The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows
Abstract
In order to determine the quantity of methane (CH 4) produced by lactating beef cows on pasture, 16 Hereford–Simmental first-calf heifers with a mean weight of 511.2 ± 5.8 kg were randomly selected from a larger group of cows (n = 60) on a grazing management experiment and used to evaluate the effects of pasture type on ruminal CH 4 production using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) tracer-gas technique. Pasture treatments consisted of two pasture types, alfalfa-grass [78% alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) – 22% meadow bromegrass (Bromus biebersteinii Roem and Schult.)] or 100% meadow bromegrass at each of two fertility levels (either unfertilized or soil test recommended fertilizer levels) with two replications of each pasture treatment (8 pastures). Cows were managed using a "put and take" stocking system to leave equal residual herbage mass on all treatments following the grazing period in each paddock. During the 69-d grazing season, two cows from each pasture were sampled to determine daily forage intake and CH 4 production on four occasions. The chemical composition of diets differed between pasture types and sampling periods. Dry matter intake was greater for cows grazing alfalfa–grass pastures than for cows grazing grass-only pastures (11.4 vs. 9.7 kg DM d−1. P < 0.018). However, methane production was greater for cows grazing alfalfa–grass pastures than for cows grazing grass-only pastures (373.8 vs. 411.0 L CH 4 d−1. P < 0.008). Consequently, energy lost through eructation of CH 4 was less for cows grazing alfalfa–grass pastures than it was for cows grazing grass-only pastures (7.1 vs. 9.5% of GEI; P < 0.001). Key words: Methane, cattle, environment, digestion efficiency, pasture, forage
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Johnson, K. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1995) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1995.7382483x · Cited by 2,714
Cited by
Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review
Beauchemin, K. A., Kreuzer, M., O'Mara, F., & McAllister, T. A. (2008) · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · doi:10.1071/ea07199 · Cited by 1,162
Knapp, J. R., Laur, G. L., Vadas, P. A., Weiss, W. P., & Tricarico, J. M. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7234 · Cited by 1,002
Janssen, P. H. (2010) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002 · Cited by 836
Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., & Rasmussen, R. (2010) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009 · Cited by 419
Prediction of Methane Production from Dairy and Beef Cattle
Ellis, J. L., Kebreab, E., Odongo, N. E., McBride, B. W., Okine, E. K., & France, J. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2006-675 · Cited by 414
Metadata
- Authors
- McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., & Corrigan, D.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1999-06-01
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 221-226
- ISSN
- 0008-3984 (ISSN-L)
- 1918-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2106374469
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4141/a98-107
- The paper
- McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., & Corrigan, D. (1999). Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.4141/a98-107
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.