Cited by 276Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments

Open access
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, C.E., de Boer, I.J.M.·2015·Livestock Science

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.livsci.2015.06.020

Cites

68 of 68 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?

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

    “These studies evaluated only one grazing management system continuous grazingand assumed steady-state soil carbon (C), to model the grass-finishing environmental impact.”

    From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as de Vries et al., 2015

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

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, C. E., & de Boer, I. J. M.
Venue
Livestock Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
178
Pages
279-288
ISSN
1871-1413 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1822667183
Cited by
276
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 1
FWCI
17.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Livestock Science (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 systems, organic beef production, concentrate diet, forage-based diets, global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, land use, energy consumption, cradle-to-farm-gate, dual-purpose cattle

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