Cited by 42Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

Evaluating greenhouse gas mitigation practices in livestock systems: an illustration of a whole-farm approach

STEWART, A. A., LITTLE, S. M., OMINSKI, K. H., WITTENBERG, K. M., JANZEN, H. H.·2009·The Journal of Agricultural Science

Abstract

As agriculture contributes about 0·08 of Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reducing agricultural emissions would significantly decrease total Canadian GHG output. Evaluating mitigation practices is not always easy because of the complexity of farming systems in which one change may affect many processes and associated emissions. The objective of the current study was to compare the effects of selected management practices on net whole-farm emissions, expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2e) from a beef production system, as estimated for hypothetical farms at four disparate locations in western Canada. Whole-farm emissions (t CO2e) per unit of protein output (t) of 11 management systems (Table 2) were compared for each farm using a model based, in part, on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) equations. Compared with the baseline management scenario, maintaining cattle on alfalfa-grass pastures showed the largest decrease (0·53-1·08 t CO2e/t protein) in emissions for all locations. Feeding lower quality forage over winter showed the greatest increase in emissions per unit protein on the southern Alberta (S.AB) and northern Alberta (N.AB) farms, with increases of 1·36 and 2·22 t CO2e/t protein, respectively. Eliminating the fertilization of forages resulted in the largest increase (4·20 t CO2e/t protein) in emissions per unit protein on the Saskatchewan (SK) farm, while reducing the fertilizer rate by half for all crops showed the largest increase (11·40 t CO2e/t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0021859609008764

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
STEWART, A. A., LITTLE, S. M., OMINSKI, K. H., WITTENBERG, K. M., & JANZEN, H. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
OMINSKI, K. H.
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Science
Published
2009-05-20
Volume
147
Issue
4
Pages
367-382
ISSN
  • 0021-8596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5146
OpenAlex
W2160861648
Cited by
42
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Agricultural Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
greenhouse gas emissions reduction, beef production, CO2 equivalent, protein production, cattle grazing, forage quality, winter feeding, forage fertilization, fertilizer reduction, IPCC emission factors, management practices, Western Canada

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