Cited by 99Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Availability of disaggregated greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production: a systematic review

Open access
Lynch, John·2019·Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Abstract

Agriculture is a significant source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and beef cattle are particularly emissions intensive. GHG emissions are typically expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) ‘carbon footprint’ per unit output. The 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP100) is the most commonly used CO2e metric, but others have also been proposed, and there is no universal reason to prefer GWP100 over alternative metrics. The weightings assigned to non-CO2 GHGs can differ significantly depending on the metric used, and relying upon a single metric can obscure important differences in the climate impacts of different GHGs. This loss of detail is especially relevant to beef production systems, as the majority of GHG emissions (as conventionally reported) are in the form of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), rather than CO2. This paper presents a systematic literature review of harmonised cradle to farm-gate beef carbon footprints from bottom-up studies on individual or representative systems, collecting the emissions data for each separate GHG, rather than a single CO2e value. Disaggregated GHG emissions could not be obtained for the majority of studies, highlighting the loss of information resulting from the standard reporting of total GWP100 CO2e alone. Where individual GHG compositions were available, significant variation was found for all gases. A comparison of grass fed and non-grass fed beef production systems was used to illustrate dynamics that are not sufficiently captured through a single CO2e footprint. Few clear trends emerged between the two dietary groups, but there was a non-significant indication that under GWP100 non-grass fed systems generally appear more emissions efficient, but under an alternative metric, the 100-year global temperature potential (GTP100), grass-fed beef had lower footprints. Despite recent focus on agricultural emissions, this review concludes there are insufficient data available to fully address important questions regarding the climate impacts of agricultural production, and calls for researchers to include separate GHG emissions in addition to aggregated CO2e footprints.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.003

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Use of global warming potential to assess short-lived greenhouse gases such as CH4 has been criticised for failing to capture its impact on temperature, since CH4 does not accumulate in the atmosphere unlike longer-lived greenhouse gases.

    “Use of GWP to assess the impact of short-lived GHGs such as CH 4 (which has an average atmospheric lifetime of 12.4 years) has been criticised for failing to capture its impact on temperature, since CH 4 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, unlike more long-lived GHGs (Lynch, 2019;Reisinger and Clark, 2018;Allen et al., 2016).”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Basarab J. Baron V. López-Campos Ó. Aalhus J. Haugen-Kozyra K. Okine E. Greenhouse gas emissions from calf- and yearling-fed beef production systems, with and without the use of growth promotants Animals 2 2012 195 26486917 PMC4494322
  2. Buratti C. Fantozzi F. Barbanera M. Lascaro E. Chiorri M. Cecchini L. Carbon footprint of conventional and organic beef production systems: an Italian case study Sci. Total Environ. 576 2017 129 137 27783931
  3. Capper J.L. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems Animals 2 2012 127 26486913 PMC4494320
  4. Clune S. Crossin E. Verghese K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories J. Clean. Prod. 140 2017 766 783
  5. Daley C.A. Abbott A. Doyle P.S. Nader G.A. Larson S. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef Nutr. J. 9 2010 10 20219103 PMC2846864
  6. de Vries M. de Boer I.J.M. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments Livest. Sci. 128 2010 1 11
  7. Eisler M.C. Lee M.R. Tarlton J.F. Martin G.B. Beddington J. Dungait J.A. Greathead H. Liu J. Mathew S. Miller H. Misselbrook T. Murray P. Vinod V.K. Van Saun R. Winter M. Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock Nature 507 2014 32 34 24605375
  8. Fuglestvedt J. Rogelj J. Millar R.J. Allen M. Boucher O. Cain M. Forster P.M. Kriegler E. Shindell D. Implications of possible interpretations of ‘greenhouse gas balance’ in the Paris Agreement Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376 2018 PMC5897819 29610378
  9. Henchion M. McCarthy M. Resconi V.C. Troy D. Meat consumption: trends and quality matters Meat Sci. 98 2014 561 568 25060586
  10. Knapp J.R. Laur G.L. Vadas P.A. Weiss W.P. Tricarico J.M. Invited review: enteric methane in dairy cattle production: quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions J. Dairy Sci. 97 2014 3231 3261 24746124
  11. Levasseur A. Cavalett O. Fuglestvedt J.S. Gasser T. Johansson D.J.A. Jørgensen S.V. Raugei M. Reisinger A. Schivley G. Strømman A. Tanaka K. Cherubini F. Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate science: review of recent findings and recommendations for application to LCA Ecol. Indic. 71 2016 163 174
  12. McAfee A.J. McSorley E.M. Cuskelly G.J. Fearon A.M. Moss B.W. Beattie J.A. Wallace J.M. Bonham M.P. Strain J.J. Red meat from animals offered a grass diet increases plasma and platelet n-3 PUFA in healthy consumers Br. J. Nutr. 105 2011 80 89 20807460
  13. McAuliffe G.A. Takahashi T. Orr R.J. Harris P. Lee M.R.F. Distributions of emissions intensity for individual beef cattle reared on pasture-based production systems J. Clean. Prod. 171 2018 1672 1680 29333000 PMC5738973
  14. McClelland S.C. Arndt C. Gordon D.R. Thoma G. Type and number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: a systematic review Livest. Sci. 209 2018 39 45
  15. Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D.G. The P.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med. 6 2009 e1000097 PMC3090117 21603045
  16. Myhre G. Shindell D. Bréon F.-M. Collins W. Fuglestvedt J. Huang D. Koch J.-F. Larmarque D. Lee B. Mendoza T. Nakajima T. Robock A. Stephens G. Takemura T. Zhang H. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing Stocker T.F. Qin D. Plattner G.-K. Tignor M. Allen S.K. Boschung J. Nauels A. Xia Y. Bex V. Midgley P.M. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
  17. Notarnicola B. Sala S. Anton A. McLaren S.J. Saouter E. Sonesson U. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable Agri-food systems: a review of the challenges J. Clean. Prod. 140 2017 399 409
  18. Ocko I.B. Hamburg S.P. Jacob D.J. Keith D.W. Keohane N.O. Oppenheimer M. Roy-Mayhew J.D. Schrag D.P. Pacala S.W. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates Science 356 2017 492 493 28473552
  19. Parajuli R. Dalgaard T. Birkved M. Can farmers mitigate environmental impacts through combined production of food, fuel and feed? A consequential life cycle assessment of integrated mixed crop-livestock system with a green biorefinery Sci. Total Environ. 619-620 2018 127 143 29145050
  20. Picasso V.D. Modernel P.D. Becoña G. Salvo L. Gutiérrez L. Astigarraga L. Sustainability of meat production beyond carbon footprint: a synthesis of case studies from grazing systems in Uruguay Meat Sci. 98 2014 346 354 25048094
  21. Reisinger A. Clark H. How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming? Glob. Chang. Biol. 24 2018 1749 1761 29105912
  22. Rice P. O'Brien D. Shalloo L. Holden N.M. Evaluation of allocation methods for calculation of carbon footprint of grass-based dairy production J. Environ. Manag. 202 2017 311 319 28750283
  23. Shine K.P. Berntsen T.K. Fuglestvedt J.S. Skeie R.B. Stuber N. Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 365 2007 1903 1914 17513272
  24. Springmann M. Clark M. Mason-D'Croz D. Wiebe K. Bodirsky B.L. Lassaletta L. de Vries W. Vermeulen S.J. Herrero M. Carlson K.M. Jonell M. Troell M. DeClerck F. Gordon L.J. Zurayk R. Scarborough P. Rayner M. Loken B. Fanzo J. Godfray H.C.J. Tilman D. Rockström J. Willett W. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits Nature 562 2018 519 525 30305731
  25. Stackhouse-Lawson K.R. Rotz C.A. Oltjen J.W. Mitloehner F.M. Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems J. Anim. Sci. 90 2012 4641 4655 22952361
  26. Thornton P.K. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365 2010 2853 2867 PMC2935116 20713389
  27. Tilman D. Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health Nature 515 2014 518 25383533

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynch, J.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Lynch, John
Venue
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
76
Pages
69-78
ISSN
0195-9255 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914253044
Cited by
99
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Impact Assessment Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (205212/Z/16/Z)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
beef cattle production, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint, global warming potential, methane, nitrous oxide, non-CO2 greenhouse gases, grass-fed beef, bottom-up emission estimation

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.

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