CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementOil Palm Production and SustainabilityGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact

Cattle supply chain fidelity in the Brazilian Amazon: key considerations for deforestation monitoring

Open access
Skidmore, Marin Elisabeth, Barrozo, Marcos, Rausch, Lisa, Gibbs, Holly K·2024·Environmental Research Letters
DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ad7a0d
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Supply chain governance (SCG) is an increasingly important approach to man- age environmental protection and human rights in agricultural systems across the tropics. SCG helps relay the preferences of international consumers to producers and fills environmental policy gaps. Brazil’s Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements (CA) are one of the longest-standing examples of SCG but shortcomings in implementation have reduced their conservation impacts. Chief among the reasons for their limited effect is that slaughterhouses monitor only the suppliers they buy from directly. This does not account for the complex supply network upstream of the direct sale, whose dynamics are also poorly understood. We provide the first comprehensive characterization of the strength and duration of cattle supply chain relationships based on animal transaction records from across the Brazilian Amazon. Whereas direct supply relationships (from ranchers to slaughterhouses) are relatively few and long-lasting, upstream relationships between ranchers are numerous and short-lived. Expanding monitoring to include these upstream sup- pliers increases the number of monitored transactions by an order of magnitude. However, 1% of the largest direct suppliers sell nearly half of cattle to CA slaughterhouses. More comprehensive upstream monitoring of only these prolific suppliers could greatly increase coverage at a fraction of the cost. While it may be challenging to monitor the entire supply network, significant advancements are within reach.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using 8.5 million cattle movement records from four Brazilian Amazon states, the paper characterizes the "fidelity" (duration, volume, repetition) of direct ranch-to-slaughterhouse versus indirect ranch-to-ranch supply relationships underlying Brazil's Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements. It finds indirect relationships are ~12 times more numerous and far weaker than direct ones, but that monitoring only the top 1–10% of high-volume direct suppliers could extend coverage to a large share of indirect suppliers at modest cost.

Key findings

  • Direct suppliers to CA slaughterhouses are a minority: 52,937 direct suppliers versus 231,325 indirect suppliers (184,032 of which never sell directly), and 175,988 direct relationships versus 2.1 million indirect relationships.
  • Direct relationships last an average of 1.81 years with 5.53 transactions and 91.91 head; 85% of indirect relationships are a single transaction in a single year (average 1.17 years, 1.46 transactions, 38.15 head).
  • The top 1% of direct suppliers provide 45% of head sold to CA slaughterhouses and the top 10% provide 85%; 68% of CA indirect suppliers are connected to the top 10% of direct suppliers and 25% to the top 1%. The top 1% purchased 15 million head and sold 14 million to CA slaughterhouses (93% slaughter ratio).
  • CA slaughterhouses show the least "leaky" flow (56% slaughter ratio versus 18% for non-CA SIFs and 13% for non-SIFs) and slaughtered 90% of federally inspected supply and 80% of all supply in the sample; the top 10% of direct suppliers (<5,000 suppliers) provide 75% of market slaughter.

Methods

  • Descriptive analysis of Guia de Transporte Animal (GTA) cattle movement records from Mato Grosso (2014–2018), Rondônia (2013–2017), and Pará and Tocantins (2017–2022) — 8.5 million transactions from 421,000 distinct suppliers, covering 28% of Brazilian and 84% of Legal Amazon cattle production.
  • Entity matching on property name, owner ID, and municipality links transactions to suppliers; direct relationships are sales for slaughter, indirect relationships are sales for fattening between ranches.
  • Fidelity measured by relationship duration (years observed), transaction count, head traded, "pair share" of a supplier's volume, and inverse Herfindahl-Hirschman Index as effective number of buyers; suppliers also stratified by volume percentile and by slaughterhouse type (CA/G4, SIF, non-SIF).

Limitations

  • The authors state the work is "primarily descriptive," with interpretive insight drawn from semi-structured interviews (appendix) rather than causal analysis.
  • The GTA tracks animal lots, not individuals, so animals mix on ranches and "there is no way to know exactly which of the indirect suppliers' animals ended up at the slaughterhouse"; slaughter ratios are therefore approximations (the true CA ratio is "likely lower" since direct suppliers sometimes raise their own calves).
  • Transaction-level data were not matched to property boundaries (to avoid information loss from incongruities between boundary data and GTA records); additionally, the four states cover different five-year windows, and the data cannot be made public because they contain sensitive personal information (text-evident constraints on replication and comparability).

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/ad7a0d

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

13 of 22 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    A chief reason for the limited effect of the CA is that slaughterhouses monitor only the suppliers they buy from directly.

    “Chief among the reasons for their limited effect is that slaughterhouses monitor only the suppliers they buy from directly.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
      “This has limited implementation of the CA to direct suppliers to date, allowing deforestation to continue unchecked on any supplier that sells indirectly to a slaughterhouse through other suppliers and greatly limiting the reach of these agreements.(Gibbs et al 2015, Carvalho et al 2021, Skidmore et al 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gibbs et al 2015 source
    • cites Carvalho et al 2021 source
    • cites Skidmore et al 2021 source
  • Study design and conductcitation

    The GTA is considered a reliable source of information on cattle movements.

    “The GTA is considered a reliable source of information on cattle movements (Klingler et al 2018, West et al 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Klingler et al 2018 source

      The ‘Deforestation and the cattle agreements’ section says the GTA tracks cattle movements between farms and slaughterhouses. It does not call GTA information reliable; instead, it says accurate supply-chain traceability would require a more transparent transportation system. The ‘Discussion and conclusion’ section also describes weak mechanisms for tracing cattle origins. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites West et al 2022 source
  • Premisecitation

    Under federal law 12.097 and Decree 7.623, all movements of animals, including those between suppliers, must be registered with a Guia de Transporte Animal (GTA).

    “Under federal law 12.097 and Decree 7.623, all movements of animals, including those between suppliers, must be registered with a Guia de Transporte Animal, or GTA (Skidmore et al 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Skidmore et al 2021 source

      Section 2.1 says Law 12.097 and Decree 7.623 require GTA paperwork before moving animals between properties or to slaughter, which supports the claim’s central point. But the same section explains that movements between properties treated as a single establishment may not require a GTA, so the claim’s unqualified “all movements” is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Relationships between ranches are important because they are a crucial monitoring loophole.

    “These relationships between ranches are important because they are a crucial monitoring loophole (Skidmore et al 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Skidmore et al 2021 source
  • Premisecitation

    Existing evidence suggests that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply.

    “existing evidence suggests that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply (Rajão et al 2020, Skidmore et al 2021, Levy et al 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Rajão et al 2020 source
    • cites Skidmore et al 2021 source
    • cites Levy et al 2023 source

      The Introduction (p. 2) describes deforestation-linked cattle passing through intermediary properties, and section 4.3 (p. 8) says producers wishing to deforest can sell indirectly. These passages support a link between deforestation and indirect supply, but do not establish that properties with recent deforestation tend to specialize in indirect supply. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The pattern of high-volume, long-lasting relationships is especially true for the largest suppliers, who also tend to have closer relationships with CA signatories.

    “Similar to the findings of Carvalho et al (2021), we show this is especially true for the largest suppliers, who also tend to have closer relationships with CA signatories.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.3. High-volume suppliers are key nodes to monitor indirect supply · plain
      “Of the ranches in the 99th percentile by volume, nearly all are connected to any CA signatory (98%), the G4 (91%) and SIFs (100%); only half of them ever sell to a non-SIF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carvalho et al (2021) source

      Section 3.1 reports that the suppliers selling to SIF slaughterhouses in all six study years were the largest contributors by volume, and that all SIF plants supplied by high-volume suppliers participated in CAs. But it does not establish that the largest suppliers generally had long-lasting or closer relationships with CA signatories: more than half of high-volume suppliers sold to a SIF plant in only one or two years, and only 40.6% sold exclusively to CA plants. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Brazil's Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements (CA) are one of the longest-standing examples of supply chain governance, but shortcomings in implementation have reduced their conservation impacts.

    “Brazil's Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements (CA) are one of the longest-standing examples of SCG but shortcomings in implementation have reduced their conservation impacts.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
      “Others, like the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and Brazil's Zero-Deforestation Cattle Agreements (CA) have demonstrated limited effect on deforestation (Alix-Garcia and Gibbs 2017, Carlson et al 2018, Heilmayr et al 2020a, Levy et al 2023), except where there is high market share of companies implementing the CA purchase criteria (Levy et al 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Alix-Garcia and Gibbs 2017 source
    • cites Carlson et al 2018 source

      The introductory passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) includes cattle among sectors with sustainable-sourcing commitments and says research on South American beef supply chains found changes in actor behavior. It does not say Brazil’s cattle agreements are among the longest-standing examples, or that implementation shortcomings reduced their conservation impacts. The implementation shortcomings discussed elsewhere in that section concern Indonesian palm-oil certification, not the cattle agreements. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Heilmayr et al 2020a source

      The References section names studies of Brazil’s zero-deforestation cattle agreements, including one titled “Forest conservation effects of Brazil's zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage.” The passages found do not say the agreements are among the longest-standing examples of supply-chain governance or that implementation shortcomings reduced their conservation impacts; the paper’s Conclusions instead concern oil-palm certification in Indonesia. Searched for the cattle agreements, implementation shortcomings, and longevity. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    Previous work shows that high-volume direct suppliers play a key role in the supply chain.

    “Previous work by Carvalho et al (2021) shows that high-volume direct suppliers play a key role in the supply chain, and we anticipate this will reflect in the strength of their relationships.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carvalho et al (2021) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    While individualized supply chain traceability can greatly expand the scope of SCG, it is also important to consider patterns at larger geographic scales and across sectors.

    “While this individualized approach to supply chain traceability can greatly expand the scope of SCG, it is also important to consider patterns that play out at larger geographic scales and across sectors (Zu Ermgassen et al 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zu Ermgassen et al 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A limited set of ranches make high-volume transactions with slaughterhouses, and their relationships tend to last for many years of repeated interactions.

    “A limited set of ranches make high-volume transactions with slaughterhouses, and their relationships tend to last for many years of repeated interactions.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.3. High-volume suppliers are key nodes to monitor indirect supply · plain
      “These largest direct suppliers nearly always (99%) have at least one relationship with a slaughterhouse lasting more than two years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Direct supply relationships from ranchers to slaughterhouses are relatively few and long-lasting.

    “Whereas direct supply relationships (from ranchers to slaughterhouses) are relatively few and long-lasting, upstream relationships between ranchers are numerous and short-lived.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2. Unmonitored indirect relationships exhibit the lowest fidelity · plain
      “Relationships between direct suppliers and slaughterhouses last an average of 1.81 years and trade an average of 91.91 head over 5.53 transactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-CA SIF and non-SIF slaughterhouses received 4 and 5 million head directly, respectively, but were indirectly linked to 22 and 38 million head, for a slaughter ratio of 18% and 13%.

    “These slaughterhouses received 4 and 5 million head directly, respectively, but were indirectly linked to 22 and 38 million head, for a slaughter ratio of 18% and 13%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Slaughter is the next most common purpose for movement of cattle, accounting for 29.3% of GTA records, and is the only transaction type monitored under the CA thus far.

    “The next most common purpose is slaughter (29.3%), which is the only transaction type that is monitored under the CA thus far, followed by reproduction (15.9%) and auction (1.8%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the same period, direct suppliers to the CA purchased nearly twice as many animals (61 million), for a slaughter ratio of 56%, though the true ratio is likely lower since direct suppliers sometimes produce their own calves.

    “During the same period, these direct suppliers purchased nearly twice as many animals (61 million), for a slaughter ratio of 56% (though the true ratio is likely lower since direct suppliers sometimes produce their own calves).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Direct suppliers sometimes produce their own calves.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average relationship between a direct supplier and a slaughterhouse accounted for half of the total volume the direct supplier sells for slaughter over the five years, while the average relationship between a direct supplier and their indirect supplier accounts for only one quarter of the indirect volume the indirect supplier sold.

    “While the average relationship between a direct supplier and a slaughterhouse accounted for half of the total volume the direct supplier sells for slaughter over the five years in our study period, the average relationship between a direct supplier and their indirect supplier accounts for only one quarter of the indirect volume the indirect supplier sold.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most common (85%) indirect relationship in the sample is a single transaction in a single year, with an average relationship length of 1.17 years and 1.46 transactions, selling an average of 38.15 animals.

    “In contrast, the most common (85%) indirect relationship in our sample is a single transaction in a single year, with an average relationship length of 1.17 years and 1.46 transactions, selling an average of 38.15 animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Relationships between direct suppliers and slaughterhouses last an average of 1.81 years and trade an average of 91.91 head over 5.53 transactions.

    “Relationships between direct suppliers and slaughterhouses last an average of 1.81 years and trade an average of 91.91 head over 5.53 transactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The direct suppliers below the highest-volume peers have fidelity to G4 of 71% and to SIF of 97%, slightly less than their higher-volume peers.

    “the G4 (71%) and SIF (97%), though their fidelity to these influential companies is slightly less than their higher volume peers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    These direct suppliers sell to fewer slaughterhouses than their higher-volume peers, with 3.84 total and an effective 2.04 slaughterhouses.

    “They sell to fewer slaughterhouses than their higher volume peers (3.84 total and an effective 2.04).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    These direct suppliers have long-lasting relationships with slaughterhouses, with a longest relationship of 4.05 years.

    “They also have long-lasting relationships with slaughterhouses; their longest relationship is 4.05 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the ranches in the 99th percentile by volume, nearly all are connected to any CA signatory (98%), the G4 (91%) and SIFs (100%); only half of them ever sell to a non-SIF.

    “Of the ranches in the 99th percentile by volume, nearly all are connected to any CA signatory (98%), the G4 (91%) and SIFs (100%); only half of them ever sell to a non-SIF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among the bottom half of direct suppliers by volume, 29% ever sold to a CA slaughterhouse, 9% to the G4, and 23% to SIF, while 80% are connected to a non-SIF slaughterhouse.

    “They are not well-connected to the CA slaughterhouses (only 29% ever sold to a CA slaughterhouse), the G4 (9%), or SIF (23%), but 80% are connected to a non-SIF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 90-99th percentile of direct suppliers are also well connected to the CA (95%), the G4 (71%) and SIF (97%), though their fidelity to these influential companies is slightly less than their higher volume peers.

    “The 90-99th percentile of direct suppliers are also well connected to the CA (95%), the G4 (71%) and SIF (97%), though their fidelity to these influential companies is slightly less than their higher volume peers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The highest-volume direct suppliers sell to several slaughterhouses (5.72 total), but their inverse HHI shows they effectively rely on an average of 2.37 slaughterhouses.

    “These highest-volume direct suppliers sell to several slaughterhouses (5.72 total), but their inverse HHI shows they effectively rely on an average of 2.37 slaughterhouses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The top 1% of direct suppliers purchased 15 million cattle and sold 14 million directly to CA slaughterhouses during the study period, a 93% slaughter ratio.

    “The top 1% of direct suppliers purchased 15 million cattle and sold 14 million directly to CA slaughterhouses during our study period (93% slaughter ratio).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Over two-thirds (68%) of CA indirect suppliers are connected with the top 10% of direct suppliers, and a quarter are connected with the top 1% of direct suppliers.

    “Over two-thirds (68%) of CA indirect suppliers are connected with the top 10% of direct suppliers, and a quarter are connected with the top 1% of direct suppliers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The top 2%-10% of direct suppliers purchased 24 million cattle from indirect suppliers and sold 14 million for slaughter to CA slaughterhouses, a 58% slaughter ratio.

    “The top 2%-10% purchased 24 million cattle from indirect suppliers and sold 14 million for slaughter to CA slaughterhouses (58% slaughter ratio).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    For the Brazilian Amazon's cattle supply chain, production involves an extensive supply network with most suppliers and relationships involved before the sale to a slaughterhouse, which is the only sale currently subject to monitoring.

    “For the Brazilian Amazon's cattle supply chain, production involves an extensive supply network with most suppliers and relationships involved before the sale to a slaughterhouse, which is the only sale currently subject to monitoring.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average relationship between the top 10% of direct suppliers and their indirect suppliers is 1.19 years and 1.53 transactions, compared to 1.12 years and 1.30 transactions for the remaining direct suppliers.

    “The average relationship between the top 10% of direct suppliers and their indirect suppliers is 1.19 years and 1.53 transactions, on average, compared to 1.12 years and 1.30 transactions for the remaining direct suppliers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    CA slaughterhouses slaughtered 90% of federally inspected (and thereby certified for export) supply in the sample and 80% of all supply.

    “CA slaughterhouses slaughtered 90% of federally inspected (and thereby certified for export) supply in our sample and 80% of all supply.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Indirect relationships are short-lived, commonly involving only a single transaction over a 5-year period, whereas direct relationships average 6 transactions.

    “Moreover, these indirect relationships are short-lived, commonly involving only a single transaction over the course of a 5 year period, whereas direct relationships average 6 transactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Ranchers' choice of slaughterhouse is influenced by the absence of formal contracts, the typical industry practice of 30-day delays for payment after delivery, and slaughterhouse capacity constraints.

    “Ranchers' choice of slaughterhouse is influenced by the absence of formal contracts, the typical industry practice of 30 day delays for payment after delivery, and slaughterhouse capacity constraints.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Large slaughterhouses offer better prices to ranchers they can trust to provide quality cattle and provide technical support to their best suppliers.

    “Large slaughterhouses offer better prices to ranchers they can trust to provide quality cattle and provide technical support to their best suppliers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Interviewees noted that both direct suppliers and slaughterhouses value repeated interactions.

    “Interviewees noted that both direct suppliers and slaughterhouses value repeated interactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The top 10% of direct suppliers constitute less than 5000 total suppliers in the sample and provide 75% of the slaughter in the market.

    “These direct suppliers, which constitute less than 5000 total suppliers in our sample, provide 75% of the slaughter in the market.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Involvement of high-volume direct suppliers in monitoring the suppliers they buy from could greatly expand the number of ranches under monitoring and provide an important deterrent effect for many of these suppliers.

    “Involvement of high-volume direct suppliers in monitoring the suppliers they buy from could greatly expand the number of ranches under monitoring and provide an important deterrent effect for many of these suppliers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The four states in the sample account for 28% of cattle production in Brazil and 84% of production in the Legal Amazon region.

    “These states account for 28% of cattle production in Brazil, and 84% of production in the Legal Amazon region (IBGE 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites IBGE 2017

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These high-volume suppliers provide an opportunity for the roll-out of an expanded monitoring system.

    “These high-volume suppliers provide an opportunity for the roll-out of an expanded monitoring system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lower fidelity in indirect relationships may add complexity to supply chain governance in Brazil's cattle sector if the influence of strong buyer-supplier relationships is essential for indirect supplier adaptation to the requirements.

    “The lower fidelity in indirect relationships may add complexity to SCG in Brazil's cattle sector if the influence of strong buyer-supplier relationships is essential for indirect supplier adaptation to the requirements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Strong relationships between buyers and suppliers could encourage suppliers to adapt to new supply chain governance criteria implemented by certain buyers in order to maintain their relationship with them, rather than taking on the transaction costs of seeking out buyers who have not implemented the criteria or finding other ways to evade monitoring.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Federal Public Prosecutors who administer the CAs are moving to require slaughterhouses to monitor indirect suppliers, and GTA-based tools allowing slaughterhouses to evaluate indirect suppliers have started to become available.

    “Accordingly, the Federal Public Prosecutors who administer the CAs are moving to require slaughterhouses to take up monitoring of indirect suppliers (MPF 2023), as tools based on the GTA which al-low slaughterhouses to evaluate their indirect suppliers have started to become available (SeloVerde 2024, Visipec 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites MPF 2023

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

    • cites SeloVerde 2024

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

    • cites Visipec 2024

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Indirect suppliers rely on high-volume direct suppliers for finishing the cattle cycle, and slaughterhouses seek repeated interactions with suppliers they trust.

    “This means indirect suppliers rely on these direct suppliers for finishing the cattle cycle, and slaughterhouses seek repeated interactions with suppliers they trust.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: High-volume direct suppliers are often responsible for the last stages of fattening, which are more input-intensive (e.g. grain feed).
    • Rests on an assumption: When done efficiently, high-volume direct suppliers can sell animals to slaughter at a younger age, increasing overall productivity and appealing to lucrative export markets such as China, which tends to prefer beef from younger cattle due to its lower food-borne disease risks.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The pattern of high fidelity between high-volume suppliers and CA slaughterhouses suggests that high-volume direct suppliers could be a key focal point for expanding SCG to new segments of Brazil's cattle supply chains.

    “This pattern along with the high degree of fidelity between high-volume suppliers and CA slaughterhouses suggests that high-volume direct suppliers could be a key focal point for the expansion of SCG to new segments of Brazil's cattle supply chains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: High-volume direct suppliers are often responsible for the last stages of fattening, which are more input-intensive (e.g. grain feed).
    • Rests on an assumption: When done efficiently, high-volume direct suppliers can sell animals to slaughter at a younger age, increasing overall productivity and appealing to lucrative export markets such as China, which tends to prefer beef from younger cattle due to its lower food-borne disease risks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Slaughterhouses may be motivated to adapt to SCG requirements to maintain valuable relationships with downstream buyers, but they are likely to prefer systems that minimize impacts on their ability to source adequate volumes of compliant animals.

    “Slaughterhouses may be motivated to adapt to the requirements of SCG to maintain valuable relationships with buyers downstream, but they are likely to prefer systems that minimize impacts on their ability to source adequate volumes of compliant animals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    An alternative outcome is that the supply chain could become more segregated, with some suppliers adapting to maintain access to SCG-compliant supply chains like the CA, while others do not adapt and supply only less-demanding buyers.

    “An alternative outcome is that the supply chain could become more segregated, with some suppliers adapting to maintain access to supply chains with SCG requirements like the CA, while others do not adapt and supply only less-demanding buyers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The CA have been adopted by the largest slaughterhouses, which increases the likelihood that indirect suppliers will remain in the CA supply chain as monitoring is expanded.

    “The CA have been adopted by the largest slaughterhouses, which increases the likelihood that indirect suppliers will remain in the CA supply chain as monitoring is expanded.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    An approach to monitoring indirect suppliers that minimizes the burden on ranchers and slaughterhouses is likely to be more readily adopted and adhered to by these actors.

    “An approach to monitoring indirect suppliers that minimizes the burden on ranchers and slaughterhouses is likely to be more readily adopted and, importantly, adhered to by these actors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The first reason for differences in fidelity is sheer numbers: there are few slaughterhouses due to the scale of their operations, while there are many ranchers that can potentially buy from an indirect supplier.

    “The first is sheer numbers: whereas there are few slaughterhouses due to the scale of their operations, there are many ranchers that can potentially buy from an indirect supplier.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The degree to which the EUDR will affect deforestation depends on how the supply chain reorganizes around it.

    “The degree to which this regulation will affect deforestation depends on how the supply chain reorganizes around it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Expanded monitoring of indirect suppliers requires monitoring individual actors and specific rural properties.

    “Expanded monitoring of indirect suppliers requires monitoring individual actors and specific rural properties.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Stronger enforcement in the cattle sector could be offset by unmonitored activity in other sectors.

    “Stronger enforcement in the cattle sector could be offset by unmonitored activity in other sectors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    More comprehensive SCG will require monitoring small slaughterhouses, which sell only domestically and operate mostly in remote regions.

    “More comprehensive SCG will also require monitoring small slaughterhouses, which sell only domestically and operate mostly in remote regions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
46 of 46

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dynamics of the complex supply network upstream of direct sales are poorly understood.

    “This does not account for the complex supply network upstream of the direct sale, whose dynamics are also poorly understood.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nature of the relationships between indirect suppliers with other segments of the supply chain is likely to affect the implementation of monitoring and enforcement.

    “However, the nature of the relationships between indirect suppliers with other segments of the supply chain is likely to affect the implementation of said monitoring and enforcement.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Strong relationships between buyers and suppliers could encourage suppliers to adapt to new supply chain governance criteria implemented by certain buyers in order to maintain their relationship with them, rather than taking on the transaction costs of seeking out buyers who have not implemented the criteria or finding other ways to evade monitoring.

    “We posit that strong (e.g.long-standing and/or with frequent transactions) relationships could encourage suppliers to adapt to new SCG criteria implemented by certain buyers in order to maintain their relationship with them, rather than taking on the transaction costs of seeking out buyers who have not implemented the SCG criteria or finding other ways to evade monitoring.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Supply chains characterized by weaker relationships would require adoption of the supply chain governance by a large segment of, or nearly all, buyers before it would result in behavioral changes by suppliers upstream in the supply chain.

    “On the other hand, we expect that supply chains characterized by weaker relationships (e.g.those with fewer interactions or transactions), would require adoption of the SCG by a large segment of, or nearly all, buyers before it would result in behavioral changes by suppliers upstream in the supply chain.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There will not be significant changes to the fidelity in the supply chain over the study period.

    “We do not anticipate significant changes to the fidelity in the supply chain over this period, but we analyze fidelity individually for each state in the supplement to account for these differences in time periods (table A4).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Animals mix on ranches and may be resold in a lot of mixed origin.

    “Animals then mix on ranches and may be resold in a lot of mixed origin.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Direct suppliers sometimes produce their own calves.

    “During the same period, these direct suppliers purchased nearly twice as many animals (61 million), for a slaughter ratio of 56% (though the true ratio is likely lower since direct suppliers sometimes produce their own calves).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is broad acceptance that effective supply chain governance in the cattle sector will require monitoring of and enforcement on indirect suppliers.

    “Indirect suppliers are numerous, and there is now broad acceptance that effective SCG in the cattle sector will require monitoring of and enforcement on indirect suppliers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High-volume direct suppliers are often responsible for the last stages of fattening, which are more input-intensive (e.g. grain feed).

    “High-volume direct suppliers are often responsible for the last stages of fattening, which are more input-intensive (e.g. grain feed).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When done efficiently, high-volume direct suppliers can sell animals to slaughter at a younger age, increasing overall productivity and appealing to lucrative export markets such as China, which tends to prefer beef from younger cattle due to its lower food-borne disease risks.

    “When done efficiently, these suppliers can sell animals to slaughter at a younger age, increasing overall productivity and appealing to lucrative export markets such as China, which tends to prefer beef from younger cattle due to its lower food-borne disease risks.”
10 of 10

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.

  • Top 10% supplier group exceeds the stated limit of 5,000 suppliers

    Major

    The discussion says the top 10% of direct suppliers comprise fewer than 5,000 suppliers, but Table 1 counts 8,303 of them supplying CA slaughterhouses alone.

  • Stated five-year panel includes a six-year date range

    Minor

    The methods say the panel uses the most recent five years for each state, but describe coverage for Pará and Tocantins as 2017-2022, which includes six calendar years.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Skidmore, M. E., Barrozo, M., Rausch, L., & Gibbs, H. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • DePaul University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Barrozo, Marcos
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2024-09-24
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
114012
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1088/1748-9326/ad7a0d
OpenAlex
W4402468016
Semantic Scholar
556d6dbb58528efee182c49d2d8f7be600af68a7
Cited by
7
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Bezos Earth Fund
  • Private Enterprise Development in Low-Income Countries, Centre for Economic Policy Research
  • Norway International Climate and Forest Initiative
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • United States Agency for International Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
Keywords
cattle supply chain, supply chain governance, deforestation monitoring, Brazilian Amazon, slaughterhouses, ranchers, supply chain monitoring, beef supply chain

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 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

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