Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

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

McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., Corrigan, D.·1999·Canadian Journal of Animal Science

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4141/a98-107

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., & Corrigan, D.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Animal Science
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.