Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39008689›Full record

SynthesisProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Climate impacts of alternative beef production systems depend on the functional unit used: Weight or monetary value.

Tong Wang, Urs Kreuter, Christopher Davis, Stephen Cheye

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. BiofortifiedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. US grass-fed beef is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and ≈10-fold more intensive than common protein-dense alternatives.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Assessing the impact ofAgroforestry systems · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tong WangNess School of Management & Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.ORCID 0000-0002-2363-4634
Urs KreuterDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.ORCID 0000-0002-5777-6155
Christopher DavisAnimal Products and Cost of Production Branch, Market and Trade Economics Division, United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service, Washington, DC 20250.ORCID 0000-0001-6010-4352
Stephen CheyeNess School of Management & Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.ORCID 0009-0002-6528-1221

Funding

USDA | Economic Research Service (ERS) 58-3000-1-0088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beef production has been identified as a significant source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the agricultural sector. United States and Canada account for about a quarter of the world's beef supply. To compare the GHG emission contributions of alternative beef production systems, we conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies that were conducted between 2001 and 2023. Results indicated that GHG emissions from beef production in North America varied almost fourfold from 10.2 to 37.6 with an average of 21.4 kg CO

Indexed as

Greenhouse GasesRed MeatAgricultureAnimal HusbandryAnimalsCanadaCattleClimate ChangeGreenhouse EffectUnited StatesGreenhouse Gasesbeef productioncarbon sequestrationfeedlot-finishinggrass-finishinggreenhouse gas emissions

Identifiers

PMID39008689
PMCPMC11295046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.