Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production

in western Canada: A case study
Karen A. Beauchemin *, H. Henry Janzen, Shannan M. Little, Tim A. McAllister, Sean M. McGinn
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to estimate whole-farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Received 30 September 2009 from beef production in western Canada. The aim was to determine the relative contributions of the
Received in revised form 15 March 2010 cow–calf and feedlot components to these emissions, and to examine the proportion of whole-farm emis-
Accepted 18 March 2010
sions attributable to enteric methane (CH4). The simulated farm consisted of a beef production operation
Available online 10 April 2010
comprised of 120 cows, four bulls, and their progeny, with the progeny fattened in a feedlot. The farm
also included cropland and native prairie pasture for grazing to supply the feed for the animals. The
Keywords:
LCA was conducted over 8 years to fully account for the lifetime GHG emissions from the cows, bulls
Beef cattle
Greenhouse gases
and progeny, as well as the beef marketed from cull cows, cull bulls, and progeny raised for market.
Carbon dioxide The emissions were estimated using Holos, a whole-farm model developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Life cycle assessment Canada. Holos is an empirical model, with a yearly time-step, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Methane Climate Change methodology, modified for Canadian conditions and farm scale. The model considers all
Nitrous oxide significant CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions and removals on the farm, as well as emissions from manufacture
of inputs (fertilizer, herbicides) and off-farm emissions of N2O derived from nitrogen applied on the farm.
The LCA estimated the GHG intensity of beef production in this system at 22 kg CO2 equivalent (kg car-
cass) 1. Enteric CH4 was the largest contributing source of GHG accounting for 63% of total emissions.
Nitrous oxide from soil and manure accounted for a further 27% of the total emissions, while CH4 emis-
sions from manure and CO2 energy emissions were minor contributors. Within the beef production cycle,
the cow–calf system accounted for about 80% of total GHG emissions and the feedlot system for only 20%.
About 84% of enteric CH4 was from the cow–calf herd, mostly from mature cows. It follows that mitiga-
tion practices to reduce GHG emissions from beef production should focus on reducing enteric CH4 pro-
duction from mature beef cows. However, mitigation approaches must also recognize that the cow–calf
production system also has many ancillary environmental benefits, allowing use of grazing and forage
lands that can preserve soil carbon reserves and provide other ecosystems services.
Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction emissions arising from a prospective mitigation practice. Often,

Enteric CH4 from ruminant livestock accounts for 17–37% of
anthropogenic CH4 (Steinfeld and Wassenaar, 2007; Lassey,
2008). Many governments have implemented policies to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture and significant
efforts are now being directed towards developing animal hus-
bandry methods that lower enteric CH4 emissions (Boadi et al.,
2004; Beauchemin et al., 2008; McAllister and Newbold, 2008).
To adequately assess GHG mitigation strategies, it is necessary
to use a whole system modeling approach (Schils et al., 2007;
Stewart et al., 2009). Such a life cycle assessment (LCA) enfolds
the entire farming system, accounting for all changes in GHG
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 317 2235; fax: +1 403 317 2182.
E-mail address: karen.beauchemin@agr.gc.ca (K.A. Beauchemin).
reducing GHG emissions in one part of a farming system can lead
to an increase in emissions from another sector; a whole-systems
approach avoids potentially ill-advised practices based on preoccu-
pation with a single GHG (Janzen et al., 2006).
Life cycle assessment can be used to estimate the total GHG
emissions (CH4, N2O, and CO2) from producing meat and milk. To
avoid favoring practices that reduce emissions at the expense of
productivity, GHG emissions are often expressed in units of GHG
intensity, such as kg CO2 equivalents (eq) per kg of beef or milk
(e.g., Johnson et al., 2003; Casey and Holden, 2005; Lovett et al.,
2006; Ogino et al., 2007; Küstermann et al., 2008; Stewart et al.,
2009). Estimates of GHG intensity often vary widely, reflecting dif-
ferences in modelling approach and the farming systems studied.
For example, GHG emissions per kg of beef carcass range from 17
to 37 kg CO2 eq (Johnson et al., 2003; Casey and Holden, 2005; Ogi-
no et al., 2007; Vergé et al., 2008).

0308-521X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.008
372 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379
The North American beef production cycle is complex, typically
including a cow–calf suckling/grazing period and a growing phase
with cattle fattened on high-grain diets in confined feedlots.
Although GHG emissions from some facets of this system have
been well-documented – notably those from feedlots – few studies
have examined the entire sequence. Indeed, we do not yet know
what component of the production cycle contributes most to
GHG emissions, and by inference, where emission reductions
might be most feasible. Our objectives, therefore, were to estimate
whole-farm GHG emissions from beef production systems repre-
sentative of those in western Canada, to determine the relative
contributions of the cow–calf and feedlot components to these
emissions, and to examine the proportion of whole-farm emissions
attributable to enteric CH4.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The system boundaries and functional unit
Canada has about 13 million beef cattle, including 5.6 million
beef breeding cows and heifers (CBEF, 2009). About 87% of the
cow herd and 77% of feedlot cattle are in the four western prov-
inces, because of natural feed and land base advantages (BCIZ,
2009). The industry is based exclusively on Bos taurus (Hereford,
Angus, Charolais, Simmental, Limousin) breeds (Basarab et al.,
2005; Vergé et al., 2008).
To estimate GHG emissions from beef production in Canada, we
simulated a representative farm, implementing practices currently
used in western Canada. With recent trends toward specialization,
beef cattle production in Canada now typically involves two sys-
tems, managed in separate operations: cow–calf ranching and beef
feedlot finishing. To account for emissions from the entire cycle,
Manure applied to land
CH4
CH4
N2O
N2O
Stored manure
N2O CH4
N2O
Manure on pasture
Direct emission Indirect emission
a Energy use emissions due to manure spreading (fuel use)
b Energy use emissions due to cropping (fuel use,herbicide manufacturing, phosphorus fertilizer production)
c Energy use emissions due to nitrogen fertilizer production
Fig. 1. Inputs, sources of emissions, and components of the life cycle assessment of beef production in western Canada.
we included both a cow–calf operation and a feedlot in one ‘farm’,
along with cropland needed to supply all feed and bedding for the
cattle. The LCA was conducted over multiple years to fully account
for all components of the beef production system from birth to
slaughter. Our aim was to evaluate the beef production system,
rather than to document emissions from a specific commercial
operation in a particular year.
We considered the following GHG sources: on-farm CH4 emis-
sions from cattle and manure; on-farm N2O emissions from man-
ure and soils; off-farm N2O emissions from N leaching, run-off
and volatilization (indirect N2O emissions); and CO2 emissions
from energy used on-farm (e.g., cropping, feed processing, feeding
cattle) and to supply inputs (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide manufacture)
(Fig. 1). Because we assumed all feed was grown on the farm, CO2
emissions from transporting feed was considered negligible.
All gases were expressed as CO2 eq to account for the global
warming potential of the respective gases: CH4, kg  23 + N2O kg 
298 + CO2, kg (IPCC, 2001). To report GHG intensity, emissions are
expressed as CO2 eq kg 1 beef.
2.2. Description of the life cycle of the beef production system
The simulated farm, consisting of a beef production operation, a
cropping operation, and native prairie pasture for grazing, was sit-
uated in conditions like those in the county of Vulcan in southern
Alberta, Canada. The beef herd was comprised of 120 cows, four
bulls, and their progeny, with the progeny fattened in a feedlot
modelled after those present in southern Alberta. The LCA was con-
ducted over an 8 year period which was assumed to represent the
life span of the breeding stock. The life span used in our study is
typical of that reported for Bos Taurus crossbred cattle in a temper-
ate climate. For example, Bailey (1991) examined the records of 29
a
CO2
c
CO2
b
CO2
N2O Synthetic N fert
CO2
CH4
N2O
Mineralized Crop
N residue N
Storage Nitrogen input System transfer
 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379 373

herds in eight states within the US, and reported an average of 6.5
calvings per life time. This 8-year time frame allowed us to fully ac-
count for the lifetime GHG emissions from the cows, bulls, and
progeny. By examining an entire cycle, our analysis estimates aver-
age emissions for the full system, rather than from segments
thereof.
The beef production cycle encompasses two intermeshed sub-
cycles (Fig. 2). The breeding stock cycle included animals not
immediately involved in meat production: cows nursing calves to
be used for herd replacements, heifer calves destined to become
breeding stock, and bull calves, prior to puberty, intended for use
in breeding. The meat production cycle includes cows and bulls ac-
tively producing calves for market, as well as the cattle in the
feedlot.
To account for the lifetime GHG emissions of the cows and bulls,
the LCA was initiated when the breeding stock were born, contin-
ued through meat production cycles, and ended with the birth of
replacements and the slaughter of the breeding stock (Table 1).
The simulation began with 120 new born heifer calves and four
newborn bulls. Suckling calves had access to milk from their dams
as well as mixed hay or pasture as available. Calves were weaned at
7 months of age and young growing heifers and bulls were fed a
high forage diet (i.e., a backgrounding diet). The heifer calves were
bred at 15 months of age and produced a single calf at 24 months
of age. Calving rate for the herd, defined as the proportion of cows
producing calves that survived to weaning, was assumed to be 85%
(i.e., 102 calves survived to weaning each year). This rate would be
considered typical of well managed farms in Alberta and is within
the range (82–88%) reported in beef farm surveys conducted in
Canada and the US (Acres, 1976; Rogers et al., 1985; Bailey,
1991). The gender ratio of calves was 1:1. Calves were born in late
winter (February/March), with each cow–calf pair provided with
good quality hay or access to spring pasture. Calves were weaned
at the end of September and cows were grazed for an additional
month and then fed good quality hay for the remainder of the fall
and winter. Cows were culled from the herd and shipped to market

Bull
s

Cow
s

Replacement
Calves Beef 1 animal
s
Beef 2
s
Breeding Beef 3
Calving
s
Beef 4
Calf s
Beef 5
Growing s
Backgrounder Beef 6
Finisher
s
Pregnant
Lactating

s Slaughter
Yearly time step

Growing breeding stock

Backgrounders
Finishers
Breeding stock cycle
Production cycle
x1 x6
Includes: Includes:
- Cow and bull calves - Cows
- Bulls
- Growing heifers and bulls - Calves
- Pre-slaughter cows nursing replacements - Backgrounders
- Finishers

Nursing cows Calves

to slaughter

Breeding stock
calves Finishers
to slaughter

Fig. 2. The 8-year beef production cycle used in the baseline simulation.
374 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379

Table 1
Description of animal categories, duration over the 8-year simulation, and diet consumed.

Animal category Starting and end weight (kg) Number Duration (d) Diet
Breeding stock females
Suckling heifer calves 40–240 120 214 Mixed hay and milk (2 mo), milk and pasture (5 mo)
Young heifers 240–390 120 151 High forage backgrounding
Growing heifers 390–600 120 365 Mixed hay (6 mo), pasture (6 mo)
Cows 600 120 365  7 cycles Mixed hay (6 mo), pasture (6 mo)
Lactating cow 600 120 214 Mixed hay (2 mo), pasture (5 mo)
Breeding stock males
Suckling bull calves 40–240 4 214 Mixed hay and milk (2 mo), milk and pasture (5 mo)
Young growing bulls 240–390 4 151 High forage backgrounding
Growing bulls 390–820 4 365 Mixed hay (6 mo), pasture (6 mo)
Bulls 820 4 365  6 cycles Mixed hay (6 mo), pasture (6 mo)
Progenya
Suckling calves 40–240 102 214  6 cycles Mixed hay and milk (2 mo), milk and pasture (5 mo)
Backgrounders 240–350 99 110  6 cycles High forage backgroundingb
Finishers 350–605 98 170  6 cycles High grain finishingc
a
There were 22 fewer animals in one cycle due to the need for replacement breeding stock.
b 1
Backgrounding diet: 40% barley grain, 60% barley silage (DM basis). No feed additives were used. Average daily gain was 1.0 kg d .
c
Finishing diet: 90% barley grain, 10% barley silage (DM basis). No feed additives were used. Average daily gain was 1.45 kg d 1.

after their seventh calf was weaned. In other words, the final year
was extended to the end of the nursing phase to account for the
CH4 emissions from the nursing cow (i.e., the cow nursing the calf
that ultimately becomes the breeding cow), because these emis-
sions were not accounted for during the initial year. Thus, the nurs-
ing phase during the final year overlapped with the start of the
entire 8-year production cycle (Fig. 2). Four additional lactating
cows would have been needed to grow the four bulls to the point
of weaning. Thus, emissions for four additional cows were included
for a 7-month nursing period. Mature bulls were marketed after
they had sired calves in the seventh annual breeding season.
Weaned calves (240 kg) were reared in a feedlot with an as-
sumed death loss of 3% from weaning through completion of the
110-d growing period. In this initial growing period (i.e., backg-
rounding phase), calves were fed a high forage diet comprised of
60% barley silage and 40% barley grain (DM basis), resulting in an
average daily gain of 1.0 kg d 1 as predicted by NRC (2000). When
they reached 350 kg, calves were switched to a 90% barley grain
and 10% barley silage (DM basis) finishing diet (i.e., finishing
phase), with an average daily gain of 1.45 kg d 1, as predicted by
NRC (2000). Composition of the backgrounding and finishing diets
were typical of those fed in western Canadian feedlots. Death loss
was 1%. Calves were maintained on the finishing diet for 170 days
and marketed at a final weight of 605 kg and an age of 494 days.
Although the average daily gain and final weights of steers and
heifers typically differ, we used average values for both genders.
As breeding stock was replaced after 8 years, calves from only
six production cycles were assumed to be marketed for meat.
The 102 calves born in the seventh cycle, and an additional 22
calves from the sixth cycle, were removed at birth from the pro-
duction cycle and used to fully replace the cows (120) and bulls
(4) for the reproductive herd. (The 22 calves had to be drawn from
year 6 of the production cycle to compensate for a calf crop less
than 100%.) On a typical beef farm, cows and bulls would vary in
age and some breeding stock would be replaced each year. For clar-
ity, we have described the scenario as a single beef production cy-
cle (rather than seven annual cycles), recognizing that average
emissions and productivity are the same, either way.
Total GHG emissions from the beef herd were calculated by
summing the emissions for the 120 cows, four bulls, and all feedlot
cattle for one complete 8-year cycle (i.e., all animals). Total carcass
weight was for all animals, except for replacements. This total car-
cass weight was calculated from the final weight of all cull cows,
cull bulls and feedlot finishing cattle (i.e., all animals except the
124 replacements). Carcass yield was assumed to be 60% of total
carcass weight.
2.3. Description of the manure handling system
Feedlot cattle (i.e., backgrounders and finishers) and breeding
stock (for 5 months post-weaning) were housed in pens bedded
(i.e., deep bedded) with barley straw grown on-farm. The manure
accumulated within the pens and was removed and applied, once
per year, to cropland used to grow barley grain and silage. Syn-
thetic N fertilizer rates were reduced accordingly. The amount of
manure and synthetic N fertilizer applied to the various crops
was according to recommended rates for the region (Table 2) and
did not exceed manure spreading rates for the area (Government
of Alberta, 2010). During winter and early spring, cows were

Table 2
Crop factors used in beef emissions life cycle analysis.

Crop Field yield N fertilizer P fertilizer Herbicide Moisture Above ground residue Below ground residue Relative DM allocation
(kg ha 1)a rate rate used content N concentration N concentration
Yield Above Below
(kg N ha 1)b (kg P2O5 ha 1 c
) (w/w) (kg N kg 1) (kg N kg 1)
ratio ground ground
residue ratio residue ratio
Barley grain 2960 42 25 Yes 0.12 0.007 0.01 0.38 0.47 0.15
Mixed hay 3220 0 0 No 0.13 0.015 0.015 0.40 0.10 0.50
Barley silage 20,000 80 30 Yes 0.55 0.007 0.01 0.72 0.13 0.15

DM = dry matter.
a
Grain and hay yields from Alberta Agriculture and Food (2006); silage yield from McKenzie et al. (2004).
b
Rates for grain and hay based on McConkey et al. (2007) with modifications; rate for silage from McKenzie et al. (2004).
c
Rates for grain and hay based on expert opinion; rate for silage from McKenzie et al. (2004).
 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379
assumed to be on pasture. In this case, the manure was deposited
on the pasture, where it remained.
2.4. Holos – a model to estimate GHG from farms
2.4.1. General description of Holos
Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using Holos, a
whole-farm model developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(Little et al., 2008; http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-affi-
cher.do?id=1226606460726&lang=eng#s1). Holos is an empirical
model, with a yearly time-step, based primarily on IPCC (2006)
methodology, modified for Canadian conditions and farm scale.
The model considers all significant emissions and removals on
the farm, as well as emissions from manufacture of inputs (fertil-
izer, herbicides) and off-farm emissions of N2O derived from N ap-
plied on the farm.
Holos estimates a whole-farm GHG emission, calculating emis-
sions for soil-derived N2O, enteric CH4, manure-derived CH4 and
N2O, CO2 from on-farm energy use and the manufacturing of fertil-
izer and herbicide, and CO2 emission/removal from management-
induced changes in soil carbon stocks. This systems approach al-
lows net whole-farm emissions to be calculated from management
changes on any part of the farm.
2.4.2. Climate and geographical location of the farm
Holos uses emission factors adjusted for variations in climatic
and edaphic conditions across Canada. These factors are drawn
from a database of ecodistricts, with soil information obtained
from the Canadian Soil Information System National Ecological
Framework (Marshall et al., 1999). The hypothetical farm used in
our simulation was in Ecodistrict 793 in the Semiarid Prairies ecoz-
one. The soil type was a dark brown Chernozem, of ‘medium’ soil
texture, managed using reduced/minimum tillage practices. Aver-
age growing season (May–October) precipitation for the ecodistrict
is 277 mm and potential evapotranspiration is 653 mm.
2.4.3. Cropping and land use
The cropping and pasture land required to produce the feed for
the cattle in this simulation was determined from the total feed
requirement for the entire 8-year beef production cycle and the ex-
pected yield of the various crops. The total land requirement was
divided by eight to estimate the farm land area required yearly.
For the simulated conditions, the farm land area was 2333.5–
293 ha of non-irrigated crop land and 2040.5 ha of native prairie
pasture.
The total dry matter (DM) required for each feed was calculated
based on the daily dry matter intake (DMI) for each class of animal,
the number of days the feed was offered, and the percentage of the
dietary DM represented by the individual feeds. Field losses during
harvesting were assumed to be 12% for hay and silage and 3% for
grain, while feeding wastage was assumed to be 20% for hay, 5%
for silage, and 0% for grain (Rotz and Muck, 1994).
Area of each crop required was calculated from average yield in
the ecodistrict (Table 2). Similarly, the area of pasture land re-
quired was calculated based on the amount of herbage DM re-
quired over the 6-month (May–October) grazing period with an
additional 25% allowance to account for trampling and wastage
(Adams et al., 2004).
Crops grown were barley grain and straw (for bedding), whole
crop barley silage, and mixed hay. Herbicide, manure, and syn-
thetic nitrogen (N) and phosphorus fertilizer were applied to crop-
land at typical rates and yields were estimated from averages for
the region (Table 2). The native pasture, consisting of a Wheat
Grass and Needle and Thread community (classification MGA21)
from the Lethbridge and Vulcan Plains of the Mixedgrass prairie,
was stocked at a rate of 0.69 animal unit month per hectare
375
(Adams et al., 2004). At this ecologically sustainable stocking rate,
forage utilization levels are set between 25% and 50% of total herb-
age production, allowing carryover for maintenance of other eco-
logical services. The land required in our scenario, therefore,
would be considerably higher than that for a farming enterprise
not taking these factors into account. We calculated the required
grazing land area based on DMI (including an additional 25% due
to wastage and trampling), the number of animals and the length
of the grazing period.
2.4.4. Nitrous oxide emissions
The direct N2O emissions from soils were based on N inputs,
modified by soil texture, climate, tillage, and topography. Total N
inputs included those from synthetic N fertilizer, land-applied
manure, crop residue decomposition (above- and below-ground
residue), and net N mineralization (estimated from net change in
soil carbon, and assumed to be zero in this simulation).
Fertilizer N inputs were estimated from total N required by
crops, less the amount applied in manure. Nitrogen inputs from
crop residues were calculated from crop yields, using coefficients
modified from Janzen et al. (2003). Holos calculates soil-derived
N2O emission from total N inputs, using Canada-specific algo-
rithms modified from those developed for calculating the national
greenhouse gas inventory (Rochette et al., 2008). The total N input
was multiplied by an emission factor, adjusted for growing season
precipitation and the potential evapotranspiration for the ecodis-
trict, using data from CanSIS averaged from 1971 to 2000 (Marshall
et al., 1999). Modifiers for soil type, texture, tillage system, and
topography were based on Rochette et al. (2008).
Manure N was estimated from DMI and the crude protein
(CP = 6.25  N) content of the diet, and N retention of the animals
based on IPCC (2006) and NRC (2000). The N contribution of the
barley straw bedding was assumed to be the same as if the barley
residue was left on the field after harvest. Thus, this residue N con-
tribution was accounted for previously. Manure N content was
multiplied by an emission factor for the manure handling system
(deposited on pasture or deep bedding) to calculate direct N2O
emissions (IPCC, 2006). The amount of manure N from the deep
bedded cattle was adjusted for losses during storage and this
was then applied to the land.
Holos also includes indirect N2O emissions – N2O emitted off-
farm from N lost from the farm via run-off, leaching and volatiliza-
tion (Table 3). These emissions were estimated from the assumed
fractions of N lost from manure, residues, and fertilizer, adjusted
for climatic conditions as detailed by Rochette et al. (2008), and
the IPCC (2006) emission factor.
2.4.5. Methane emissions
Enteric CH4 emissions were calculated for each class of cattle
according to the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 methodology. Daily net energy
requirements for cattle in each stage of production were estimated
from energy expenditures for maintenance, activity, growth, preg-
nancy and lactation as appropriate. The gross energy intake re-
quired to meet energy requirements was then estimated taking
into account the energy density of the diet (IPCC, 2006), and enteric
CH4 emissions were calculated from gross energy intake using the
CH4 conversion factors (Ym) for each diet (Table 4). The Ym values
were based on the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 approach where Ym is
6.5% + 1.0%, except for feedlot cattle, which was from Beauchemin
and McGinn (2005) for high grain barley-based diets.
Methane emissions from manure were based on volatile solids
production, according to IPCC (2006), taking into account the gross
energy intake of the animal and the digestibility of the diet (Table
4). Volatile solid production was multiplied by a maximum CH4
producing capacity of the manure (Bo = 0.19) and a CH4 conversion
factor specific to the manure management practice used (Table 3).
376 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379

Table 3
Sources of GHG emissions, equation or emission factor used and reference source.

Gas/source Equation/emission factor Reference

Methane sources
Enteric fermentation Based on gross energy requirements and IPCC, 2006
digestible energy in feed
Pasture manure 0.01 kg CH4 (kg CH4) 1 IPCC (2006)
Deep bedding manure 0.17 kg CH4 (kg CH4) 1 IPCC (2006)
Direct nitrous oxide sources
Pasture manure 0.02 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Deep bedding manure 0.01 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Soil N inputs (includes land-applied manure, crop residue, EFeco = 0.022 P/PE – 0.0048 Rochette et al. (2008)
synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, mineralized N)
Indirect nitrous oxide sources
Pasture manure Leaching
EF = 0.0075 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracleach = 0.3247 P/PE – 0.0247 Rochette et al. (2008)
Volatilization IPCC (2006)
EF = 0.01 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracvolatilization = 0.20 kg N (kg N) 1
Deep bedding manure Leaching
EF = 0.0075 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracleach = 0 kg N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Volatilization IPCC (2006)
EF = 0.01 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracvolatilization = 0.30 kg N (kg N) 1
Soil/cropping nitrogen inputs (includes land-applied manure, Leaching
crop residue, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, mineralized N) EF = 0.0075 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracleach = 0.3247 P/PE – 0.0247 Rochette et al. (2008)
Volatilizationa IPCC (2006)
EF = 0.01 kg N2O–N (kg N) 1 IPCC (2006)
Fracvolatilization = 0.1 kg N (kg N) 1
Carbon dioxide sources
Energy to crop 133.5 kg CO2 ha 1 Little et al. (2008)c
Energy to apply manure to land 0.186 kg CO2 (kg N) 1 Little et al. (2008)c
N fertilizer production 3.59 kg CO2 (kg N) 1b Nagy (2000)
P fertilizer production 0.5699 kg CO2 (kg P2O5) 1 Nagy (2000)
Energy to produce herbicide 1.334 kg CO2 ha 1 Little et al. (2008)c
Energy to feed and manage cattle 5% of total energy CO2 emissions (kg CO2) Expert opinion

EFeco = Emission factor for ecodistrict; EF = Emission factor; Fracleach = Leaching fraction; Fracvolatilization = Volatilization fraction; P = Growing season (May–October) precip-
itation; PE = Growing season (May–October) evapotranspiration.
a
Indirect emissions due to volatilization are only calculated on N inputs from land-applied manure and synthetic N fertilizer.
b
Value based on the weighted average of 1/2 anhydrous and 2/3 urea N fertilizer.
c
Value simplified from equations given by Little et al. (2008).

Table 4 ated with the manufacture of herbicides and fertilizers. Emissions

Diet quality and methane conversion factors (Ym) used in beef emissions life cycle associated with manufacture of machinery or the transport of
analysis. goods to and from the farm were not considered.
Diet descriptiona Diet quality
Digestible energy Crude protein Ym factorb 3. Results and discussion
(% of dry matter) (% of dry matter) (% of gross
energy intake) 3.1. Comparisons to earlier estimates
Mixed hay 55 12 7.0
Pasture 60 12 6.5 Our LCA yielded an estimated GHG intensity of 22 kg CO2 eq (kg
High forage 70 12.5 6.5
carcass) 1 for beef production in southern Alberta (Table 5), well
backgrounding
High grain finishing 81 12 4.0 within the range of earlier estimates: 17–37 kg CO2 eq (kg car-
cass) 1 (Beauchemin et al., 2009). This range in GHG intensities re-
a
Diet description corresponding to Table 1.
b
flects not only differences among farming systems, but also
Based on the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 approach where Ym is 6.5% + 1.0%, except for
feedlot cattle, which was from Beauchemin and McGinn (2005) for high grain
disparate assumptions, approaches, and algorithms in calculating
barley-based diets. emissions, so direct comparison among studies is not always
possible.
Our estimate of GHG intensity is very similar to that reported
for a US system with cow–calf, stocker and feedlot phases:
2.4.6. Carbon dioxide emissions 21.7 kg CO2 eq (kg carcass) 1 (Johnson et al., 2003). This nearly per-
Holos calculates CO2 emissions from energy use (i.e., burning of fect agreement may be partly fortuitous, since the simulations dif-
fossil fuels) using primary and secondary sources, as defined by fered in many respects. In the US study, for example, the cows
Gifford (1984) (Table 3). Primary sources consider the use of fossil weighed only 500 kg, weaned calves were fed forage for 5 months
fuels and power for tillage, seeding, harvesting, pumping water, before entering the feedlot, and a single enteric CH4 conversion va-
spreading manure, feeding animals, and operating barns (not lue was used for pasture (Ym = 6%) and for feedlot diets (Ym = 3%).
applicable here). Secondary sources include the emissions associ- Furthermore, Johnson et al. (2003) did not consider harvest or feed
 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379 377

Table 5 Energy CO2; 5%

Results from the life cycle analysis of beef production in southern Alberta. Soil N2O; 4%
Item Emissions (kg CO2 eq)
Total emissions 5,445,713
Enteric CH4 3,443,082
Manure CH4 273,592
Manure N2O 1,244,506
Soil N2O 206,828
Manure N2O; 23%
Energy CO2 277,705
Beef produced, kg
Total live weight 417,710 Enteric CH4; 63%
Total carcass weight 250,626
1
GHG intensity, kg CO2 eq (beef, kg)
Live weight basis 13.04
Carcass weight basis 21.73

Manure CH4; 5%

losses so feed requirements and the land area and fertilizer to pro-
duce them may have been underestimated. Their simulation also
included improved pasture resulting in carbon sequestration,
whereas our simulation was based on native pasture, with minimal
carbon accrual because soils have likely approached steady state
(Janzen et al., 1998).
Our intensity estimate is higher than a value reported for the
Canadian beef industry: 17.2 kg CO2 eq (kg carcass) 1 (10.4 kg
CO2 eq (kg live weight) 1) (Vergé et al., 2008). Their intensity esti-
mate is based on an industry-wide analysis of beef cattle in Canada
and the crop complex required to feed it. Their approach used IPCC
(Tier 2) methodologies but they did not include bulls, estimated
enteric CH4 using only a single factor (Ym = 6%), and included addi-
tional energy-derived CO2 emissions, such as those from the man-
ufacture of farm machinery. A much higher intensity of 36.4 kg CO2
eq (kg carcass) 1 was reported for a Japanese system in which
cows and calves were housed in a barn, calves were marketed ear-
lier (at eight mo of age), carcass yield was only 40% of live weight,
and feed was shipped from the US to Japan (Ogino et al., 2007). The
Japanese simulation also differed from ours in other ways: they
used a 14-month calving interval, enteric CH4 was calculated from
estimates of DMI, not all manure was deposited in confinement,
and no meat was produced from cull cows and bulls.
Casey and Holden (2006) estimated GHG intensity estimates
from pasture based beef cattle production in Ireland, but reported
intensities on a yearly basis, ranging from 7.6 to 11.3 kg CO2 eq (kg
live weight/year) 1. If a 2-year fattening period is assumed, this
intensity range would equate to about 25.3–37.7 kg CO2 eq (kg car-
cass) 1. Their study also differed from ours in the use of different
estimates of global warming potentials for CH4 (21 vs. 23) and
N2O (310 vs. 298), the use of a single factor (Ym = 6%) for enteric
CH4, twice-yearly slurry manure application, longer distance of fer-
tilizer and concentrate transport, and higher rates of N fertilizer
application. Cederberg and Stadig (2003) examined the GHG of
various methods of producing beef in Sweden, but their results
cannot be compared directly to ours because of the integrated nat-
ure of dairy and beef production systems in that country.
Fig. 3. Relative proportion of the various GHG emissions (CO2 equivalents, % of total
emissions) resulting from a beef farm in western Canada simulated over an 8-year
production cycle.
American beef production systems (Johnson et al., 2003; Vergé
et al., 2008).
Within the beef production cycle, the cow calf system ac-
counted for about 80% of total GHG emissions and the feedlot sys-
tem for only 20%, dividing roughly equally between the
backgrounding and finishing phases (Figs. 4 and 5). This break-
down might vary somewhat, depending on the specific manage-
ment practices used. In western Canada, for example, weaned
calves are sometimes fed forage-based diets over winter and
placed back onto pasture the following summer before entering
the feedlot, rather than being placed directly into feedlots as in
our simulation (Basarab et al., 2005). Such variations, however,
are unlikely to displace the cow–calf system as the primary source
of GHG emissions resulting from beef producing farms. Of emis-
sions from the cow–calf system, about 1/4 arise from the breeding
stock, which does not immediately produce meat (Fig. 4).
About 84% of enteric CH4 was from the cow–calf system (Fig. 6),
mostly from mature cows. In contrast to some perceptions, the
feedlot system accounts for a relatively small fraction of enteric
CH4 from beef production. The lower CH4 emission from this sys-
tem is due mainly to its relatively brief duration and, to a lesser ex-
tent, to the use of grain-based finishing rations.
Finishers; 12%
Backgrounders; 8%

Producing cow-calf
3.2. Contributions of various sources to whole-farm emissions herd; 61%
Breeding stock - not
Enteric CH4 accounted for 63% of the total GHG emissions in the breeding*; 19%
simulation (Fig. 3), and is thus the largest source of GHG arising
from beef producing farms in western Canada, like that simulated
in this study. Nitrous oxide from soil and manure accounted for a
further 27% of the total emissions, while CH4 emissions from man-
ure and CO2 energy emissions were minor contributors. This break-
down is consistent with other analyses that report enteric Fig. 4. Breakdown of total GHG emissions (CO2 equivalents) by component of a
fermentation accounts for 40–70% of total GHG emissions in North western Canadian beef farm simulated over an 8-year production cycle.
378 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379
Feedlot soil N 2O; 2%
Feedlot energy CO2 ; 2%
Feedlot manure N 2O; 3%
Feedlot manure CH 4 ; 3%
Feedlot enteric CH 4; 10%
Cow-calf herd energy CO2 ; 3%
Cow-calf herd soil N2O; 2% Cow-calf herd
enteri c CH4; 53%
Cow-calf herd manure N 2O; 20%
Cow-calf herd manure CH4 ; 2%
Fig. 5. Source of GHG emission (CO2 equivalents) for a beef farm in western Canada
simulated over an 8-year beef production cycle.
Finishers; 9%
Backgrounders; 7%
Calves; 2%
Bulls; 3%
Cows; 79%
Fig. 6. Breakdown of enteric CH4 emissions by component of the beef production
cycle for a simulated beef farm in western Canada.
3.3. Implications
Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian beef production have
increased by about 41% over the 1990 baseline value of 17,000 kt
CO2 eq (Environment Canada, 2009) due to expansion of the indus-
try (Basarab et al., 2005). However, during that same period, GHG
intensity decreased (Vergé et al., 2008). Our LCA of beef production
in western Canada demonstrates clearly that strategies to further
reduce enteric CH4 emissions might best be aimed at the source
of highest emissions: the cow–calf sector. For example, based on
our estimated breakdown (Fig. 4), a proportional reduction in
emissions from the cow–calf system (say, a 10% reduction) would
reduce whole-farm emissions by about four times as much as the
same reduction in the feedlot system. Further analyses, therefore,
might examine dietary strategies that decrease the CH4 conversion
(Ym) rate of forage-based diets, including dietary supplementation
with oilseeds (Beauchemin et al., 2007) and grains (Beauchemin
and McGinn, 2005), greater use of grain-based forages (O’Mara
et al., 1998) and legume forages (McCaughey et al., 1999), and
use of tannin-containing legumes (Tavendale et al., 2005). Other
animal husbandry practices that improve reproductive perfor-
mance of cows, decrease death losses of calves, or improve feed
conversion efficiency would also be worth exploring.
But any evaluation of prospective practices should look beyond
the focus on enteric CH4. The cow–calf system, in particular, has
potential ancillary benefits because it relies extensively on pas-
tures and forage crops which, in many cases, can preserve or aug-
ment soil carbon (Soussana et al., 2004), thereby mitigating CO2
build-up in the atmosphere. And, because the nutrient cycle in
grazing systems is relatively closed, excreted nutrients are re-
turned directly to the land from which they came so emissions
from manure may also be suppressed. Furthermore, promoting
grain-feeding of cattle ignores the importance of ruminants in con-
verting fibrous feeds, unsuitable for human consumption, to high-
quality protein sources (i.e., milk and meat). This issue will likely
become more critical if climate change impairs agricultural pro-
duction and grains become even more important for human
sustenance.
Such a whole-farm vantage can only be achieved using a model,
such as Holos. Holos, like other models still has many limitations
and its outputs carry significant uncertainty. As illustrated in this
study, however, such a model can help identify research areas
and questions that merit particular emphasis, and it can thereby
guide future research and policy recommendations. Further work
is still needed to bolster the model’s reliability and expand its
applicability to encompass other geographical regions and prac-
tices. In the future, such models may be expanded to look beyond
GHG emissions, to also include other environmental questions,
such as water quality, ammonia emissions from intensive livestock
operations, nutrient cycling, and so forth.
4. Conclusions
Our whole-farm analysis shows that most of the GHG emissions
from beef production systems like those in western Canada ema-
nate from cow–calf herds, particularly from the beef cows. This fa-
cet of the beef production system, therefore, may deserve highest
emphasis in the search for practices that reduce emissions. While
continued research to reduce emissions from feedlots is also mer-
ited (if only to improve efficiency), the net mitigative effect of a
proportional reduction from feedlots will likely be less than a sim-
ilar proportional reduction from the cow–calf system.
While cow–calf operations within the Canadian beef production
system may emit the most GHG, these farms can have many ancil-
lary environmental benefits, by affording wise use of grazing and
forage lands (e.g., Garnett, 2009). Such lands not only preserve or
build soil carbon reserves, thereby withholding CO2 from the air,
but also have many other ecosystem services including the conser-
vation of biodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic
value. Furthermore, feeding grain to ruminants may be question-
able in future, given that grains can be used directly for human
consumption and global population is projected to increase. The
environmental merits of prospective production systems can only
be fully assessed by considering all of these benefits. The continued
development of robust, ecosystem-level models is essential for
such broadly-based analyses.
References
Acres, S.D., 1976. The epidemiology of acute undifferentiated neonatal diarrhea of
beef calves in western Canada. PhD Thesis, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Adams, B.W., Poulin-Klein, L., Moisey, D., McNeil, R.L., 2004. Rangeland plant
communities and range health assessment guidelines for the mixedgrass
natural subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and
Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub.
No. T/03940, 101 pp.
 K.A. Beauchemin et al. / Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 371–379
Alberta Agriculture and Food, 2006. Economics and Competitiveness Division;
Statistics and Data Development Unit. Agriculture Statistics Yearbook, 2006,
137 pp. <http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd11863
B>.
Bailey, C.M., 1991. Lifespan of beef-type Bos taurus and Bos indicus  Bos taurus
females in a dry, temperate climate. J. Anim. Sci. 69, 2379–2386.
Basarab, J.A., Okine, E.K., Baron, V.S., Marx, T., Ramsey, P., Ziegler, K., Lyle, K., 2005.
Methane emissions from enteric fermentation in Alberta’s beef cattle
population. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 85, 501–512.
Beef Cattle Info Zone (BCIZ), 2009. Canada’s beef cattle industry. <http://
www.cattle.ca/factsheets/beefindustry.pdf>.
Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed
barley or corn diets. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 653–661.
Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., Petit, H.V., 2007. Methane abatement strategies for
cattle: lipid supplementation of diets. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 87, 431–440.
Beauchemin, K.A., Kreuzer, M., O’Mara, F., McAllister, T.A., 2008. Nutritional
management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48,
21–27.
Beauchemin, K.A., McAllister, T.A., McGinn, S.M., 2009. Dietary mitigation of enteric
methane from cattle. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4 (035), 18.
Boadi, D., Benchaar, C., Chiquette, J., Masse, D., 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce
enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
84, 319–335.
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2005. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the
average Irish milk production system. Agr. Syst. 86, 97–114.
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2006. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef
production in Ireland. Agr. Syst. 90, 79–98.
Canadian Beef Export Federation (CBEF), 2009. Our industry. <http://
www.cbef.com/Industry.htm>.
Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle
assessment of milk and beef production. Int. J. LCA 8, 350–356.
Environment Canada, 2009. National Inventory Report 1990–2007. Greenhouse gas
sources and sinks in Canada, The Canadian Government’s Submission to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, April. <http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/
ghg/inventory_e.cfm> (accessed 10.02.10).
Garnett, T., 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options
for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 491–503.
Gifford, M.R., 1984. Energy in different agricultural systems: renewable and non-
renewable sources. In: Stanhill, G. (Ed.), Energy and Agriculture. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 84–112.
Government of Alberta. 2010. Environmental standards for Alberta’s livestock
industry. Manure spreading regulations. Agdex 096-5. <http://
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw9846> (revised May
2007).
IPCC, 2001. Third Assessment Report, Climate Change: The Scientific Basis
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC
(Table 6.7). <http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/
ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm>.
IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston H.S.,
Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K. (Eds.), Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES, Japan. <http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm>.
Janzen, H.H., Campbell, C.A., Izaurralde, R.C., Ellert, B.H., Juma, N., McGill, W.B.,
Zentner, R.P., 1998. Management effects on soil C storage on the Canadian
prairies. Soil Till. Res. 47, 181–195.
Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert,
B.H., Smith, E.G., 2003. The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: an illustration
using Canadian estimates. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 67, 85–102.
Janzen, H.H., Angers, D.A., Boehm, M., Bolinder, M., Desjardins, R.L., Dyer, J.A., Ellert,
B.H., Gibb, D.J., Gregorich, E.G., Helgason, B.L., Lemke, R., Massé, D., McGinn,
S.M., McAllister, T.A., Newlands, N., Pattey, E., Rochette, P., Smith, W.,
Vandenbygaart, A.J., Wang, H., 2006. A proposed approach to estimate and
reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from whole farms. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86, 401–
418.
Johnson, D.E., Phetteplace, H.W., Seidl, A.F., Schneider, U.A., McCarl, B.A., 2003.
Management variations for US beef production systems: effects on greenhouse
gas emissions and profitability. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International
Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation Conference; 2003 November 17–21;
Beijing, China. Coal Information Institute, Beijing, China, pp. 953–961.
379
Küstermann, B., Kainz, M., Hülsbergen, K.-J., 2008. Modeling carbon cycles and
estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional farming
systems. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 23, 38–52.
Lassey, K.R., 2008. Livestock methane emission and its perspective in the global
methane cycle. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 48, 114–118.
Little, S., Linderman, J., Maclean, K., Janzen, H., 2008. HOLOS – a tool to estimate and
reduce greenhouse gases from farms. Methodology and algorithms for versions
1.1.x. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cat. No. A52-136/2008E-PDF, 158 pp.
Lovett, D.K., Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., O’Mara, F.P., 2006. A systems approach to quantify
greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by
management regime. Agr. Syst. 88, 156–179.
Marshall, I.B., Schut, P., Ballard, M., 1999. A national ecological framework for
Canada: attribute data. Environmental Quality Branch, Ecosystems Science
Directorate, Environment Canada and Research Branch, Agriculture and Agr-
Food Canada, Ottawa/Hull, Canada. <http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/
data_files.html>.
McAllister, T.A., Newbold, C.J., 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce
methanogenesis. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 48, 7–13.
McCaughey, W.P., Wittenberg, K., Corrigan, D., 1999. Impact of pasture type on
methane production by lactating beef cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 221–226.
McConkey, B.G., Angers, D.A., Bentham, M., Boehm, M., Brierley, T., Cerkowniak, D.,
Liang, C., Collas, P., de Gooijer, H., Desjardins, R., Gameda, S., Grant, B., Huffman,
E., Hutchinson, J., Hill, L., Krug, P., Martin, T., Patterson, G., Rochette, P., Smith,
W., VandenBygaart, B., Vergé, X., Worth, D., 2007. Canadian Agricultural
Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Accounting and Reporting System: Methodology
and greenhouse gas estimates for agricultural land in the LULUCF sector for NIR
2006. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
McKenzie, R.H., Middleton, A.B., DeMulder, J., Bremer, E., 2004. Fertilizer
response of barley silage in southern and central Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84,
133–147.
Nagy, C.N., 2000. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions coefficients for inputs used
in agriculture. Report to the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative. 11 pp.
National Research Council (NRC), 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle,
seventh revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, USA.
Ogino, A., Orito, H., Shimada, K., Hirooka, H., 2007. Evaluating environmental
impacts of the Japanese beef cow–calf system by the life cycle assessment
method. Anim. Sci. J. 78, 424–432.
O’Mara, F.P., Fitzgerald, J.J., Murphy, J.J., Rath, M., 1998. The effect on milk
production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy
cows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 55, 79–87.
Rochette, P., Worth, D.E., Lemke, R.L., McConkey, B.G., Pennock, D.J., Wagner-Riddle,
C., Desjardins, R.L., 2008. Estimation of N2O emissions from agricultural soils in
Canada. I. Development of a country-specific methodology. Can. J. Soil Sci. 88,
641–654.
Rogers, R.W., Martin, S.W., Meek, A.H., 1985. Reproductive efficiency and calf
survival in Ontario beef cow–calf herds: a cross-sectional mail survey. Can. J.
Comp. Med. 49, 27–33.
Rotz, C.A., Muck, R.E., 1994. Changes in forage quality during harvest and storage.
In: Fahey, G.C., Collins, M., Mertens, D.R., Moser, L.E. (Eds.), Forage Quality,
Evaluation, and Utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisc., USA, pp.
828–868.
Schils, R.L.M., Olesen, J.E., del Prado, A., Soussana, J.F., 2007. A review of farm level
modelling approaches for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant
livestock systems. Livest. Sci. 112, 240–251.
Soussana, J.-F., Loiseau, P., Vuichard, N., Ceschia, E., Balesdent, J., Chevallier, T.,
Arrouays, D., 2004. Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in
temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manage. 20, 219–230.
Steinfeld, H., Wassenaar, T., 2007. The role of livestock production in carbon and
nitrogen cycles. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 271–294.
Stewart, A.A., Little, S.M., Ominski, K.H., Wittenberg, K.M., Janzen, H.H., 2009.
Evaluating greenhouse gas mitigation practices in livestock systems: an
illustration of a whole-farm approach. J. Agr. Sci. 147, 367–382.
Tavendale, M.H., Meagher, L.P., Pacheco, D., Walker, N., Attwood, G.T., Sivakumaran,
S., 2005. Methane production from in vitro rumen incubations with Lotus
pedunculatus and Medicago sativa, and effects of extractable condensed
tannin fractions on methanogenesis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. (123/124), 403–
419.
Vergé, X.P.C., Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L., Worth, D., 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions
from the Canadian beef industry. Agr. Syst. 98, 126–134.