Cited by 93Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Life-cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the northern Great Plains, USA

Lupo, Christopher D., Clay, David E., Benning, Jennifer L., Stone, James J.·2013·Journal of Environmental Quality

Abstract

A life-cycle assessment (LCA) model was developed to estimate the environmental impacts associated with four different U.S. Northern Great Plains (NPG) beef production systems. The LCA model followed a "cradle-to-gate" approach and incorporated all major unit processes, including mineral supplement production. Four distinct operation scenarios were modeled based on production strategies common to the NGP, and a variety of impacts were determined. The scenarios include a normal operation, early weaning of the calf, fast-tack backgrounding, and grassfed. Enteric emissions and manure emissions and handling were consistently the largest contributors to the LCA impacts. There was little variability between production scenarios except for the grassfed, where the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 37% higher due to a longer finishing time and lower finishing weight. However, reductions to GHG emissions (15-24%) were realized when soil organic carbon accrual was considered and may be a more realistic estimate for the NGP. Manure emissions and handing were primary contributors to potential eutrophication and acidification impacts. Mitigation strategies to reduce LCA impacts, including diet manipulation and management strategies (i.e., treatment of manure), were considered from a whole-systems perspective. Model results can be used for guidance by NGP producers, environmental practitioners, and policymakers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/jeq2013.03.0101

Cites

3 of 3 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
Lupo, C. D., Clay, D. E., Benning, J. L., & Stone, J. J.
Affiliations
  • South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (US)
  • South Dakota State University (US)
Corresponding author
Stone, James J.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Quality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1386-1394
ISSN
0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003247290
Cited by
93
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • South Dakota Corn Growers Association
  • South Dakota State University
  • U.S. NASA EPSCoR (NNX07AL04A)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
beef cattle production, environmental impact, greenhouse gas emissions, manure management, soil organic carbon, early weaning, eutrophication, acidification, Northern Great Plains, mitigation measures
MeSH terms
Red Meat, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Carbon Dioxide, Cattle, Environment, Manure, Models, Theoretical, 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