MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316662997 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad024

Galyean appreciation club review: a holistic perspective of the societal relevance of beef production and its impacts on climate change

2023· article· en· W4316662997 on OpenAlexaff
Luís O Tedeschi, K. A. Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureTexas Tech UniversityU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceClimate changeNatural resource economicsProduction (economics)LivestockBeef cattleGlobal warmingEconomicsEcologyAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a science-based, data-driven perspective on the relevance of the beef herd in the U.S. to our society and greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to climate change. Cattle operations are subject to criticism for their environmental burden, often based on incomplete information disseminated about their social, economic, nutritional, and ecological benefits and detriments. The 2019 data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that U.S. beef cattle emitted 22.6% of the total agricultural emissions, representing about 2.2% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Simulations from a computer model developed to address global energy and climate challenges, set to use extreme improvements in livestock and crop production systems, indicated a potential reduction in global CO2e emissions of 4.6% but without significant enhancement in the temperature change by 2030. There are many natural and anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions. Contrary to the increased contribution of peatlands and water reservoirs to atmospheric CO2e, the steady decrease in the U.S. cattle population is estimated to have reduced its methane (CH4) emissions by about 30% from 1975 to 2021. This CH4 emission deacceleration of 2.46 Mt CO2e/yr2 might be even more significant than reported. Many opportunities exist to mitigate CH4 emissions of beef production, leading to a realistic prospect of a 5% to 15% reduction in the short term after considering the overlapping impacts of combined strategies. Reduction strategies include feeding synthetic chemicals that inactivate the methyl-coenzyme M reductase (the enzyme that catalyzes the last step of methanogenesis in the rumen), red seaweed or algae extracts, ionophore antibiotics, phytochemicals (e.g., condensed tannins and essential oils), and other nutritional manipulations. The proposed net-zero concept might not solve the global warming problem because it will only balance future anthropogenic GHG emissions with anthropogenic removals, leaving global warming on a standby state. Recommendations for consuming red meat products should consider human nutrition, health, and disease and remain independent of controversial evidence of causational relationships with perceived negative environmental impacts of beef production that are not based on scientific data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207