377 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22952364)
1. Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of California beef production systems.
Stackhouse KR; Rotz CA; Oltjen JW; Mitloehner FM
J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(12):4656-65. PubMed ID: 22952364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems.
Stackhouse-Lawson KR; Rotz CA; Oltjen JW; Mitloehner FM
J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(12):4641-55. PubMed ID: 22952361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Growth promoting technologies reduce greenhouse gas, alcohol, and ammonia emissions from feedlot cattle.
Stackhouse-Lawson KR; Calvo MS; Place SE; Armitage TL; Pan Y; Zhao Y; Mitloehner FM
J Anim Sci; 2013 Nov; 91(11):5438-47. PubMed ID: 24085413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A simulation-based approach for evaluating and comparing the environmental footprints of beef production systems.
Rotz CA; Isenberg BJ; Stackhouse-Lawson KR; Pollak EJ
J Anim Sci; 2013 Nov; 91(11):5427-37. PubMed ID: 24146148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products - implications for long-term climate targets.
Cederberg C; Hedenus F; Wirsenius S; Sonesson U
Animal; 2013 Feb; 7(2):330-40. PubMed ID: 23031741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Beef production in balance: considerations for life cycle analyses.
Place SE; Mitloehner FM
Meat Sci; 2012 Nov; 92(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 22551868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment.
Rotz CA; Montes F; Chianese DS
J Dairy Sci; 2010 Mar; 93(3):1266-82. PubMed ID: 20172247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Methods and consequences of including reduction in greenhouse gas emission in beef cattle multiple-trait selection.
Barwick SA; Henzell AL; Herd RM; Walmsley BJ; Arthur PF
Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Apr; 51(1):18. PubMed ID: 31035930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability.
Cooprider KL; Mitloehner FM; Famula TR; Kebreab E; Zhao Y; Van Eenennaam AL
J Anim Sci; 2011 Aug; 89(8):2643-56. PubMed ID: 21398565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach.
Zehetmeier M; Baudracco J; Hoffmann H; Heißenhuber A
Animal; 2012 Jan; 6(1):154-66. PubMed ID: 22436163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Rotz CA; Asem-Hiablie S; Dillon J; Bonifacio H
J Anim Sci; 2015 May; 93(5):2509-19. PubMed ID: 26020346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Climate mitigation by dairy intensification depends on intensive use of spared grassland.
Styles D; Gonzalez-Mejia A; Moorby J; Foskolos A; Gibbons J
Glob Chang Biol; 2018 Feb; 24(2):681-693. PubMed ID: 28940511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Net greenhouse gas emissions from manure management using anaerobic digestion technology in a beef cattle feedlot in Brazil.
Costa Junior C; Cerri CE; Pires AV; Cerri CC
Sci Total Environ; 2015 Feb; 505():1018-25. PubMed ID: 25461102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of alternative beef production systems based on forage finishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 1. Feedlot performance, carcass quality, and production costs.
Berthiaume R; Mandell I; Faucitano L; Lafrenière C
J Anim Sci; 2006 Aug; 84(8):2168-77. PubMed ID: 16864879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production.
Capper JL; Hayes DJ
J Anim Sci; 2012 Oct; 90(10):3527-37. PubMed ID: 22665660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Feeding strategies and manure management for cost-effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms in Wisconsin.
Dutreuil M; Wattiaux M; Hardie CA; Cabrera VE
J Dairy Sci; 2014 Sep; 97(9):5904-17. PubMed ID: 24996278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007.
Capper JL
J Anim Sci; 2011 Dec; 89(12):4249-61. PubMed ID: 21803973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production.
Dougherty HC; Oltjen JW; Mitloehner FM; DePeters EJ; Pettey LA; Macon D; Finzel J; Rodrigues K; Kebreab E
J Anim Sci; 2019 Feb; 97(2):945-961. PubMed ID: 30452693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Greenhouse gas and alcohol emissions from feedlot steers and calves.
Stackhouse KR; Pan Y; Zhao Y; Mitloehner FM
J Environ Qual; 2011; 40(3):899-906. PubMed ID: 21546675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Galyean appreciation club review: a holistic perspective of the societal relevance of beef production and its impacts on climate change.
Tedeschi LO; Beauchemin KA
J Anim Sci; 2023 Jan; 101():. PubMed ID: 36645233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
