68. Impact of Transitioning to Adaptive Multi-paddock Grazing on Soil Carbon and Ruminant Greenhouse Gas Footprint in the Southeastern US.

Clicks: 13
ID: 330617
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #511 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of beef production by enhancing soil organic carbon (SOC) accrual. Few life cycle assessments (LCAs) of AMP systems have incorporated measured SOC change, and none have evaluated transitional AMP systems-where grazing management is in place but animal productivity remains below regional potential-so the climate benefits of such systems are uncertain. We conducted a farm-scale LCA using four to six years of on-farm animal productivity and SOC data from a Tennessee beef and sheep operation that had recently adopted AMP grazing. The Transitional AMP system (TR-AMP) reflected current management and documented beef herd underperformance. We compared it with two alternative beef systems scaled to the same annual beef output: an Advanced AMP system (AD-AMP), representing a productive AMP scenario, and a Business-as-usual system (BAU), representing the regional conventional cow-calf, backgrounding, and feedlot pathway. In all three scenarios, sheep were included under the farm’s current AMP management. We quantified GHG emissions from enteric fermentation, manure, feed production, on-farm energy, and transport, and we measured SOC stocks in the top 30 cm over the study period. We did not detect a statistically significant change in SOC (p > 0.05); we therefore did not include SOC as a quantified sink in the main footprint and report gross emissions. For combined beef and sheep, GHG intensity was 40.6, 30.5, and 23.2 kg CO2-e kg-1 carcass weight (CW) for TR-AMP, AD-AMP, and BAU, respectively; for beef only, the values were 47.0, 33.1, and 22.5 kg CO2-e kg-1 CW. TR-AMP used 172 ha, AD-AMP 89 ha, and BAU 79 ha. Differences in weaning rate, finishing age, average daily gain, and stocking rate aligned with these differences in land use and GHG intensity. A sensitivity analysis using a literature-based SOC accrual rate of 0.28 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 showed that, were such a rate achieved on grazingland, net intensity could fall to 23.1, 21.9, and 16.6 kg CO2-e kg-1 CW for TR-AMP, AD-AMP, and BAU. We conclude that in this context herd performance–not AMP grazing label alone–was a key driver of GHG intensity, and that SOC did not provide a statistically robust sink over the period observed. For AMP to deliver meaningful GHG benefits, it likely needs to be paired with strong reproductive and growth performance, and short-term expectations for large SOC-based offsets in transitional systems should be tempered.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214781840 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.218
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.