source
    • cites de Vries et al., 2015 source

      The available Abstract (no page given) says the review examined 14 beef life-cycle assessment studies, but cuts off before describing their methods. Searches for continuous grazing, grass-finishing, and steady-state soil carbon found no passage addressing those modeling assumptions; the decisive part of the paper is not present in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Several life cycle assessment studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater greenhouse gas intensities than feedlot-finished beef systems.

    “Using life cycle analysis (LCA), several studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater GHG intensities than feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
      “Many studies indicate that feedlot finishing systems have lower cradle-to-gate GHG emissions per kg of carcass weight because grass-fed systems have greater enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions (due to microbial ruminal fermentation), attributed to the more fibrous diet and longer finishing times, and lower overall carcass weights”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Capper, 2012 source

      The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) report a 67.5% higher carbon footprint per unit of beef for the grass-fed system than for the conventional feedlot-finished system. The same section cites one earlier partial life-cycle assessment with a similar grass-versus-feedlot conclusion. Our copy does not establish that several LCA studies reached that specific GHG-intensity conclusion; the paper describes its own analysis as a deterministic whole-system model. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Desjardins et al., 2012 source

      Section 2 says grass-finished cattle's lower feed-input footprint is usually offset by slower weight gain and longer methane-producing periods than for feedlot-finished cattle. The Introduction describes carbon-footprint estimation as based on LCA guidelines, but the cited passages do not establish that several comparative LCA studies reached the stated conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source
  • Premisecitation

    Studies using adaptive multi-paddock grazing indicate that it can result in more ideal pasture species composition (more digestible forages with greater digestible energy content) due to prevention of consistent species selection and overgrazing, providing pasture recovery, and re-grazing before lignification.

    “Studies using AMP grazing indicate that it can result in more ideal pasture species composition (more digestible forages with greater digestible energy content) due to prevention of consistent species selection and overgrazing, providing pasture recovery, and re-grazing before lignification”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Oates et al., 2011 source
    • cites Teague et al., 2016 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Teague et al., 2011 source
  • Findingreasoning

    The 4-year adaptive multi-paddock animal performance and days to finish were considerably different than previous studies.

    “However, our 4-year AMP animal performance and days to finish were considerably different than that of previous studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nguyen et al., 2010 source
    • cites Picasso et al., 2014 source

      The available indexed passages contain bibliographic details and keywords for grazing-system sustainability, but no findings about adaptive multi-paddock grazing, animal performance, or days to finish. Searches for those terms and for a four-year comparison with previous studies found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 47
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Soil carbon sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands that can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing.

    “Soil C sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands, which can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Griscom et al., 2017 source

      In Results and Discussion, under “Specific Pathway Contributions” (page unavailable), the paper says two improved livestock-grazing pathways—Optimal Intensity and Legumes—increase soil carbon. It supports the value of grazing management for carbon sequestration, but does not establish that best management practices maximize sequestration in grasslands. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Liebig et al., 2010 source
    • cites McSherry and Ritchie, 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adaptive multi-paddock grazing can improve animal and forage productivity and potentially sequester more soil organic carbon than continuous grazing.

    “By managing for more optimal forage growth and recovery, adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing can improve animal and forage productivity, potentially sequestering more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous grazing.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
      “Potential AMP grazing benefits include reductions in overgrazing and soil erosion, improved forage utilization and animal productivity, and increased soil carbon (C) sequestration, which might reduce net GHG emissions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Conant et al., 2003 source
    • cites Teague and Barnes, 2017 source
    • cites Teague et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Griscom et al. (2017) identified adaptive multi-paddock grazing as a potentially important climate change mitigation strategy but were unable to include it in their analysis due to lack of robust data.

    “This need for on-farm SOC data was discussed by Griscom et al. (2017), who identified AMP grazing as a potentially important climate change mitigation strategy, but were unable to include it in their analysis due to lack of robust data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Griscom et al., 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Average finishing weights for the feedlot steers were similar to those reported by others.

    “Average finishing weights for the FL steers (Table 2) were similar to those reported by others”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Capper, 2012 source
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source
    • cites Pelletier et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Utilization of AMP grazing as a regenerative agriculture management system can improve soil ecological function, lessening damage from tillage and inorganic fertilizers and can improve biodiversity and wildlife habitat.

    “Utilization of AMP grazing as a regenerative agriculture management system can improve soil ecological function, lessening damage from tillage and inorganic fertilizers and can improve biodiversity and wildlife habitat (Teague et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Teague et al., 2016 source

      The Table 1 passage says regenerative AMP grazing aims to restore the ecological function of degraded grasslands, and the Conclusions say appropriate grazing management can improve biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The Table 2 passage links eliminating tillage damage and reducing nitrogen fertilizer use to broader soil-management practices, not to AMP grazing alone. The claim therefore overattributes those benefits to AMP grazing by itself. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    If adopted, these practices may also promote soil C sequestration.

    “If adopted, these practices may also promote soil C sequestration (Chambers et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chambers et al., 2016 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Wang et al. (2015) reported 3.53 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 of C sequestration for pastures transitioned from heavy continuous grazing to AMP grazing in northern Texas, U.S., a value close to our rate (3.59 Mg C ha-1 yr-1).

    “Assuming management similar to that in our study, for pastures transitioned from heavy continuous grazing to AMP grazing in northern Texas, U.S., Wang et al. (2015) reported 3.53 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 of C sequestration, a value close to our rate (3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al. (2015) source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Management similar to that in our study for pastures transitioned from heavy continuous grazing to AMP grazing in northern Texas, U.S. (Wang et al. 2015).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Soil erosion magnified by intensive cropping systems has important negative impacts on other ecosystem services that are vital to food production, water quality, nutrient cycling and habitat support.

    “Although soil erosion contributed negligibly (< 0.5%) to net GHG emissions of FL finishing, soil erosion magnified by intensive cropping systems, such as under conventional feed production in the FL scenario, has important negative impacts on other ecosystem services that are vital to food production, water quality, nutrient cycling and habitat support (Olson et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Olson et al., 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Because soils further from C saturation accumulate C faster than soils near saturation, and because our estimated soil C sequestration rate is much greater than 0.41 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, we expect continued sequestration, likely to diminish over time.

    “However, because soils that are further from C saturation will accumulate C faster than soils near saturation, and because our estimated soil C sequestration rate is much greater than the 0.41 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 indicated by Conant et al. (2003), we expect continued sequestration, likely to diminish over time (Minasny et al., 2017;Stewart et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Conant et al. (2003) source
    • cites Minasny et al., 2017 source
    • cites Stewart et al., 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies indicate that in general, well-managed grasslands continue to sequester C at greater rates than improved cropland, and transitions from cropland to grassland show some of the greatest rates of C sequestration, ranging from 0.22 to 8.0 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.

    “Nevertheless, studies indicate that in general, well-managed grasslands continue to sequester C at greater rates than improved cropland, and transitions from cropland to grassland show some of the greatest rates of C sequestration, ranging from 0.22 to 8.0 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 (Machmuller et al., 2015;Mathew et al., 2017;Minasny et al., 2017;Powlson et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Machmuller et al., 2015 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Mathew et al., 2017 source
    • cites Minasny et al., 2017 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After accounting for the 31.4% fertilizer offset in feedlot finishing, estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with feedlot and adaptive multi-paddock finishing were 6.09 and 9.62 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight-1, respectively.

    “After accounting for the 31.4% fertilizer offset (the percentage of synthetic fertilizer N that was replaced by land-applied manure) in FL finishing, estimated GHG emissions associated with FL and AMP finishing were 6.09 and 9.62 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 , respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feed greenhouse gas emissions were the largest source in the feedlot, 77% greater than those in adaptive multi-paddock finishing and a greater percentage of total emissions (37% and 19%, respectively).

    “Feed GHG emissions were the largest source in the FL, 77% greater than those in AMP finishing and a greater percentage of total emissions (37% and 19%, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Enteric methane was the largest source for adaptive multi-paddock and intermediary for feedlot finishing, contributing 53% and 31%, respectively.

    “Enteric CH 4 was the largest source for AMP and intermediary for FL finishing, contributing 53% and 31%, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Average daily gain was 100% greater and dry matter intake 10% lower for steers in the feedlot than those in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing scenario.

    “Average daily gain was 100% greater and DMI 10% lower for steers in the FL than those in the AMP grazing scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Total carbon sequestration was 3.59 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, equally -17.54 kg CO2-e carcass weight-1, assuming this carbon sequestration was possible for all the land in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing finishing scenario.

    “Total C sequestration was 3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 , equally -17.54 kg CO 2 -e CW -1 , assuming this C sequestration was possible for all the land in the AMP grazing finishing scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Carbon sequestration was possible for all the land in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing finishing scenario.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Our sensitivity analysis indicates that using on-farm SF6 tracer gas data instead of IPCC default Ym would reduce the enteric methane footprint in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing scenario by 36%, representing a decrease from 42 to 27 kg CH4 steer-1, and a reduction in overall greenhouse gas footprint of 1.81 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight-1 (19% decrease).

    “Our sensitivity analysis indicates that using the on-farm SF 6 tracer gas data instead of IPCC default Y m would reduce the enteric CH 4 footprint in the AMP grazing scenario by 36%, representing a decrease from 42 to 27 kg CH 4 steer -1 , and a reduction in overall GHG footprint of 1.81 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 (19% decrease)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    0.30 and 0.67 hectares were required to produce 500 kg beef carcass weight in the feedlot and adaptive multi-paddock grazing systems, respectively.

    “In other words, 0.30 and 0.67 ha was required to produce 500 kg beef CW in the FL and AMP grazing systems, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Manure emissions represented 30% of feedlot emissions and 26% of adaptive multi-paddock emissions.

    “Manure emissions (comprised of both N 2 O and CH 4 ) represented 30% of FL emissions and 26% of AMP emissions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When compared to the 2012 baseline soil carbon stock of the sandy-loam soil (33.97 ± 0.71 Mg C ha-1 in the top 30 cm), 2016 soil carbon stocks were 15.18, 8.16, and 19.75 Mg C ha-1 greater in sandy-loam, sandy, and clay loam soils, respectively.

    “When compared to the 2012 baseline soil C stock of the SL soil (33.97 ± 0.71 Mg C ha -1 in the top 30 cm), 2016 soil C stocks were 15.18, 8.16, and 19.75 Mg C ha -1 greater in SL, S, and CL soils, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Feedlot and adaptive multi-paddock finishing produced 1655 and 751 kg carcass weight ha feed-1, respectively.

    “FL and AMP finishing produced 1655 and 751 kg CW ha feed -1 , respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Average dressing percentage calculated from carcass data was 53% among all 5 years.

    “Average dressing percentage calculated from carcass data was 53% among all 5 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On average, cattle in the feedlot finished in 29 fewer days with carcass weights 45% greater than those of adaptive multi-paddock grazed cattle.

    “On average, cattle in the FL finished in 29 less days with CWs 45% greater than those of AMP grazed cattle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Adaptive multi-paddock grazed steers finished in 150 days shorter and 99 kg heavier than the continuously grazed steers in Lupo et al. (2013).

    “Our AMP-grazed steers finished in 150 days shorter and 99 kg heavier than the continuously grazed steers in Lupo et al. (2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Application of manure produced in the FL in the present study offset 31.4% of N fertilizer application, which is lower than the 69% used in the study of Lupo et al. (2013).

    “Application of manure produced in the FL in the present study offset 31.4% of N fertilizer application, which is lower than the 69% used in the study of Lupo et al. (2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lupo et al. (2013) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Emissions from on-farm energy use and transportation and mineral supplement production represented small percentages of total GHG emissions (< 2.5% and < 0.05%, respectively).

    “Emissions from on-farm energy use and transportation and mineral supplement production represented small percentages of total GHG emissions (< 2.5% and < 0.05%, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We demonstrated this based on measurements of soil C and cattle productivity at the Lake City AgBioResearch Center from 2012 to 2016, which indicates a sink during the finishing phase of -6.65 kg CO2-e kg CW-1 which is similar to the results of Beauchemin et al. (2011).

    “We demonstrated this based on measurements of soil C and cattle productivity at the Lake City AgBioResearch Center from 2012 to 2016, which indicates a sink during the finishing phase of -6.65 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 which is similar to the results of Beauchemin et al. (2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beauchemin et al. (2011) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A majority of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production are attributed to the cow-calf sector.

    “A majority of GHG emissions are attributed to the cow-calf sector”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beauchemin et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adaptive multi-paddock grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot intensification reduces the overall beef greenhouse gas footprint through greater productivity.

    “This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many studies did not consider the potential for soil carbon sequestration in well-managed grasslands, and emissions from feedlot finishing might be underestimated due to a lacking representation of soil changes during feed production, such as soil erosion.

    “However, as noted above, many of these studies did not consider the potential for soil C sequestration in well-managed grasslands, and emissions from feedlot finishing might be underestimated due to a lacking representation of soil changes during feed production, such as soil erosion”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Janzen, 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Because soil organic matter consists of 40-75% carbon, erosion constitutes a significant loss of soil fertility and water-holding capacity and can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

    “Because soil organic matter (SOM) consists of 40-75% C, erosion constitutes a significant loss of soil fertility and water-holding capacity and can contribute to GHG emissions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Continuous grazing can negatively impact plant regrowth and recovery, plant communities, and has low productivity.

    “This grazing management approach, while still the most common, can negatively impact plant regrowth and recovery, as well as plant communities, and has low productivity”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Oates et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adaptive multi-paddock grazing has the potential to offset greenhouse gas emissions through soil carbon sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net carbon sink.

    “This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Mean modeled finishing weight was 654 kg, similar to the 2015 average reported by USDA.

    “Mean modeled finishing weight was 654 kg, similar to the 2015 average reported by USDA (2016a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites USDA, 2016a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Sensitivity of enteric methane emissions to a reduction of IPCC default Ym from 6.5 to 5.5 to represent increased forage quality was also considered.

    “Sensitivity of enteric CH 4 emissions to a reduction of IPCC default Y m from 6.5 to 5.5. to represent an increase in forage quality, was also considered”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To be conservative for the purposes of the life cycle assessment, the lower sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 was used for the adaptive multi-paddock grazing scenario.

    “To be conservative for the purposes of the LCA, we used this lower sequestration rate for the AMP grazing scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies have identified gaps and called for more robust research and inclusion of soil carbon in future life cycle assessment models.

    “Studies have identified these gaps and have called for more robust research and inclusion of soil C in future LCA models”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source
    • cites Pelletier et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Because 90 days is not a representative timeline for feedlot finishing, observed 90-day data were used to simulate an extension to 170 days on-feed, a more common time-to-finish in the Upper Midwest and feedlots.

    “Because 90 days is not a representative timeline for FL finishing, the observed data were used to simulate an extension from 90 to 170 days on-feed (Table A.3.1), a more common time-to-finish in the Upper Midwest and in FLs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites National Academies of Sciences, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    On-farm energy use per head of cattle was taken from Ryan and Tiffany (1998) in the absence of current or on-farm data.

    “As Pelletier et al. (2010) did, on-farm energy use per head of cattle was taken from Ryan and Tiffany (1998) in the absence of current or on-farm data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pelletier et al., 2010 source
    • cites Ryan and Tiffany, 1998

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The permanent pastures at Lake City AgBioResearch Center were established approximately 30 years ago and were continuously grazed and hayed until 2010 when adaptive multi-paddock management was initiated.

    “The permanent pastures (grasslands) were established approximately 30 years ago and were continuously grazed and hayed until 2010 when AMP management was initiated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors acknowledge that locational variation between sampling sites could influence the results.

    “We acknowledge the locational variation between sampling sites could influence the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Calculated dry matter intake, average daily gain, and feed conversion ratio were within 0.1 kg of values observed by Cassady et al. (2016), indicating the simulation method was sound.

    “Calculated DMI, ADG, and feed conversion ratio were within 0.1 kg of the values observed by Cassady et al. (2016), indicating that the simulation method was sound.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cassady et al., 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because emissions data from cultivation of feed ingredients and manufacture of feed were not available for the study region except for dried distillers grains with solubles, the Farm Energy Analysis Tool was used, an open-source database greenhouse gas emission model calibrated with an extensive crop production literature database.

    “Because emissions data from cultivation of feed ingredients and manufacture of feed were not available for our study region (except for DDGS), we used the Farm Energy Analysis Tool, an open-source database GHG emission model calibrated with an extensive crop production literature database”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Camargo et al., 2013 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To estimate soil organic carbon sequestration conservatively, mean soil carbon stock from all 2016 sites was averaged before comparing to the 2012 sandy-loam mean soil carbon stock.

    “Therefore, to estimate SOC sequestration conservatively, we averaged mean soil C stock from all 2016 sites before comparing them to the 2012 (SL) mean soil C stock.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the impact of IPCC default methods to results based on SF6 tracer gas data from the Lake City AgBioResearch Farm.

    “However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the impact of IPCC default methods to results based on SF 6 tracer gas data from the Lake City AgBioResearch Farm.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The partial 90-day data were used because they represent actual on-farm data from animals of the same genetic background, despite the trade-off of not having complete 170-day field data.

    “While it was a trade-off not to have complete 170-day field data, we chose to use the partial data from these animals because they represent actual on-farm data from animals of the same genetic background.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In lieu of on-farm data for soil erosion and soil organic matter from cropland used to grow feed ingredients, representative literature values were used.

    “In lieu of on-farm data for soil erosion and SOM from cropland used to grow feed ingredients, representative literature values were used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Despite distance in monitoring sites, the soil types were consistent and reflective in soil carbon change over time.

    “Despite the distance in monitoring sites, the soil types were consistent and reflective in soil C change overtime.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Tertiary emissions from manufacture of machines, equipment, and infrastructure were excluded based on their assumed minor contributions.

    “Tertiary emissions, including those from manufacture of machines, equipment, and infrastructure were excluded, based on their assumed minor contributions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    In the western U.S., irrigation might represent an important source of GHG emissions not included in this model.

    “Additionally, in the western U.S., where irrigation is more predominant, irrigation might represent an important source of GHG emissions not included in this model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For AMP grazing to produce comparable amounts of beef, either more cows would be needed or cattle would remain longer; either scenario would increase overall emissions and land requirement.

    “Likewise, for the AMP grazing system to produce comparable amounts of beef, either more cows would be needed to produce additional animals for the system, or the cattle would have to remain in the system for a longer period of time.Either scenario would increase the overall emissions and land requirement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    According to Stewart et al. (2009), reduction in fertilizer use resulted in the largest decrease (30%) in modeled overall emissions from beef production.

    “According to Stewart et al. (2009), reduction in fertilizer use resulted in the largest decrease (30%) in modeled overall emissions from beef production.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart et al. (2009) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In a closed system, this implies somewhat lower per capita beef consumption, but greater environmental benefits from what is consumed.

    “Ultimately, in a closed system, this implies somewhat lower per capita beef consumption, but greater environmental benefits from what is consumed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The higher enteric CH4 emissions emphasize the major benefits of utilizing more highly digestible, higher energy feeds, and a shorter finishing phase, resulting in productivity gains in the FL model.

    “This emphasizes the major benefits of utilizing more highly digestible, higher energy feeds, and a shorter finishing phase, resulting in productivity gains in our FL model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 45% lower GHG emissions were most likely due to their longer finishing time, lower animal productivity, and high application rate of fertilizer on pasture.

    “This was most likely due to their longer finishing time, lower animal productivity, and high application rate of fertilizer on pasture.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    According to Sloggett (1992), 23% of the on-farm energy used for crop production in the U.S. was for on-farm pumping of water.

    “According to Sloggett (1992), 23% of the on-farm energy used for crop production in the U.S. was for on-farm pumping of water.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sloggett (1992) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This overestimation has also been reported in other studies and reflects the uncertainty embedded in the use of IPCC methodology to represent a wide variety of diets and different management strategies in beef finishing systems.

    “This overestimation has also been reported in other studies (Rowntree et al., 2016;Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012) and reflects the uncertainty embedded in the use of IPCC methodology to represent a wide variety of diets and different management strategies in beef finishing systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rowntree et al., 2016
    • cites Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In beef LCA studies from the Northern Great Plains and the Upper Midwest in which soil C dynamics were estimated, hypothetical C sequestration rates of 0.41 and 0.12 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 reduced emissions from continuous grass-fed beef production by 24% and 30%, respectively.

    “In beef LCA studies from the Northern Great Plains and the Upper Midwest in which soil C dynamics were estimated, hypothetical C sequestration rates of 0.41 and 0.12 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 reduced emissions from continuous grass-fed beef production by 24% and 30%, respectively (Lupo et al., 2013;Pelletier et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lupo et al., 2013 source
    • cites Pelletier et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Our model used 5 years of on-farm finishing data and 4 years of comparative soil C data from paddocks under AMP grazing.

    “While these studies were models generated from the literature, our model used 5 years of on-farm finishing data and 4 years of comparative soil C data from paddocks under AMP grazing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our results differ from many of those in the current literature, reflecting the importance of considering emissions and sinks from the entire system in a geographically localized area, including the soil ecosystem, when modeling beef production systems.

    “Yet, our results differ from many of those in the current literature, reflecting the importance of considering emissions and sinks from the entire system in a geographically localized area, including the soil ecosystem, when modeling beef production systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Producing the same amount of cattle using land that is less productive would yield lower C sequestration per ha, but also lower stocking rates and reduce beef production (and associated emissions) per ha.

    “Thus, producing the same amount of cattle using land that is less productive would yield lower C sequestration per ha, but also lower stocking rates and reduce beef production (and associated emissions) per ha.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This is likely due to use of the IPCC Tier 2 methods in the current study instead of the Tier 1 methodology used in prior studies, greater precipitation in our study area than in those of the others, and handling manure in the FL as a liquid instead of a solid.

    “This is likely due to use of the IPCC Tier 2 methods in the current study instead of the Tier 1 methodology used in prior studies, greater precipitation in our study area than in those of the others, and handling manure in the FL as a liquid instead of a solid.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The LCA model of Camargo et al. (2013) included production of inputs and processes not included in conventional beef production LCAs, such as feed-associated pest management and transportation of inputs.

    “Additionally, the LCA model of Camargo et al. (2013) included production of inputs and processes not included in conventional beef production LCAs, such as feed-associated pest management and transportation of inputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Camargo et al. (2013) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our analyses and results reflect the key importance of geographically localized LCAs to more accurately estimate impacts of grazing on C sequestration rates.

    “However, at a minimum, our analyses and results reflect the key importance of geographically localized LCAs to more accurately estimate impacts of grazing on C sequestration rates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Soil C dynamics are directly linked to both land potential and the productivity of both pasture and cattle, and both stocking rates and productivity influence the net GHG footprints estimated here.

    “It should be noted that soil C dynamics are directly linked to both land potential and the productivity of both pasture and cattle, and that both stocking rates and productivity influence the net GHG footprints estimated here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The high rate of C sequestration observed in our study may be the result of the recent management intervention from continuous grazing to AMP in 2010.

    “The high rate of C sequestration observed in our study may be the result of the recent management intervention from continuous grazing to AMP in 2010 (Smith, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Smith, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This implies less overall beef production in the region, albeit with greater environmental benefits from what is produced.

    “This does imply less overall beef production in the region, albeit with greater environmental benefits from what is produced.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
66 of 66

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Soil nitrogen dynamics for the pasture itself do not significantly change in response to animal production.

    “Soil N dynamics for the pasture itself were not modeled, under the assumption that these emissions do not significantly change in response to animal production.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Feed crops were produced on existing cropland and grass-fed cattle were grazed on existing pasture or grassland in Michigan or other regions of the Upper Midwest.

    “Additionally, GHG emissions associated with land-use change, either for feed production or grazing land, were not considered, under the assumption that feed crops were produced on existing cropland and that grass-fed cattle were grazed on existing pasture/grassland in Michigan or other regions of the Upper Midwest.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Soil carbon was at a steady state on the land used to grow hay.

    “We assumed that soil C was at a steady state on the land used to grow hay.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    For the feedlot scenario, an intensive cropping system with no soil carbon sequestration was assumed.

    “For the FL scenario, we assumed an intensive cropping system with no soil C sequestration, as croplands are often eroded”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Zero soil erosion was assumed in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing scenario.

    “Because our data indicated C sequestration in the AMP grazing scenario over the 4-year interval, we assumed zero soil erosion based on Olson et al. (2016).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Soil carbon sequestration was linear over the 4-year interval.

    “these increases were divided by 4 to estimate Mg C sequestered ha -1 yr -1 , assuming linear sequestration over that time.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Carbon sequestration was possible for all the land in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing finishing scenario.

    “Total C sequestration was 3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 , equally -17.54 kg CO 2 -e CW -1 , assuming this C sequestration was possible for all the land in the AMP grazing finishing scenario.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The croplands used for the FL scenario experience soil erosion rather than carbon sequestration.

    “Although we assumed in this study that the croplands used for the FL scenario experience soil erosion rather than carbon sequestration”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Management similar to that in our study for pastures transitioned from heavy continuous grazing to AMP grazing in northern Texas, U.S. (Wang et al. 2015).

    “Assuming management similar to that in our study, for pastures transitioned from heavy continuous grazing to AMP grazing in northern Texas, U.S., Wang et al. (2015) reported 3.53 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 of C sequestration, a value close to our rate (3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 ).”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing studies generally determine one single value, calculated as the sum of annual GHG emissions minus CO2 removal by soil C-sequestration.

    “To explore the potential for SOC increases to mitigate climate change, existing studies generally determine one single value, calculated as the sum of annual GHG emissions minus CO2 removal by soil C-sequestration11,16.”

    From Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    Section 2.7.3 describes calculating a single net GHG value by combining beef-production emissions with reductions from soil C sequestration, so the paper uses the stated calculation itself. But the Introduction says many other studies did not consider soil C sequestration, and section 4.5 says SOC measurements have not typically been factored into their outcomes. That contradicts the claim that existing studies generally use this calculation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most LCAs on AMP grazing compare fully AMP-managed systems to fully conventional ones, which may be interpreted as AMP and feedlots being incompatible, even though AMP grazing could be integrated into earlier production phases.

    “Additionally, most LCAs on AMP grazing compare fully AMPmanaged systems to fully conventional ones (Rowntree et al., 2020;Stanley et al., 2018), which may be interpreted as AMP and feedlots being incompatible, even though AMP grazing could be integrated into earlier production phases.”

    From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018

    The Introduction describes this paper as a comparison of feedlot and AMP-grazing finishing, so it supports the citation as an example of that comparison. But it explicitly calls the study a partial LCA of the finishing phase; it does not establish that most AMP-grazing LCAs compare fully AMP-managed systems with fully conventional ones. The sentence’s interpretation about compatibility and earlier production phases is the citing authors’ framing, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Stanley et al. (2018) reported average SOC sequestration after five-year conversion from continuous haying and grazing to AMP grazing (analogous to the HPG system used at WOP, but with cattle grazing only).

    “For example, Stanley et al. (2018) reported average SOC sequestration after five-year conversion from continuous haying and grazing to AMP grazing (analogous to the HPG system used at WOP, but with cattle grazing only).”

    From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018

    The Methods (§2.7.1) say the pastures were continuously grazed and hayed until AMP management began in 2010. The Results (§3.4) report an average SOC sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, but calculate it from 2012–2016 samples—a four-year interval, not five years after conversion. The comparison to WOP’s HPG system is the citing authors’ framing, not a finding attributed to Stanley et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Use of improved grazing practices in some pasture-finished systems has sequestered enough carbon to offset production emissions from finishing.

    “Use of improved grazing practices in some pasture-finished systems has sequestered enough carbon to offset production emissions from finishing [11].”

    From Carbon opportunity cost increases carbon footprint advantage of grain-finished beef (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Previous studies on beef systems that included soil organic carbon used fixed values based on literature, measured data over limited periods, or modelled soil carbon fluxes.

    “Previous studies on beef systems that have included SOC have used fixed values based on literature data (e.g.Pelletier et al., 2010), relied on measured data during a limited period of time (e.g.Stanley et al. (2018) used data from soil measurements on-site over four years) or used modelled soil carbon fluxes (Alemu et al., 2017).”

    From Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions? (2022) · cites this paper as Stanley et al. (2018)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported daily gains do not match weights and finishing times

    Minor

    The feedlot weights imply a gain of 293 kg over 171.5 days, or 1.71 kg/day rather than 1.8. The AMP weights imply 166 kg over 200.8 days, or 0.83 kg/day rather than 0.9.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. USDA, 2014, vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Union of Concerned Scientists (US)
Corresponding author
Rowntree, Jason E.
ORCID
Venue
Agricultural Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
162
Pages
249-258
ISSN
0308-521X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003
OpenAlex
W2792041063
Semantic Scholar
07dc7d76048beb65844d17e217fe44e8ae7096bd
Cited by
266
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7
FWCI
17.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Agricultural Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
soil organic carbon sequestration, beef cattle, feedlot finishing, adaptive multi-paddock grazing, greenhouse gas emissions, enteric methane, manure management, soil erosion, climate change mitigation, carbon sink

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review