↓ Skip to main content

Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
358 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1037 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1402183111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gidon Eshel, Alon Shepon, Tamar Makov, Ron Milo

Abstract

Livestock production impacts air and water quality, ocean health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on regional to global scales and it is the largest use of land globally. Quantifying the environmental impacts of the various livestock categories, mostly arising from feed production, is thus a grand challenge of sustainability science. Here, we quantify land, irrigation water, and reactive nitrogen (Nr) impacts due to feed production, and recast published full life cycle GHG emission estimates, for each of the major animal-based categories in the US diet. Our calculations reveal that the environmental costs per consumed calorie of dairy, poultry, pork, and eggs are mutually comparable (to within a factor of 2), but strikingly lower than the impacts of beef. Beef production requires 28, 11, 5, and 6 times more land, irrigation water, GHG, and Nr, respectively, than the average of the other livestock categories. Preliminary analysis of three staple plant foods shows two- to sixfold lower land, GHG, and Nr requirements than those of the nonbeef animal-derived calories, whereas irrigation requirements are comparable. Our analysis is based on the best data currently available, but follow-up studies are necessary to improve parameter estimates and fill remaining knowledge gaps. Data imperfections notwithstanding, the key conclusion--that beef production demands about 1 order of magnitude more resources than alternative livestock categories--is robust under existing uncertainties. The study thus elucidates the multiple environmental benefits of potential, easy-to-implement dietary changes, and highlights the uniquely high resource demands of beef.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 496 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,037 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 1%
Brazil 8 <1%
Germany 5 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 12 1%
Unknown 988 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 164 16%
Researcher 162 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 159 15%
Student > Bachelor 142 14%
Other 52 5%
Other 158 15%
Unknown 200 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 249 24%
Environmental Science 183 18%
Engineering 54 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 42 4%
Social Sciences 40 4%
Other 213 21%
Unknown 256 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1758. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,910
of 25,589,756 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#192
of 103,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26
of 240,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#4
of 916 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,589,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 916 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.