CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisLivestock Farming and Management

Reducing climate impacts of beef production: a synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions

Open access
Cusack, Daniela F., Kazanski, Clare E., Hedgpeth, Alexandra, Chow, Kenyon, Cordeiro, Amanda L., Karpman, Jason, Ryals, Rebecca·2021·Global Change Biology
DOI 10.1111/gcb.15509PMC PMC8248168
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The global demand for beef is rapidly increasing (FAO, 2019), raising concern about climate change impacts (Clark et al., 2020; Leip et al., 2015; Springmann et al., 2018). Beef and dairy contribute over 70% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which collectively contribute ~6.3 Gt CO 2 ‐eq/year (Gerber et al., 2013; Herrero et al., 2016) and account for 14%–18% of human GHG emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Gerber et al., 2013). The utility of beef GHG mitigation strategies, such as land‐based carbon (C) sequestration and increased production efficiency, are actively debated (Garnett et al., 2017). We compiled 292 local comparisons of “improved” versus “conventional” beef production systems across global regions, assessing net GHG emission data from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. Our results indicate that net beef GHG emissions could be reduced substantially via changes in management. Overall, a 46 % reduction in net GHG emissions per unit of beef was achieved at sites using carbon (C) sequestration management strategies on grazed lands, and an 8% reduction in net GHGs was achieved at sites using growth efficiency strategies. However, net‐zero emissions were only achieved in 2% of studies. Among regions, studies from Brazil had the greatest improvement, with management strategies for C sequestration and efficiency reducing beef GHG emissions by 57%. In the United States, C sequestration strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by over 100% (net‐zero emissions) in a few grazing systems, whereas efficiency strategies were not successful at reducing GHGs, possibly because of high baseline efficiency in the region. This meta‐analysis offers insight into pathways to substantially reduce beef production's global GHG emissions. Nonetheless, even if these improved land‐based and efficiency management strategies could be fully applied globally, the trajectory of growth in beef demand will likely more than offset GHG emissions reductions and lead to further warming unless there is also reduced beef consumption.

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 · 10.1111/gcb.15509

Cites

10 of 10 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?

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: 54

  1. Bobbink, R., Hornung, M., & Roelofs, J. G. M. (1998). The effects of air‐borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi‐natural European vegetation. Journal of Ecology, 86(5), 717– 738.
  2. Bossio, D. A., Cook‐Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Wood, S., Zomer, R. J., von Unger, M., Emmer, I. M., & Griscom, B. W. (2020). The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nature Sustainability, 3(5), 391– 398. 10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bustamante, M. M. C., Nobre, C. A., Smeraldi, R., Aguiar, A. P. D., Barioni, L. G., Ferreira, L. G., Longo, K., May, P., Pinto, A. S., & Ometto, J. P. H. B. (2012). Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from cattle raising in Brazil. Climatic Change, 115(3–4), 559– 577. 10.1007/s10584-012-0443-3 · DOI
  4. Capper, J. L. (2012). Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass‐fed beef production systems. Animal, 2(2), 127– 143. 10.3390/ani2020127 PMC4494320 26486913 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cederberg, C., Persson, U. M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., & Clift, R. (2011). Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(5), 1773– 1779. 10.1021/es103240z 21280649 · DOI
  6. Chiavegato, M. B., Powers, W. J., Carmichael, D., & Rowntree, J. E. (2015). Pasture‐derived greenhouse gas emissions in cow‐calf production systems. Journal of Animal Science, 93(3), 1350– 1364. 10.2527/jas.2014-8134 26020912 · DOI
  7. Clark, M., Domingo, N., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., & Hill, J. (2020). Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets. Science, 370(6517), 705– 708. 33154139
  8. Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 11. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Clune, S., Crossin, E., & Verghese, K. (2017). Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 766– 783. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., & Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27(2), 662– 668. 10.1002/eap.1473 27875004 · DOI · Paper page
  11. DeLonge, M. S., Ryals, R., & Silver, W. L. (2013). A lifecycle model to evaluate carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas dynamics of managed grasslands. Ecosystems, 16(6), 962– 979. 10.1007/s10021-013-9660-5 · DOI
  12. Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P., & Sarrantonio, M. (1998). Legume‐based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature, 396(6708), 262– 265. 10.1038/24376 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Eldesouky, A., Mesias, F., & Escribano, M. (2018). Can extensification compensate livestock greenhouse gas emissions? A study of the carbon footprint in Spanish agroforestry systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200(1), 28– 38.
  14. FAO. (2019). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). GLEAM 2.0. http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/ 28789724
  15. Fargione, J. E., Bassett, S., Boucher, T., Bridgham, S. D., Conant, R. T., Cook‐Patton, S. C., & Griscom, B. W. (2018). Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science Advances, 4(11), 14. 10.1126/sciadv.aat1869 PMC6235523 30443593 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Foley, P. A., Crosson, P., Lovett, D. K., Boland, T. M., O'Mara, F. P., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Whole‐farm systems modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral suckler beef cow production systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 142(3–4), 222– 230. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.010 · DOI
  17. Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Bakker, D. C. E., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bastrikov, V., Becker, M., … Zaehle, S. (2019). Global carbon budget 2019. Earth System Science Data, 11(4), 1783– 1838. 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019 · DOI
  18. Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Roos, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I., zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J., Herrero, M., van Middelaar, C., Schader, C., & van Zanten, H. (2017). Grazed and confused?. University of Oxford.
  19. Gravuer, K., Gennet, S., & Throop, H. L. (2019). Organic amendment additions to rangelands: A meta‐analysis of multiple ecosystem outcomes. Global Change Biology, 25(3), 1152– 1170. 10.1111/gcb.14535 30604474 PMC6849820 · DOI
  20. Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(44), 11645– 11650. 10.1073/pnas.1710465114 29078344 PMC5676916 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Griscom, B. W., Busch, J., Cook‐Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Funk, J., Leavitt, S. M., Lomax, G., Turner, W. R., Chapman, M., Engelmann, J., Gurwick, N. P., Landis, E., Lawrence, D., Malhi, Y., Schindler Murray, L., Navarrete, D., Roe, S., Scull, S., Smith, P., … Worthington, T. (2020). National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B‐Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 11. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0126 PMC7017762 31983330 · DOI
  22. Henderson, B. B., Gerber, P. J., Hilinski, T. E., Falcucci, A., Ojima, D. S., Salvatore, M., & Conant, R. T. (2015). Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world's grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 207, 91– 100. 10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.029 · DOI
  23. Herrero, M., & Thornton, P. K. (2013). Livestock and global change: Emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(52), 20878– 20881. 10.1073/pnas.1321844111 24344313 PMC3876222 · DOI
  24. Hilborn, R., Banobi, J., Hall, S. J., Pucylowski, T., & Walsworth, T. E. (2018). The environmental cost of animal source foods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(6), 329– 335. 10.1002/fee.1822 · DOI
  25. IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (SRCCL) (P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson‐Delmotte, H.‐O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, Eds.). UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  26. Janzen, H. H. (2011). What place for livestock on a re‐greening earth? Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166–67, 783– 796. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.055 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623– 1627. 10.1126/science.1097396 15192216 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Leip, A., Billen, G., Garnier, J., Grizzetti, B., Lassaletta, L., Reis, S., Simpson, D., Sutton, M. A., de Vries, W., Weiss, F., & Westhoek, H. (2015). Impacts of European livestock production: Nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land‐use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environmental Research Letters, 10(11), 13. 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004 · DOI
  29. Liebig, M. A., Gross, J. R., Kronberg, S. L., Phillips, R. L., & Hanson, J. D. (2010). Grazing management contributions to net global warming potential: A long‐term evaluation in the northern great plains. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(3), 799– 809. 10.2134/jeq2009.0272 20400576 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Llonch, P., Haskell, M. J., Dewhurst, R. J., & Turner, S. P. (2017). Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: An animal welfare perspective. Animal, 11(2), 274– 284. 10.1017/s1751731116001440 27406001 · DOI
  31. Lupo, C. D., Clay, D. E., Benning, J. L., & Stone, J. J. (2013). Life‐cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the northern great plains, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42(5), 1386– 1394. 10.2134/jeq2013.03.0101 24216416 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Machmuller, M. B., Kramer, M. G., Cyle, T. K., Hill, N., Hancock, D., & Thompson, A. (2015). Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nature Communications, 6, 6995. 10.1038/ncomms7995 25925997 · DOI · Paper page
  33. McClellande, S. C., Arndt, C., Gordon, D. R., & Thoma, G. (2018). Type and number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: A systematic review. Livestock Science, 209, 39– 45. 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.01.008 · DOI
  34. McSherry, M. E., & Ritchie, M. E. (2013). Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1347– 1357. 10.1111/gcb.12144 23504715 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Murgueitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., & Solorio, B. (2011). Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(10), 1654– 1663.
  36. Nguyen, T. T. H., Doreau, M., Eugene, M., Corson, M. S., Garcia‐Launay, F., Chesneau, G., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2013). Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems. Animal, 7(5), 860– 869. 10.1017/s1751731112002200 23190866 · DOI
  37. Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., & Rasmussen, R. (2010). Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 380– 389. 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Rowntree, J. E., Ryals, R., DeLonge, M. S., Teague, W. R., Chiavegato, M. B., Byck, P., & Xu, S. T. (2016). Potential mitigation of midwest grass‐finished beef production emissions with soil carbon sequestration in the United States of America. Future of Food‐Journal on Food Agriculture and Society, 4(3), 31– 38.
  39. Ruviaro, C. F., de Leis, C. M., Lampert, V. D., Barcellos, J. O. J., & Dewes, H. (2015). Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 435– 443. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.037 · DOI
  40. Ryals, R., Eviner, V. T., Stein, C., Suding, K. N., & Silver, W. L. (2016). Grassland compost amendments increase plant production without changing plant communities. Ecosphere, 7(3), 15. 10.1002/ecs2.1270 · DOI
  41. Ryals, R., & Silver, W. L. (2013). Effects of organic matter amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in annual grasslands. Ecological Applications, 23(1), 46– 59. 10.1890/12-0620.1 23495635 · DOI
  42. Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel‐Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D. P., Weiner, S., & Trumbore, S. E. (2011). Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478(7367), 49– 56. 10.1038/nature10386 21979045 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Schroth, G., Fonseca, G., Harvey, C., Gascon, C., Vaconcelos, H., & An, I. (Eds.). (2004). Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press.
  44. Sharrow, S. H., & Ismail, S. (2004). Carbon and nitrogen storage in agroforests, tree plantations, and pastures in western Oregon, USA. Agroforestry Systems, 60(2), 123– 130. 10.1023/b:agfo.0000013267.87896.41 · DOI
  45. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason‐D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., … Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519– 525. 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0 30305731 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(15), 4146– 4151. 10.1073/pnas.1523119113 27001851 PMC4839446 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Stackhouse‐Lawson, K. R., Rotz, C. A., Oltjen, J. W., & Mitloehner, F. M. (2012). Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems. Journal of Animal Science, 90(12), 4641– 4655. 10.2527/jas.2011-4653 22952361 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 83– 102. 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 · DOI
  49. Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., McNamara, J., & Ripple, W. J. (2018). Reducing the environmental impact of global diets. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 1207– 1209. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.125 28851141 · DOI
  50. Taylor, C. A., Harrison, M. T., Telfer, M., & Eckard, R. (2016). Modelled greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle grazing irrigated leucaena in northern Australia. Animal Production Science, 56(2–3), 594– 604. 10.1071/an15575 · DOI
  51. Teague, W. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C. A., Conser, R., Rasmussen, M., Hatfield, J., Wang, T., Wang, F., & Byck, P. (2016). The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 156– 164. 10.2489/jswc.71.2.156 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518– 522. 10.1038/nature13959 25383533 · DOI
  53. Veysset, P., Lherm, M., & Bebin, D. (2010). Energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance assessments in French Charolais suckler cattle farms: Model‐based analysis and forecasts. Agricultural Systems, 103(1), 41– 50. 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.08.005 · DOI
  54. Wang, T., Teague, W. R., Park, S. C., & Bevers, S. (2015). GHG mitigation potential of different grazing strategies in the United States southern great plains. Sustainability, 7(10), 13500– 13521. 10.3390/su71013500 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cusack, D. F., Kazanski, C. E., Hedgpeth, A., Chow, K., Cordeiro, A. L., Karpman, J., & Ryals, R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • University of California, Merced (US)
Corresponding author
Cusack, Daniela F.
ORCID
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-03
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
1721-1736
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
DOI
10.1111/gcb.15509
PMC
PMC8248168
OpenAlex
W3133720164
Cited by
93
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Nature Conservancy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
Keywords
beef production, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, grazing management, growth efficiency, net-zero emissions, climate change mitigation
MeSH terms
Greenhouse Gases, Animals, Brazil, Cattle, Humans, Life Cycle Stages, Greenhouse Effect, Carbon Sequestration

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