Cited by 47Livestock Farming and ManagementSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

Management characteristics of beef cattle production in the Northern Plains and Midwest regions of the United States

Open access
Asem-Hiablie, Senorpe, Rotz, C. Alan, Stout, Robert, Stackhouse-Lawson, Kim·2016·The Professional Animal Scientist

Abstract

A comprehensive life cycle assessment of United States beef will provide benchmarks and identify opportunities for improvement. On-going region-specific data collection is characterizing cattle production practices for a more accurate assessment. This study reports production information obtained via online surveys and on-site visits from 2 of 7 regions: the Northern Plains (Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) and Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin). Ranch responses (n = 512) represented 1.6% of beef cows maintained in both regions with operation sizes varying from 1 to 12,500 cows. Feedlot responses (n = 120) represented 9.6 and 3.7% of cattle finished in the Northern Plains and Midwest, respectively. Ranch herd sizes increased and stocking rates decreased moving westward. Average animal BW increased from south to north. Also recorded were bull and replacement heifer numbers; housing facilities; feed production and use; and machinery, energy, and labor use. Feedlot characteristics including entering and final BW, background and finish feeding periods, crop area per animal, and labor were similar across the regions, but the Northern Plains reported larger feedlots than the Midwest. Diets were similar across regions except that slightly more distillers grain and less corn were fed in the Northern Plains. Ninety-three percent of feedlots produced most of their feed (corn grain, corn silage, and alfalfa). Cropland producing feed received most of the manure produced, but a few large feedlots reported composting and export. Information gathered provides production system characteristics and inventory for conducting a comprehensive United States beef life cycle assessment.

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 · 10.15232/pas.2016-01539

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.

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?

  • Our study indicates that incorporating AMP grazing either partially (AMP-FL) or entirely (AMP-GF) leads to significantly improved ecological outcomes compared to conventional grazing and grass-finishing systems, and maintains production levels comparable to current systems in our region.

    “Our study indicates that incorporating AMP grazing either partially (AMP-FL) or entirely (AMP-GF) not only leads to significantly improved ecological outcomes compared to conventional grazing and grass-finishing systems, but also maintains production levels comparable to current systems in our region (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2016;Lindquist, 2014;Pelletier et al., 2010).”

    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 Asem-Hiablie et al., 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R., J. O. Reagan, B. J. Isenberg, E. J. Pollak, T. Battagliese, B. Ulhman, C. Barcan, I. Schulze, J. Silva, and C. A. Rotz. 2013. Environmental, social, and economic footprints of current and past beef production systems. Pages 487-488 in Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition in Sustainable Animal Production. J. W. Oltjen, E. Kebreab, and H. Lapierre, ed. EAAP pub. No. 134. Wageningen Acad. Publ., Wagenin- gen, the Netherlands.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Asem-Hiablie, S., Rotz, C. A., Stout, R., & Stackhouse-Lawson, K.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • National Cattlemen's Beef Association (US)
Corresponding author
Asem-Hiablie, Senorpe
Venue
The Professional Animal Scientist
Published
2016-12
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
736-749
ISSN
1080-7446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2558918244
Cited by
47
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Professional Animal Scientist (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • The Beef Checkoff
  • USDA’s Agricultural Research Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
beef cattle production, life cycle assessment, feedlot management, Northern Plains, Midwestern United States, stocking rate, herd size, feedlot diets, distillers grains, corn silage, manure management, feed production, cattle housing

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