Sustainability of meat production beyond carbon footprint: a synthesis of case studies from grazing systems in Uruguay
Open accessAbstract
Livestock production has been challenged as a large contributor to climate change, and carbon footprint has become a widely used measure of cattle environmental impact. This analysis of fifteen beef grazing systems in Uruguay quantifies the range of variation of carbon footprint, and the trade-offs with other relevant environmental variables, using a partial life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Using carbon footprint as the primary environmental indicator has several limitations: different metrics (GWP vs. GTP) may lead to different conclusions, carbon sequestration from soils may drastically affect the results, and systems with lower carbon footprint may have higher energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, pesticide ecotoxicity, and impact on biodiversity. A multidimensional assessment of sustainability of meat production is therefore needed to inform decision makers. There is great potential to improve grazing livestock systems productivity while reducing carbon footprint and other environmental impacts, and conserving biodiversity.
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?
The 4-year adaptive multi-paddock animal performance and days to finish were considerably different than previous studies.
“However, our 4-year AMP animal performance and days to finish were considerably different than that of previous studies”
From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as Picasso et al., 2014
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)
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
Beauchemin, K. A., Henry Janzen, H., Little, S. M., McAllister, T. A., & McGinn, S. M. (2010) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.008 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System
Rowntree, J. E., Stanley, P. L., Maciel, I. C. F., Thorbecke, M., Rosenzweig, S. T., Hancock, D. W., Guzman, A., & Raven, M. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
“Alternatively, although overall emissions in grain-finished beef systems are lower, the portion of fossil-fuel derived emissions is higher, including CO2 and N2O (lasting 1,000 and 100 years on average, respectively) arising from fertilizer production and application for fodder crops and fossil fuel–derived energy use…”
Background
- Authors
- Picasso, V. D., Modernel, P. D., Becoña, G., Salvo, L., Gutiérrez, L., & Astigarraga, L.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de la República de Uruguay (UY)
- Corresponding author
- Picasso, Valentín D.
- Venue
- Meat Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-11
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 346-354
- ISSN
- 0309-1740 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033889412
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 6.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Locations
- Meat Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- CSIC-UDELAR
- 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
- carbon footprint, life cycle assessment, greenhouse gas emissions, soil carbon sequestration, energy consumption, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, pesticide ecotoxicity, biodiversity conservation, Uruguay
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Husbandry, Cattle, Conservation of Natural Resources, Diet, Environment, Poaceae, Humans, Meat, Uruguay, Food Industry, Carbon Footprint
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
