CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

Greenhouse gas emissions in US beef production can be reduced by up to 30% with the adoption of selected mitigation measures

Open access
Pelton, Rylie E. O., Kazanski, Clare E., Keerthi, Shamitha, Racette, Kelly A., Gennet, Sasha, Springer, Nathaniel, Yacobson, Eugene, Wironen, Michael +3 more·2024·Nature Food
DOI 10.1038/s43016-024-01031-9PMC PMC11420059
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from beef production in the United States are unevenly distributed across the supply chain and production regions, complicating where and how to reduce emissions most effectively. Using spatially explicit life cycle assessment methods, we quantify the baseline GHG emissions and mitigation opportunities of 42 practices spanning the supply chain from crop and livestock production to processing. We find that the potential to reduce GHGs across the beef sector ranges up to 30% (20 million tonnes CO2e reduced and 58 million tonnes CO2 sequestered each year relative to the baseline) under ubiquitous adoption assumptions, largely driven by opportunities in the grazing stage. Opportunities to reduce GHGs in the feed, grazing and feedlot stages vary across regions, yet large-scale adoption across the entire beef supply chain is important. These findings reveal promising locations and practices to invest in to advance mitigation goals and an upper-end theoretical potential for mitigation in the beef industry. The United States is the world’s largest beef producer. Identifying strategies to mitigate its GHG emissions remains a challenge due to sector complexity and heterogeneity. This study takes an LCA approach to quantify potential mitigation opportunities available or soon to be available for the beef sector.

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 · 10.1038/s43016-024-01031-9

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The majority of GHG emissions in US beef production systems originate from the grazing phases (cow-calf and stocker), which account for ~70-80% of total beef emissions.

    “The majority of GHG emissions in these systems originate from the grazing phases-cow-calf and stocker production-which account for ~70-80% of total beef emissions (Pelton et al., 2024;Rotz et al., 2019).”

    From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Pelton et al., 2024

    The ‘Aggregate US beef industry baseline emissions’ section attributes the majority of emissions to grazing, but gives its share as 64%, not approximately 70–80%. The ‘Spatial distribution of beef emissions and emission intensity’ section likewise identifies grazing as the largest stage and reports 64%. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the US, efficiency-based strategies appear to have limited remaining scope, partly because the sector has historically been technology-driven.

    “In the US, efficiency-based strategies appear to have limited remaining scope (Cusack et al., 2021;Pelton et al., 2024), partly because the sector has historically been technology-driven (Drouillard, 2018).”

    From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Pelton et al., 2024

    The Main section says the US beef industry has made efficiency gains over the past 50 years, but does not assess how much scope remains for efficiency-based strategies. It explicitly places productivity improvements outside the study’s scope and calls them an important opportunity for future research. The technology-driven explanation is cited to Drouillard, not Pelton, so it is not part of this verdict. (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

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [3]Rotz, A., Asem-Hiablie, S., Place, S. & Thoma, G. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169, 1–13 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  2. [10]Stackhouse-Lawson, K. & Thompson, L. 80 climate change and the beef industry: a rapid expansion. J. Anim. Sci. 100, 32–33 (2022). · DOI
  3. [11]Herrero, M. et al. Livestock and the environment: what have we learned in the past decade? Ann. R. Environ. Resour. 40, 177–202 (2015). · DOI
  4. [12]O’Rourke, D. The science of sustainable supply chains. Science 344, 1124–1127 (2014). 24904157 · DOI
  5. [16]Drouillard, J. Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United States of America—a review. Asian–Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 31, 1007–1016 (2018). 29973030 PMC6039332 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [17]Shear, H. & Pendell, D. Economic cost of traceability in US beef production. Front. Anim. Sci. 1, 552386 (2020). · DOI
  7. [18]Lin, X., Ruess, P., Marston, L. & Konar, M. Food flows between counties in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084011 (2019). · DOI
  8. [19]Karakoc, D., Wang, J. & Konar, M. Food flows between counties in the United States from 2007 to 2017. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 3 (2022). · DOI
  9. [20]Pelton, R. et al. Land use leverage points to reduce GHG emissions in US agricultural supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 11 (2021). · DOI
  10. [21]Putman, B., Rotz, C. & Thoma, G. A comprehensive environmental assessment of beef production and consumption in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 402, 136766 (2023). · DOI
  11. [22]Asem-Hiablie, S., Battagliese, T., Stackhouse-Lawson, K. & Rotz, A. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 441–455 (2019). · DOI
  12. [23]Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T. & Milo, R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11996–12001 (2014). 25049416 PMC4143028 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [24]Clark, M. & Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 6 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  14. [25]Thoma, G. E. A. Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and consumption in the United States: a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008. Int. Dairy J. 31, S3–S14 (2013). · DOI
  15. [26]Beauchemin, K. et al. Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. J. Dairy Sci. 105, 9297–9326 (2022). 36270879 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [27]Ranjan, P., Church, S., Floress, K. & Prokopy, L. Synthesizing conservation motivations and barriers: what have we learned from qualitative studies of farmers’ behaviors in the United States. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32, 1171–1199 (2019). · DOI
  17. [28]Prokopy, L. et al. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: evidence from 35 years of quantitative liteature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 520–534 (2019). · DOI
  18. [29]Fargione, J. et al. Natural climate solutions in the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). 30443593 PMC6235523 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [30]Pineiro, V. et al. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 3, 809–820 (2020). · DOI
  20. [31]Arndt, C., Hristov, A., Price, W. & Yu, Z. Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 °C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2111294119 (2022). 35537050 PMC9171756 · DOI
  21. [32]Lautz, L., Kelleher, C. & Vidon, P. E. A. Restoring stream ecosystem function with beaver dam analogues: let's not make the same mistake twice. Hydrol. Process 33, 174–177 (2018). · DOI
  22. [35]IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T.F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
  23. [37]Smith, T. et al. Subnational mobility and consumption-based environmental accounting of US corn in animal protein and ethanol supply chains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7891–E7899 (2017). 28874548 PMC5617264 · DOI
  24. [38]Brauman, K. et al. Unique water scarcity footprints and water risks in US meat and ethanol supply chains identified via subnational commodity flows. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 105018 (2020). · DOI
  25. [41]Pelton, R. E. O. Supplementary data for greenhouse gas emissions in US beef production can be reduced by up to 30% with the adoption of selected mitigation measures in Nature Food. figshare10.6084/m9.figshare.26488249 (2024). PMC11420059 39215094

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pelton, R. E. O., Kazanski, C. E., Keerthi, S., Racette, K. A., Gennet, S., Springer, N., Yacobson, E., Wironen, M., Ray, D., Johnson, K., & Schmitt, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
Corresponding author
Pelton, Rylie E. O.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Food
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-08-30
Volume
5
Issue
9
Pages
787-797
ISSN
2662-1355 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s43016-024-01031-9
PMC
PMC11420059
OpenAlex
W4402050830
Cited by
50
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 2
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Food (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McDonald's Corporation
  • University of Minnesota, Institute on the Environment
  • The Nature Conservancy
  • Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (DSnew-0000000007)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
greenhouse gas emissions, beef production, mitigation measures, beef supply chain, grazing, feedlot, carbon sequestration, United States beef industry
MeSH terms
Red Meat, Greenhouse Gases, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Carbon Dioxide, Cattle, United States, Greenhouse Effect

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