The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 23 of the 84 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 No full text of the sources · 27 Own interpretation · 23 Own result · 17 No basis given · 10 Partly supported · 10 Own method · 7 Sources not found · 4 Supported · 3 Supported so far · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, there remains substantial uncertainty about soil C change over time in managed grasslands”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Desjardins et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Could not verifycites Olson et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Supportedcites Paustian et al., 2016 source
The “Quantifying uncertainties” section says estimates of soil C stock changes will always have uncertainty because of gaps in process understanding, parameterization, and model inputs. The “Soil C sequestration via improved management” section discusses managed grasslands and identifies further knowledge gaps affecting estimates of sequestration. The paper does not quantify that uncertainty specifically for grasslands, but it supports the broad claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crosson et al., 2011 source
- Could not verifycites de Vries et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Capper, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Desjardins et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lupo et al., 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.1. Animal production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oates et al., 2011 source
- Partly supportedcites Teague et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teague et al., 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“However, our 4-year AMP animal performance and days to finish were considerably different than that of previous studies”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.1. Animal production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nguyen et al., 2010 source
- Could not verifycites Picasso et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Finally, when converting degraded cropland to AMP grazing, Machmuller et al. (2015) reported mean sequestration values as great as 8.0 ± 0.85 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 in the top 30 cm of soil for a 7-year duration.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Machmuller et al. (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Rapid soil C accumulation” section reports a peak gain of 8.0 ± 0.85 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ in the upper 30 cm after conversion to intensively grazed pasture. It places that peak 2–6 years after establishment; the Abstract describes a 7-year chronosequence, not seven years sustained at that rate. The claimed 7-year duration of sequestration at 8.0 ± 0.85 is therefore unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, Teague et al. (2016) estimated that AMP grazing could induce SOC sequestration rates 10 times greater than the commonly used default value of 0.41 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 proposed by Conant et al. (2003).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Teague et al. (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the discussion accompanying Table 2 (page not available in our copy), Teague et al. estimate that AMP grazing sequestered 3 t C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ more than heavy continuous grazing in the comparison they describe. Our copy does not give the claimed Conant et al. default of 0.41 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ or make a tenfold comparison with it; 3 divided by 0.41 is about 7.3, not 10. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Conant et al. (2003) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Based on the 3.53 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 of C sequestered over a 9-year period in Wang et al. (2015), we expect that our soils could continue to sequester at this rate for several years.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wang et al. (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 4 reports 3,530 kg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (3.53 Mg) for a modeled 10-year transition from heavy continuous to multi-paddock grazing. Section 2.3.2 describes 10-, 15-, and 20-year scenarios, not an observed nine-year period. The expectation for the citing authors’ own soils is their inference, not a finding attributed to Wang et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This is also demonstrated by Wang et al. (2015) where AMP grazing lands sequestered 3 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 more than land under continuous grazing.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wang et al. (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2 reports greater carbon sequestration after conversion from heavy continuous (HC) to multi-paddock (MP) grazing, supporting the comparison in direction. But the rate depends on the assumed transition period: it gives 1.765 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ for the 20-year scenario, not an unqualified 3 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. Section 2.3.2 explains that these rates are estimates calculated from differences in soil-carbon stocks, rather than directly measured annual rates. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to -6.65 kg CO 2 -e kg carcass weight (CW) -1”
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Net GHG flux · plain
“Combined with 9.62 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 in emissions, this resulted in a net GHG sink of -6.65 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Soil carbon sequestration was linear over the 4-year interval.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Carbon sequestration was possible for all the land in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing finishing scenario.
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Net GHG flux · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FL emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 due to soil erosion.”
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Net GHG flux · plain
“The 6.09 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 of FL emissions combined with 0.03 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 from erosion resulted in a net emission of 6.12 kg CO 2 -e kg CW -1 for the FL scenario”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the feedlot scenario, an intensive cropping system with no soil carbon sequestration was assumed.
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Net GHG flux · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, FL production required only half as much land as AMP grazing.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2. Land occupation · plain
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2. Land occupation · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across-farm SOC data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 in AMP grazed pastures.”
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Soil C sequestration · hedged
“Averaging data for all three soil types (for S, SL and CL) led to an estimated sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Soil carbon sequestration was linear over the 4-year interval.
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Soil C sequestration · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data indicate a 4-year sequestration rate of 3.79 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 for the SL soils.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.4. Soil C sequestration
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Soil carbon sequestration was linear over the 4-year interval.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, if Y m had been reduced from the default of 6.5 ( ± 1.0) to 5.5 to reflect improved forage quality, enteric CH 4 emissions from the AMP grazing scenario would have been reduced by 15%”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.6. Enteric CH 4 sensitivity analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Soil erosion due to feed production in the FL scenario contributed 22.76 kg CO 2 -e (0.03 kg CO 2 kg CW -1 ).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.5. Net GHG flux
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the feedlot scenario, an intensive cropping system with no soil carbon sequestration was assumed.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“GHG emissions from mineral supplement production and on-farm energy and transportation together contributed < 2.5% to overall emissions in both finishing scenarios.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.3. GHG emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the FL, this represents a 120% greater productivity on a CW basis per ha compared to AMP.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.2. Land occupation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, steers finished at 530 kg (σ = 47 kg) live weight in 200 days (average of 180 days AMP grazing and 20 days of alfalfa hay feeding).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2. Finishing systems 2.2.1. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing
plainn = 210- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The C contents in the 2016 SL soils were slightly greater than the mean of those of all three soil types.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.1. Sample collection and C analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the S and CL soil types had had a similar 2012 baseline, however, their sequestration rates would have been 2.04 and 4.94 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 , respectively.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.4. Soil C sequestration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This resulted in a feed conversion ratio that was 56% lower for FL than for AMP grazed finishing.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.1. Animal production
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to these calculations and current synthetic N application rates, manure-derived N application was calculated to reduce needed N inputs by 31.4%.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to other studies, enteric CH 4 in our study contributed the most to overall GHG emissions (Fig. 1) in the AMP grazing system.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The result that FL requires less than half the agricultural land to produce beef versus grass-fed (in this case, AMP) is typical of assumptions or results in other studies”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While not as productive as FL based on yields, the AMP grazing system produced considerably greater amounts of beef on a land basis as compared to continuous grazing, showing that improved management can increase the output of grassfed beef.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Manure CH 4 and N 2 O for the FL scenario estimated in this study were greater than those in other studies (Lupo et al., 2013;Pelletier et al., 2010).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Generally, GHG emissions (per kg CW) were within the range of those reported in other studies for the Northern Great Plains (Lupo et al., 2013), Upper Midwest (Pelletier et al., 2010), andCalifornia (Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012) within the U.S.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to FL finishing, AMP finishing generated more than twice the enteric CH 4 emissions per kg CW (Fig. 1).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, as shown in the sensitivity analysis (Fig. 3), it is likely that the use of IPCC (2006) enteric CH 4 accounting methodology overestimates actual enteric CH 4 emissions in the AMP grazing system, especially when more digestible, higher quality forages are grazed.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IPCC (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although estimated total manure emissions were lower for the AMP grazing scenario than the FL scenario (6.9 vs 7.3 Mg CO 2 -e, respectively), the opposite was true when reflected on an animal productivity basis (CO 2 -e kg CW -1 ) (2.46 vs. 1.81CO 2 -e kg CW -1 for AMP grazing and FL, respectively; Fig. 1).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although estimated total manure emissions were lower for the AMP grazing scenario than the FL scenario (6.9 vs 7.3 Mg CO 2 -e, respectively), the opposite was true when reflected on an animal productivity basis (CO 2 -e kg CW -1 ) (2.46 vs. 1.81CO 2 -e kg CW -1 for AMP grazing and FL, respectively; Fig. 1).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Compared to results of the grass-finishing model of Pelletier et al. (2010), GHG emissions from finishing with AMP grazing in our study were about 45% lower.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pelletier et al. (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Feed production emissions in the FL finishing scenario were slightly greater than those reported by Lupo et al. (2013) and Pelletier et al. (2010), likely because our FL ration included only a small proportion of legume forages and a larger proportion of DDGS and corn grain which have greater emissions per kg than other feedstuffs (Camargo et al., 2013).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our estimated sequestration rate (3.59 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 ) is considerably greater than the mean C sequestration rate of 0.41 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 for”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Conant et al. (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In doing so, our results show that not only can adoption of improved grazing management facilitate soil C sequestration, but that the finishing phase of the beef production system may serve as an overall GHG sink.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While AMP grazing requires twice as much land than FL, if effectively implemented over a large area, total C sequestration in the Upper Midwest could increase substantially.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In doing so, our results show that not only can adoption of improved grazing management facilitate soil C sequestration, but that the finishing phase of the beef production system may serve as an overall GHG sink.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The few studies that considered low rates of soil C sequestration in GHG accounting for beef production indicated potential emissions decreases of 24-535%”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For example, different assumptions about fertilization rates on pasture have resulted in a 5fold difference in N 2 O emissions”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the SOC sequestration rates measured here were relatively high, lower rates would still reduce the AMP emissions relative to the FL emissions.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Accordingly, the land, ecosystem, and GHG emission impacts resulting from beef production are highly dependent on the type of grazing management system utilized”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brilli et al., 2017 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rowntree et al., 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, most of the differences in beef production environmental impact arise from the finishing strategy employed.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, emissions from grass-fed systems vary greatly due to differences in regional and on-farm practices.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these reasons, beef LCAs often assume soil C equilibrium.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because most management differences and much of the variability among beef production systems are concentrated within the finishing phase, system boundaries were limited to this phase only, thus excluding cow-calf and backgrounding stages.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.1. System boundaries
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“GHG emissions from crop irrigation were not included because < 10% of all cropland in Michigan is irrigated”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USDA, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It was estimated that each 25.4 kg of corn used in dry-mill ethanol production generates 7.89 kg of DDGS”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USDA, 2016a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Mean C content for soils under a conventionally managed corn-soybean-wheat rotation, which is typical in the Upper Midwest, was 10.4 g C kg -1 soil”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.2. Soil erosion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Syswerda et al., 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to the USDA (2015), mean sheet and rill soil erosion on cropland in Michigan is 8.12 Mg ha -1 yr -1 .”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.2. Soil erosion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USDA, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is the result of greater DMI and lower final CW in the AMP grazing scenario than in the FL scenario.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Levels of N application and related assumptions about associated emissions from pasture and cropland are primary contributors to discrepancies among beef production LCA models.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“showing that improved management can increase the output of grassfed beef.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference can be explained by improved forage quality and utilization in the AMP grazing system versus the more conventional continuous grazing system.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.1. Animal production
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The greater C sequestration and resulting net GHG sink in the AMP grazing system illustrated in this study, compared to continuous grazing systems in other LCAs, calls into question the common assumption that FL intensification reduces the overall GHG footprint through greater productivity.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While we did not contrast the more standard continuous grazing to AMP grazing, recent studies indicate that grazing management can be a key driver promoting the relatively high SOC levels that we observed.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it is possible that long-term AMP grazing finishing in the Upper Midwest could contribute considerably more to climate change mitigation and adaptation than previously thought.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study shows that when full consideration of land impacts is given to GHG emissions in both FL and AMP grazing-based finishing, environmental benefits may outweigh productivity losses.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, if soil C is sequestered through best management practices, our results suggest that enteric CH 4 from the finishing phase can be substantially mitigated.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as illustrated by this study in the Upper Midwest, under AMP grazing, more extensive (grass-based) but intensively managed beef finishing can deliver environmental benefits (such as soil C sequestration and other ecosystem services) with less environmental impact per kg CW than intensive FL finishing.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While AMP grazing requires twice as much land than FL, if effectively implemented over a large area, total C sequestration in the Upper Midwest could increase substantially.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integrating on-farm soil C data within the studied management system contributes significantly to existing LCAs.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, different regions are likely to demonstrate different outcomes as several variables shift.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, greater rates of C sequestration may be possible for several years.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This, in part, is due to the greater average fertilization rate reported by USDA (2017) used in the present study than in the 2010 USDA data used by Lupo et al. (2013).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USDA (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Feed production emissions in the FL finishing scenario were slightly greater than those reported by Lupo et al. (2013) and Pelletier et al. (2010), likely because our FL ration included only a small proportion of legume forages and a larger proportion of DDGS and corn grain which have greater emissions per kg than other feedstuffs (Camargo et al., 2013).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Camargo et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 47
- Probably not a substantial claim. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Soil C sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands, which can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Griscom et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liebig et al., 2010 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McSherry and Ritchie, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Conant et al., 2003 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teague and Barnes, 2017 source
- Supportedcites Teague et al., 2016 source
The Table 1 passage describes AMP grazing as adjusting forage recovery periods and says regenerative grazing supports efficient pasture-based ruminant production. The Table 2 passage reports increased forage productivity and calculates greater soil-carbon sequestration under AMP than under heavy continuous grazing in a Texas comparison. The copy provides section labels but no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Griscom et al., 2017 source
In Results and Discussion, under “NCS Contribution to a <2 °C Pathway” (page not provided), Griscom et al. explicitly say they excluded adaptive multipaddock grazing because they included only activities with data sufficiently robust for global extrapolation. They add that future research may provide an empirical basis for including it, supporting the claim that it was a potential mitigation option not included in their analysis. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Average finishing weights for the FL steers (Table 2) were similar to those reported by others”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.1. Animal production
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Capper, 2012 source
Table 1 in Section 2.2 reports finishing weights for calf-fed and yearling-fed beef in feedlots. The citing authors use those reported weights as a comparator for their own FL steers; the similarity is their comparison, not a finding attributed to Capper. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lupo et al., 2013 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pelletier et al., 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Teague et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“If adopted, these practices may also promote soil C sequestration (Chambers et al., 2016).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Chambers et al., 2016 source
Section 2 states that NRCS soil-health conservation practices can sequester carbon when properly managed. The paper also identifies cover crops, reduced tillage, and no-till as carbon-beneficial practices, supporting the hedged claim. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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 ).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wang et al. (2015) source
Table 4 reports 3,530 kg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (3.53 Mg) of sequestration for the heavy-continuous-to-multi-paddock transition under its 10-year scenario. The Introduction places the grazing strategies on ranches in north Texas and describes multi-paddock grazing as adaptively managed rotational grazing. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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).
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Olson et al., 2017 source
The Abstract links degradation in intensified cropping systems to diminished ecosystem services, including food production, fresh water, nutrient cycling, and habitat support. The ‘SOIL PROPERTY CHANGE EFFECTS’ section says accelerated erosion has adverse on-site and off-site effects, including reduced nutrient availability and agricultural productivity. The FL scenario is the citing authors’ example, not a finding attributed to Olson et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Conant et al. (2003) source
- Supportedcites Minasny et al., 2017 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stewart et al., 2007 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Machmuller et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mathew et al., 2017 source
- Partly supportedcites Minasny et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.3. GHG emissions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.3. GHG emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enteric CH 4 was the largest source for AMP and intermediary for FL finishing, contributing 53% and 31%, respectively.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.3. GHG emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average daily gain was 100% greater and DMI 10% lower for steers in the FL than those in the AMP grazing scenario.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.1. Animal production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.5. Net GHG flux
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Carbon sequestration was possible for all the land in the adaptive multi-paddock grazing finishing scenario.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.6. Enteric CH 4 sensitivity analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.2. Land occupation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Manure emissions (comprised of both N 2 O and CH 4 ) represented 30% of FL emissions and 26% of AMP emissions.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.3. GHG emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.4. Soil C sequestration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FL and AMP finishing produced 1655 and 751 kg CW ha feed -1 , respectively.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.2. Land occupation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average dressing percentage calculated from carcass data was 53% among all 5 years.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2. Finishing systems 2.2.1. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, cattle in the FL finished in 29 less days with CWs 45% greater than those of AMP grazed cattle.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.1. Animal production
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our AMP-grazed steers finished in 150 days shorter and 99 kg heavier than the continuously grazed steers in Lupo et al. (2013).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.1. Animal production
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lupo et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lupo et al. (2013) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beauchemin et al. (2011) source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A majority of GHG emissions are attributed to the cow-calf sector”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beauchemin et al., 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Janzen, 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oates et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mean modeled finishing weight was 654 kg, similar to the 2015 average reported by USDA (2016a).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2.2. Feedlot
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USDA, 2016a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be conservative for the purposes of the LCA, we used this lower sequestration rate for the AMP grazing scenario.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 3.4. Soil C sequestration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Studies have identified these gaps and have called for more robust research and inclusion of soil C in future LCA models”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2.2. Feedlot
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites National Academies of Sciences, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.6. On-farm fuel use and transportation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pelletier et al., 2010 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan and Tiffany, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The permanent pastures (grasslands) were established approximately 30 years ago and were continuously grazed and hayed until 2010 when AMP management was initiated.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.1. Sample collection and C analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We acknowledge the locational variation between sampling sites could influence the results.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.1. Sample collection and C analysis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2.2. Feedlot
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cassady et al., 2016 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Camargo et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.1. Sample collection and C analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.4. Enteric CH 4 , manure CH 4 and N 2 O emissions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.2.2. Feedlot
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In lieu of on-farm data for soil erosion and SOM from cropland used to grow feed ingredients, representative literature values were used.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.2. Soil erosion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the distance in monitoring sites, the soil types were consistent and reflective in soil C change overtime.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.7.1. Sample collection and C analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tertiary emissions, including those from manufacture of machines, equipment, and infrastructure were excluded, based on their assumed minor contributions”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 2.1. System boundaries
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lupo et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Stewart et al. (2009), reduction in fertilizer use resulted in the largest decrease (30%) in modeled overall emissions from beef production.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stewart et al. (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ultimately, in a closed system, this implies somewhat lower per capita beef consumption, but greater environmental benefits from what is consumed.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.2. Land occupation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was most likely due to their longer finishing time, lower animal productivity, and high application rate of fertilizer on pasture.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.3. GHG emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sloggett (1992) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rowntree et al., 2016
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > Mineral Emissions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Camargo et al. (2013) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.5. Net GHG flux
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 4.4. Soil C sequestration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith, 2014 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does imply less overall beef production in the region, albeit with greater environmental benefits from what is produced.”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 ).”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Initial evidence from beef life cycle assessments (LCAs) incorporating AMP grazing induced SOC accrual suggest substantial GHG mitigation potential.Relative to GHG footprints calculated without considering offsets from SOC accrual, reported GHG footprints incorporating measured SOC accrual suggested reductions from 65 to 169% lower (Mehre et al., 2024;Rowntree et al., 2020;Stanley et al., 2018).”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“or evaluated only short-term shifts from conventional grazing (Stanley et al., 2018).”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent studies show that livestock-induced soil C changes can have large impacts on the GHG balance of these production systems (Beauchemin et al., 2011;Teague et al., 2016;Stanley et al., 2018).”
From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some studies have shown that when including soil C changes to LCA parameters, the overall CO 2 -e can decrease considerably (Pelletier et al., 2010b;Stanley et al., 2018).”
From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Importantly, these results show that grass-finished CWs are ∼33% lower than existing grain-finishing beef LCAs (Pelletier et al., 2010b;Lupo et al., 2013;Stanley et al., 2018).”
From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Compared to other literature, our estimated soil C sequestration rate lies toward the higher end-both above (Wang et al., 2015;Conant et al., 2017) and below (Stanley et al., 2018) reported values from others.”
From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · cites this paper as Stanley et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, our reported MSPR finished beef CW closely aligns with Stanley et al. (2018), who reported a 280 kg hd -1 in an adaptive multipaddock (AMP) grazing system-a similar management strategy, but using beef cattle only.”
From Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System (2020) · 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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
“| Days in the finishing phase | 171.5 | 200.8 | | Beginning-Ending live weight (kg) | 361-654 | 362-528 |”
§ Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems > 5. Conclusions, implications and future projections
“| Average daily gain (kg) | 1.8 | 0.9 |”
Citations
Cites
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., & Pongratz, J. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.018 · Cited by 4,634
Nutrient requirements of beef cattle
Board on Agriculture (1963) · Cited by 3,662
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., et al. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114 · Cited by 3,481
Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z.-S., Cheng, K., Das, B. S., et al. (2017) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002 · Cited by 2,239
Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17174 · Cited by 2,213
Soil erosion and the global carbon budget
Lal, R. (2003) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/s0160-4120(02)00192-7 · Cited by 1,702 · cited 1×
“Based on research by Lal (2003), 20% of eroded SOC was assumed to be emitted into the atmosphere.”
BackgroundGRAZING SYSTEMS, ECOSYSTEM RESPONSES, AND GLOBAL CHANGE
Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., & Harris, A. T. (2004) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142 · Cited by 1,121 · cited 2×
“…as the extensiveness of grazing lands (~336million ha of land in the United States; (Chambers et al., 2016)) and their importance to livelihoods (Asner et al., 2004; Briske et al., 2015; Desjardins et al., 2012), grassland C sinks might represent a significant GHG mitigation strategy that…”
BackgroundSoil carbon saturation: concept, evidence and evaluation
Stewart, C. E., Paustian, K., Conant, R. T., Plante, A. F., & Six, J. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9140-0 · Cited by 911
Powlson, D. S., Whitmore, A. P., & Goulding, K. W. T. (2011) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x · Cited by 829 · cited 1×
“…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).”
BackgroundInfluentialEffects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review
McSherry, M. E., & Ritchie, M. E. (2013) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12144 · Cited by 829 · cited 1×
“Soil C sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands, which can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing (Griscom et al., 2017; Liebig et al., 2010; McSherry and Ritchie, 2013; Wang et al., 2015).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- USDA, 2014, vol. 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges
Erans, M., Sanz-Pérez, E. S., Hanak, D. P., Clulow, Z., Reiner, D. M., & Mutch, G. A. (2022) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d1ee03523a · Cited by 688
Managing Grazing to Restore Soil Health, Ecosystem Function, and Ecosystem Services
Teague, R., & Kreuter, U. P. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187 · Cited by 408
Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: a critical review
Terlouw, T., Bauer, C., Rosa, L., & Mazzotti, M. (2021) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d0ee03757e · Cited by 385
Grassland Management Affects Delivery of Regulating and Supporting Ecosystem Services
Sollenberger, L. E., Kohmann, M. M., Dubeux, J. C. B., & Silveira, M. L. (2019) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2018.09.0594 · Cited by 220
Plant-Based Meats, Human Health, and Climate Change
van Vliet, S., Kronberg, S. L., & Provenza, F. D. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00128 · Cited by 222
“Pastured beef systems that use land management practices such as rotational grazing—where lands are allowed to properly recover after a grazing period— and/or cover crop grazing suggest that the amounts of carbon sequestered in the soil more than offsets the ruminants’ GHGE, resulting in a net negative carbon footprin…”
Background
Metadata
- 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.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 162
- Pages
- 249-258
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Agricultural Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
