ArticleJournal of animal science2026
The carbon footprint of beef and beef × dairy crossbred steers under different growing regimens.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Beef × dairy crossbred steers are becoming an increasingly important source of feeder cattle within the U.S. beef supply chain. However, there has been minimal investigation into greenhouse gas emissions [GHG; kg carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2e)] or carbon footprint [kg CO2e/kg hot carcass weight (HCW); C footprint] from beef × dairy crossbred steers in the U.S. Furthermore, how beef × dairy crossbred steers compare with beef steers subjected to different growing systems (calf-fed vs. stocker) is not well explored. The objective of this analysis was to compare the C footprint of beef × dairy and beef steers, with or without a stocker phase, from growing through finish. International Panel on Climate Change tier 2 methodology was employed using previously published performance data. Beef and beef × dairy crossbred steers were either grown in a season-long stocker system where they grazed mixed-grass prairie prior to finishing (yearling-fed) or were grown in the feedlot (calf-fed). Cattle grown in a stocker system had 4.6% and 11.3% greater C footprint than calf-fed steers for beef × dairy and beef steers, respectively. This increase was due to greater emissions arising during grazing compared with confined feeding systems. Furthermore, beef × dairy crossbred steers had 11.7% greater C footprint when calf-fed and 3.8% greater C footprint when yearling-fed compared with beef steers. These results suggest that direct emissions arising from growing cattle through finish are greater from beef × dairy sourced steers than beef. However, considering the known importance of dam emissions to overall C footprint, we conducted a secondary analysis to examine how this impacts the final emission estimate. When dam emissions are allocated to these C footprints, beef × dairy crossbred steers will have a considerably lower predicted C footprint compared with beef steers, as only a fraction of dairy dam's GHG emissions will be allocated to beef production. Future research is needed which expands system boundaries to more aptly compare the C footprint of beef produced from beef and beef × dairy crossbred steers.
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.