CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions?

Open access
Hammar, Torun, Hansson, Per-Anders, Röös, Elin·2022·Journal of Cleaner Production
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The time-dependent climate impact of beef production, including changes in soil organic carbon, was examined in this study. A hypothetical suckler cow system located in south-east Sweden was analysed using a time-dependent life cycle assessment method in which yearly fluxes of greenhouse gases were considered and the climate impact in terms of temperature response over time was calculated. The climate impact expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, i.e. global warming potential in a 100-year time perspective, was also calculated. The Introductory Carbon Balance Model was used for modelling yearly soil organic carbon changes from land use. The results showed an average carbon sequestration rate of 0.2 Mg C ha−1 and yr−1, so carbon sequestration could potentially counteract 15–22% of emissions arising from beef production (enteric fermentation, feed production and manure management), depending on system boundaries and production intensity. The temperature response, which showed a high initial increase due to methane emissions from enteric fermentation, started to level off after around 50 years due to the short atmospheric lifetime of methane. However, sustained production and associated methane emissions would maintain the temperature response and contribute to climate damage. A forage-grain beef system resulted in a lower climate impact than a forage-only beef system (due to higher slaughter age), even though more carbon was sequestered in the forage-only system.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A time-dependent LCA of a hypothetical Swedish suckler cow system found that soil carbon sequestration could offset 15–22% of beef production’s global warming potential, depending on system boundaries and production intensity. Methane from enteric fermentation drove a rapid temperature response that levelled off after about 50 years, but sustained emissions would maintain warming.

Key findings

  • Average soil carbon sequestration was about 0.2 Mg C ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, offsetting 15–22% of emissions from beef production depending on system boundaries and production intensity.
  • The forage beef scenario had higher GWP than the forage-grain scenario: 650 vs. 570 Mg CO₂-eq farm⁻¹ yr⁻¹, corresponding to 27 and 23 kg CO₂-eq kg⁻¹ bone-free beef, respectively.
  • Carbon sequestration was higher in the forage scenario (−180 Mg CO₂ farm⁻¹ yr⁻¹) than in the forage-grain scenario (−150 Mg CO₂ farm⁻¹ yr⁻¹), but the forage-grain system still had lower overall climate impact because animals reached slaughter age sooner and emitted less enteric CH₄.
  • The temperature response rose sharply initially due to enteric CH₄ and began to level off after around 50 years; N₂O and fossil CO₂ emissions then continued to increase the temperature response slowly.

Methods

  • Hypothetical suckler cow system in Uppsala County, south-east Sweden, with two scenarios: forage-only and forage + grain. The system was modelled over 100 years, with functional units “farm and year” (24 Mg bone-free meat and 180 Mg spring barley) and “kg bone-free meat”; system expansion was used for surplus barley when the latter unit was applied.
  • Time-dependent LCA using GWP₁₀₀ and AGTP (temperature response), with yearly GHG fluxes. Soil organic carbon changes were modelled with the Introductory Carbon Balance Model (ICBM), using continuous fallow as the reference land use.
  • Sensitivity analyses varied initial SOC content, manure C/N ratio, and shoot:root ratio for perennial grasses.

Limitations

  • Stated: large uncertainties remain in modelling SOC changes, especially for long-term grasses on pastureland; there is a lack of long-term data on pasture biomass productivity and pasture utilisation, and estimating yearly carbon input is more complex for perennial grasses than annual crops.
  • Stated: the choice of reference land use is important; using forest instead of fallow as a reference would heavily affect results because of potential carbon storage through afforestation.
  • Evident from the text: the study did not account for losses of adult animals, which partly explains lower GWP values than previous Swedish beef studies; it also assumed all feed was produced on-farm and all grazing occurred on arable land in crop rotations, limiting transferability to systems using imported feed or permanent grassland.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 34 cited sources checked · 10 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Roughage feed production on cropland contributes to soil carbon sequestration.

    “In addition, roughage feed production on cropland contributes to soil carbon sequestration (Börjesson et al., 2018;Jarvis et al., 2017;Tidåker et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Börjesson et al., 2018 source
    • cites Jarvis et al., 2017 source
    • cites Tidåker et al., 2014 source
  • Findingreasoning

    This global warming potential is somewhat lower than previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds.

    “This is somewhat lower than previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds (Moberg et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moberg et al., 2019 source

      The Results section (page unavailable) compares beef sold on the Swedish market with an international compilation, not with previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds. Searches for suckler herds and suckler-cow systems found no passage making the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The GWP value fails to capture the great increase in temperature response that would follow from an increase in CH4 emissions with an increase in ruminant livestock numbers.

    “The GWP value also fails to capture the great increase in temperature response that would follow from an increase in CH 4 emissions with an increase in ruminant livestock numbers (Lynch et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lynch et al., 2021 source
  • Findingown data

    Carbon sequestration could potentially counteract 15-22% of emissions arising from beef production (enteric fermentation, feed production and manure management), depending on system boundaries and production intensity.

    “The results showed an average carbon sequestration rate of 0.2 Mg C ha -1 and yr -1 , so carbon sequestration could potentially counteract 15-22% of emissions arising from beef production (enteric fermentation, feed production and manure management), depending on system boundaries and production intensity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Continuous fallow is the reference land use for assessing the net land use effect.
  • Findingreasoning

    When the net land use effect was considered, initial soil organic carbon content was of minor importance, since the effect for the reference land use was similar.

    “However, when the net land use effect was considered (i.e. the yearly difference compared with continued fallow), the initial SOC content was of minor importance, since the effect for the reference land use was similar.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Continuous fallow is the reference land use for assessing the net land use effect.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 32

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

    Premisecitation

    Ruminants can graze pastureland unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption, contributing to food security without competing for cropland.

    “Hence, ruminants can graze pastureland that is unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption, thus contributing to food security without competing for cropland (Van Zanten et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Zanten et al., 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    If sequestration of carbon in soils is accounted for, extensive systems can show more favourable results, since growing grass leys or using grassland for livestock diets often leads to higher sequestration rates than annual cropping.

    “However, if sequestration of carbon in soils is accounted for, extensive systems can show more favourable results, since growing grass leys or using grassland for livestock diets often leads to higher sequestration rates than annual cropping (Trydeman Knudsen et al., 2019;Alemu et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Trydeman Knudsen et al., 2019 source
    • cites Alemu et al., 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lynch, 2019 source
    • cites Reisinger and Clark, 2018 source
    • cites Allen et al., 2016 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Life cycle assessments have demonstrated a particularly high climate impact of beef and other ruminant meat compared with meat from monogastric animals.

    “Life cycle assessments (LCAs) have demonstrated a particularly high climate impact of beef and other types of ruminant meat in comparison with meat from monogastric animals (Clune et al., 2017;Gerber et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Clune et al., 2017 source
    • cites Gerber et al., 2013

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Grain-fed, high-input/high-output beef systems often show lower climate impact than grass-based, low-input systems, because animals with a higher growth rate reach slaughter weight faster and emit less CH4 per kg beef produced.

    “Grain-fed, high-input/high-output beef systems often show lower climate impact than grass-based, low-input systems, as animals with a higher growth rate reach slaughter weight faster and emit less CH 4 per kg beef produced (Clark and Tilman, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clark and Tilman, 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

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

    “Previous studies on beef systems that have included SOC have used fixed values based on literature data (e.g.Pelletier et al., 2010), relied on measured data during a limited period of time (e.g.Stanley et al. (2018) used data from soil measurements on-site over four years) or used modelled soil carbon fluxes (Alemu et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pelletier et al., 2010 source
    • cites Stanley et al. (2018) source
    • cites Alemu et al., 2017 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Similar effects have been observed in studies in climates similar to Sweden: Alemu et al. (2017) reduced emissions by 12-25% (beef system, western Canada), while Trydeman Knudsen et al. (2019) decreased emissions by 5-18% (dairy systems, western Europe).

    “Similar effects have been observed in studies in climates similar to Sweden.In a study by Alemu et al. (2017), emissions were reduced by 12-25% (beef system, western Canada), while in a study by Trydeman Knudsen et al. (2019) emissions were decreased by 5-18% (dairy systems, western Europe).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Alemu et al. (2017) source
    • cites Trydeman Knudsen et al. (2019) source

      The Soil carbon changes section reports a 5–18% reduction in the calculated carbon footprint of Western European dairy systems when soil carbon changes are included. It does not report a 5–18% decrease in the systems’ emissions themselves; that distinction limits support for the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    New technologies, such as the red seaweed feed supplement, could potentially drastically reduce CH4 emissions, which could heavily influence the climate impact.

    “New technologies, for example the promising red seaweed feed supplement (Roque et al., 2021), could potentially drastically reduce CH 4 emissions, which could heavily influence the climate impact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roque et al., 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Soil carbon changes contributed non-negligible negative emissions but could not offset CH4 emissions from the animals.

    “Although soil carbon changes contributed to non-negligible negative emissions, they could not offset CH 4 emissions from the animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed was produced on farm.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All grazing was performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.
    • Rests on an assumption: There are large uncertainties in modelling soil organic carbon changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The carbon sequestration effect was higher in the forage scenario (-180 Mg CO2 farm-1 yr-1) than in the forage-grain beef scenario (-150 Mg CO2 farm-1 yr-1), due to more land being occupied by ley, resulting in higher biomass input to soil.

    “The carbon sequestration effect was higher in the forage scenario (-180 Mg CO 2 farm -1 and yr -1 ) than in the forage-grain beef scenario (-150 Mg CO 2 farm -1 and yr -1 ), due to more land being occupied by ley, resulting in higher biomass input to soil.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher C/N ratio increased the carbon input from liquid manure and grazing and resulted in carbon sequestration rates of around 0.3 Mg ha-1 yr-1, which counteracted around 31-32% of the total global warming potential in the two scenarios studied.

    “Higher C/N ratio increased the carbon input from liquid manure and grazing and resulted in carbon sequestration rates of around 0.3 Mg ha -1 and yr -1 , which counteracted around 31-32% of the total GWP in the two scenarios studied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The highest carbon sequestration potential was found in the forage-fed scenario for beef cattle, and suckler cow systems using only forage had greater potential to sequester carbon than forage-grain systems.

    “The highest carbon sequestration potential was found in the foragefed scenario for beef cattle.”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
      “Suckler cow systems using only forage (silage) had greater potential to sequester carbon than forage-grain systems, since a larger share of grass-clover ley was included in the crop rotation, but overall emissions were higher since the animals took longer to reach slaughter weight.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed was produced on farm.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All grazing was performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.
    • Rests on an assumption: There are large uncertainties in modelling soil organic carbon changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The carbon sequestration potential was highest in the forage-fed suckler cow scenario, since it included a higher share of ley than the forage-grain scenario.

    “The carbon sequestration potential was highest in the forage-fed suckler cow scenario, since it included a higher share of ley than the forage-grain scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Even though the carbon sequestration effect was largest for the forage scenario, the temperature response was higher than for the more intensive forage-grain fed cattle system due to higher CH4 emissions from the animals, which lived longer in the forage scenario.

    “Even though the carbon sequestration effect was largest for the forage scenario, the temperature response was higher than for the more intensive forage-grain fed cattle system due to higher CH 4 emissions from the animals, which lived longer in that forage scenario (Fig. 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A forage-grain beef system resulted in a lower climate impact than a forage-only beef system (due to higher slaughter age), even though more carbon was sequestered in the forage-only system.

    “A forage-grain beef system resulted in a lower climate impact than a forage-only beef system (due to higher slaughter age), even though more carbon was sequestered in the forage-only system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Methane emissions from enteric fermentation were higher per month for young bulls in the forage-grain beef scenario due to their higher growth rate, but total emissions over the whole lifespan were lower.

    “Methane emissions from enteric fermentation were higher per month for the young bulls in the forage-grain beef scenario, due to their higher growth rate, but since these bulls were slaughtered at a younger age the total emissions over the whole lifespan were lower (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Lower initial soil organic carbon content resulted in higher carbon uptake in soils, which lowered the overall climate impact.

    “The lower initial SOC content resulted in higher carbon uptake in soils, which lowered the overall climate impact (Fig. 11a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Including the net land use effect lowered the carbon sequestration potential to around -120 and -100 Mg CO2 farm-1 yr-1 for the forage and forage-grain scenario, respectively, which offset about 15-16% of the global warming potential for the two scenarios.

    “Including the net land use effect, i.e. the yearly difference compared with continued fallow, lowered the carbon sequestration potential (to around -120 and -100 Mg CO 2 farm -1 and yr -1 for the forage and forage-grain scenario, respectively), which offset about 15-16% of the GWP for the two scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Continuous fallow is the reference land use for assessing the net land use effect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Methane emissions from enteric fermentation had the highest temperature increase initially, but these started to stabilise after around 50 years as a result of the short atmospheric lifetime of methane.

    “Methane emissions from enteric fermentation had the highest temperature increase initially, but these started to stabilise after around 50 years as a result of the short atmospheric lifetime of methane.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “The temperature response, which showed a high initial increase due to methane emissions from enteric fermentation, started to level off after around 50 years due to the short atmospheric lifetime of methane.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The crop rotation containing ley resulted in the greatest build-up of soil organic carbon content per hectare, because high biomass productivity from fertilising compared with grazed land led to larger carbon input from crop residues.

    “The crop rotation containing ley resulted in the greatest build-up of SOC content per hectare, since the high biomass productivity (as a result of fertilising) in comparison with grazed land (Table 4) led to a larger carbon input from crop residues (Fig. 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Long rotation grazing gave higher soil organic carbon content than short grazing rotation or continued fallow, which resulted in the lowest soil organic carbon content, although the difference between the two grazing rotations and fallow was relatively small.

    “The long rotation grazing (crop rotation 2) gave a higher SOC content than the short grazing rotation (crop rotation 3) or continued fallow, which resulted in the lowest SOC content, although the difference between the two grazing rotations and fallow was relatively small.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the present study, timing was not crucial because emissions and uptake were rather constant over the years, but AGTP still added additional information compared with GWP, especially with regard to methane.

    “In the present study however, this timing was not crucial, as emissions and uptake were rather constant over the years, but AGTP still added additional information in comparison with the GWP, especially with regard to methane.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite higher soil carbon sequestration in the forage scenario, the forage-grain scenario modelled here performed better in terms of climate impact, due to shorter animal lifetimes leading to lower CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation.

    “Despite higher soil carbon sequestration in the forage scenario, the forage-grain scenario modelled here performed better in terms of climate impact, due to shorter animal lifetimes leading to lower CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed was produced on farm.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All grazing was performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.
    • Rests on an assumption: There are large uncertainties in modelling soil organic carbon changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The average carbon sequestration found in this study for total land use was about 0.2 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, higher than the average for semi-natural pasture.

    “Previous assessments have shown that this type of pasture sequesters on average less than 0.1 Mg C ha -1 and yr -1 (Karltun et al., 2010), which is lower than the average found in this study (~0.2Mg C ha -1 and yr -1 for the total land use).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All feed was produced on farm.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All grazing was performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.
    • Rests on an assumption: There are large uncertainties in modelling soil organic carbon changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Enteric fermentation in ruminants gives rise to major methane emissions, making ruminant production a major contributing factor to climate change.

    “However, enteric fermentation in ruminants gives rise to major methane (CH 4 ) emissions, which is why ruminant production is considered a major contributing factor to climate change (Reisinger and Clark, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reisinger and Clark, 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Calculation of global warming potential necessitates an arbitrary choice of time horizon, which can heavily impact comparisons between systems in which the CO2 to CH4 ratio differs, as a shorter time horizon gives more weight to short-lived CH4.

    “Calculation of GWP necessitates an arbitrary choice of time horizon over which the climate impact is assessed, which can heavily impact comparisons between systems in which the CO 2 to CH 4 ratio differs, e.g.intensive versus extensive beef systems, as a shorter time horizon gives more weight to the short-lived CH 4 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Surplus land from the forage-grain system could potentially be used for bioenergy production or carbon sequestration, which could give additional climate impact benefits.

    “However, the more intensive forage-grain suckler cow system required less land, and this surplus land could potentially be used for other purposes, e.g.bioenergy production or carbon sequestration, which could give additional climate impact benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Higher biomass productivity results in more residues and thus higher carbon input to the soil.

    “Biomass productivity is another important factor for soil carbon changes.Higher productivity results in more residues, and thus higher carbon input to the soil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The difference in global warming potential is explained by not accounting for any losses of adult animals in this study and slight differences in calculations in CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and slaughter weight.

    “The difference is explained by not accounting for any losses of adult animals in this study and slight differences in calculations in CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation and slaughter weight.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    There is currently a food strategy in place that promotes increased production of meat and dairy, which could incentivise the use of low-value cropland for ruminant production.

    “There is currently a food strategy in place that promotes increased production of meat and dairy (Government Offices of Sweden, 2017), which could incentivise the use of low-value cropland for ruminant production.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Government Offices of Sweden, 2017

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

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because of uncertainties in the proportion of aboveground to belowground biomass, the influence of varying shoot:root ratio for perennial grasses was tested in a sensitivity analysis.

    “There are also uncertainties in the proportion of aboveground to belowground biomass, which is why the influence of varying S:R ratio for perennial grasses was tested in a sensitivity analysis (Fig. 13).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Variations in soil carbon results can be expected due to regional differences in factors influencing plant productivity, such as crop, soil texture, management practice, geographical location and climate.

    “There are many factors influencing plant productivity, e.g.crop, soil texture, management practice, geographical location and climate.Variations in the results can thus be expected due to regional differences in these factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    In more intensive ruminant systems, especially dairy systems, imported feed including soy is commonly used.

    “That is not uncommon in Swedish ruminant production, but in more intensive ruminant systems, especially in dairy systems, imported feed including soy is commonly used (Cederberg et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cederberg et al., 2009

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Sweden, permanent grassland makes up 1% of land area and 40% of arable land is used for grass-clover leys in rotations.

    “In an international perspective grazing on permanent grassland is more common, but grazing grass-clover ley in crop rotations is common in Sweden, where permanent grassland only makes up 1% of land area and where 40% of arable land is used for grassclover leys in rotations (Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2020

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

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

    Premisenone given

    In an international perspective, grazing on permanent grassland is more common than grazing grass-clover ley in crop rotations.

    “In an international perspective grazing on permanent grassland is more common, but grazing grass-clover ley in crop rotations is common in Sweden, where permanent grassland only makes up 1% of land area and where 40% of arable land is used for grassclover leys in rotations (Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Using Absolute Global Temperature change Potential overcomes the arbitrary choice of time horizon and takes into account when in time emissions or sequestration take place.

    “Using AGTP overcomes the arbitrary choice of time horizon and takes into account when in time emissions or sequestration take place.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Producing all feed on farm is not uncommon in Swedish ruminant production.

    “That is not uncommon in Swedish ruminant production, but in more intensive ruminant systems, especially in dairy systems, imported feed including soy is commonly used (Cederberg et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For short-lived GHGs, a change in emissions rate has a large influence on temperature, while constant CH4 emissions over time do not lead to much additional warming.

    “This illustrates an important characteristic of short-lived GHGs whereby a change in emissions rate has a large influence on the temperature, while constant emissions of CH 4 over time do not lead to (much) additional warming (Allen et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Allen et al., 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The AGTP considers the year of the flux, so that the climate response of one kg GHG emissions depends on the emission year.

    “The AGTP, on the other hand, considers the year of the flux, so that the climate response of one kg GHG emissions depends on the emission year.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Semi-natural pasture in Sweden has high biological values and constitutes a relatively small share of the land area.

    “One alternative could be afforestation, which could increase carbon stocks but would have detrimental effects on biodiversity, since semi-natural pasture in Sweden has high biological values and constitutes a relatively small share of the land area (Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2019

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

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

    Premisenone given

    Afforestation could increase carbon stocks.

    “One alternative could be afforestation, which could increase carbon stocks but would have detrimental effects on biodiversity, since semi-natural pasture in Sweden has high biological values and constitutes a relatively small share of the land area (Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Conducting an LCA of a beef system with semi-natural pasture would require another type of reference land use.

    “Conducting an LCA of a beef system with semi-natural pasture would also require another type of reference land use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The importance of time perspective for short-lived GHGs like CH4 and the limitations of GWP have been discussed previously.

    “The importance of time perspective for short-lived GHGs like CH 4 and the limitations of GWP have been discussed previously (e.g. in Allen et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Allen et al., 2016 source

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

    Premisereasoning

    The temperature response metric AGTP displays the time-dependent climate impact and considers the timing of GHG emissions.

    “In addition, the temperature response metric (AGTP) displays the time-dependent climate impact and considers the timing of GHG emissions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
44 of 44

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few studies on ruminant production including changes in soil organic carbon have been conducted.

    “Moreover, few studies on ruminant production including changes in SOC have been conducted and there is a need for further analysis of the influence of SOC in LCAs of beef systems.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. no permanent grassland was included in the production system.

    “It was assumed that all feed production and grazing took place on cropland, i.e. that no permanent grassland was included in the production system.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Continuous fallow is the reference land use for assessing the net land use effect.

    “Continuous fallow was assumed as the reference land use to assess the net land use effect, i.e. the difference between fallow land and the land use in the beef production system.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Sweden currently has approximately 130,000 ha of fallow land with little alternative use than cultivation of animal feed.

    “In this case, using fallow land as a reference can be justified by the fact that Sweden currently has approximately 130,000 ha of fallow land with little alternative use than cultivation of animal feed.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The modelled system represents real farms in Sweden in terms of diets, feed properties, livestock system characteristics, crop production, manure management etc.

    “The system modelled was designed to represent real farms in Sweden in term of diets, feed properties, livestock system characteristics, crop production, manure management etc.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A potential alternative use of the fallow land is forest.

    “However, a potential alternative use of this land is forest.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All feed was produced on farm.

    “In this study, it was assumed that all feed was produced on farm.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All grazing was performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.

    “In this study, all grazing was assumed to be performed on arable land included in the crop rotations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a lack of long-term data on biomass productivity on pastureland and on the pasture utilisation rate of grazing animals.

    “There is also a lack of long-term data on biomass productivity on pastureland and on the pasture utilisation rate of grazing animals.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The exact origin of feed is often unknown.

    “Accounting for changes in carbon stocks, both in soils and in standing biomass as a consequence of land use change, in all feed used is important to understand the net climate effect, but can be challenging as the exact origin of the feed is often unknown.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are large uncertainties in modelling soil organic carbon changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.

    “There are large uncertainties in modelling SOC changes, especially for long-term grasses growing on pastureland.”
11 of 11

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.

  • Shoot:root sensitivity analysis points to the wrong figure

    Minor

    The discussion cites Fig. 13 for the shoot:root-ratio sensitivity analysis, but the captions identify Fig. 13 as the manure C/N-ratio analysis and Fig. 14 as the shoot:root-ratio analysis.

  • Shoot:root ratio is also defined in the reverse direction

    Minor

    The ratio is called the share of belowground to aboveground biomass, but the next statement describes it as increasing when more biomass is allocated aboveground. That describes shoot:root, rather than belowground:aboveground.

  • Breeding-bull slaughter age differs between text and table

    Minor

    The text gives a slaughter age of 44 months for breeding bulls, whereas Table 1 gives 46 months.

  • Bone-free meat quantities do not match the stated carcass conversion

    Minor

    At the stated 70% conversion, 29 heifers with 319 kg carcasses would produce 6,476 kg of bone-free meat, not 7,229 kg; 20 cows with 422 kg carcasses would produce 5,908 kg, not 4,925 kg.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hammar, T., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Röös, Elin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
331
Pages
129948
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948
OpenAlex
W3215656248
Cited by
22
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Epsilon Open Archive (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet biblioteket (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)) (acceptedVersion)
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 production, climate change impacts, enteric methane, soil organic carbon sequestration, global warming potential, temperature sensitivity, slaughter age, manure management, feed production, greenhouse gas emissions

About these checks

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

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

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

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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