ArticlePloS one2023
The hidden carbon impact of animal disease.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Seaweed Be a Sustainable, One Health Resource in Livestock and Poultry Diets?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Which Proteins? The Challenge of Identifying the Protective Antigens for Next-Generation Capripoxvirus Vaccines.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Relationship between Dairy Cow Health and Intensity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Livestock production is under scrutiny for its impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Animal disease outbreaks will have economic effects on producers and the indirect cost of an animal disease outbreak is the result of shifts in consumption across commodities. This shift in demand for meat products will also positively or negatively affect carbon emissions. We explore the indirect costs and subsequent carbon impact of four potential exotic disease outbreaks, namely African swine fever, sheep pox, bluetongue, and foot and mouth disease. The indirect costs are quantified under different severities of outbreak using a vector error correction model and by estimating the changes in revenues of livestock and feed markets. By associating subsequent consumption switches with emission factors, we quantify the hidden carbon impact of these livestock disease outbreaks. The indirect costs vary based on severity and type of disease outbreak. Similarly, the net reduction in supply and subsequent consumption impacts result in averting between 0.005 and 0.67 million tonnes of CO2 eq. for these sectors. A foot and mouth disease outbreak has the highest indirect costs and largest reduction in GHG emissions as it decreases the production of cattle as consumers switch to lower emitting meat commodities. Conversely, African swine fever has the smallest reduction in GHG emissions, reflecting the more industrialised nature of pig farming. Our modelling approach opens a provocative debate around how compensation to producers supports restocking and how this relates to commitments to net zero farming. Overall, an exotic disease outbreak may trigger an opportunity to switch to lower emitting breeds or species if a more holistic, joined up approach were taken by Government.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.