Availability of disaggregated greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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).”
From Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions? (2022) · cites this paper as Lynch, 2019
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
Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers
Garnett, T. (2009) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, C. E., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2015) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Impact of the intensification of beef production in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions and land use
Cardoso, A. S., Berndt, A., Leytem, A., Alves, B. J. R., de Carvalho, I. D. N. O., de Barros Soares, L. H., Urquiaga, S., & Boddey, R. M. (2016) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.007 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Accounting for the climate-carbon feedback in emission metrics
Gasser, T., Peters, G. P., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Collins, W. J., Shindell, D. T., & Ciais, P. (2017) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-8-235-2017 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Carbon footprint of beef cattle
Desjardins, R., Worth, D., Vergé, X., Maxime, D., Dyer, J., & Cerkowniak, D. (2012) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su4123279 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Clune S. Crossin E. Verghese K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories J. Clean. Prod. 140 2017 766 783
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Henchion M. McCarthy M. Resconi V.C. Troy D. Meat consumption: trends and quality matters Meat Sci. 98 2014 561 568 25060586
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Reisinger A. Clark H. How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming? Glob. Chang. Biol. 24 2018 1749 1761 29105912
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Thornton P.K. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365 2010 2853 2867 PMC2935116 20713389
- Tilman D. Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health Nature 515 2014 518 25383533
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hammar, T., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lynch, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lynch, John
- ORCID
- Lynch, John
- Venue
- Environmental Impact Assessment Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 76
- Pages
- 69-78
- ISSN
- 0195-9255 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6684367
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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