No form of cattle production is sustainable at current rates of consumption and production.
Cattle production is a leading driver of the extinction crisis and causes more environmental destruction than any other food. Beef is the leading agricultural source of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as land use, deforestation, habitat degradation, water use and pollution, pesticide use, and the justification behind the direct mass-killing of wildlife from wolves to beavers, prairie dogs and grasshoppers. One-third of the world's crops are used as feed for livestock production, contributing to food insecurity, agricultural waste, and the devastating environmental cost of industrial commodity crop production.
Transformative agricultural change is needed, including a 90% reduction in U.S. beef production and consumption alongside a 50% reduction in other animal products (to be replaced by plant-based foods) to reach climate mitigation targets and reduce the industry’s harm to wildlife and wild places. America is the largest producer of beef in the world, and people in the United States consume four times the global average of beef (far more than is recommended for our health). This is incompatible with a healthy climate, biodiversity conservation, public health, or a just and equitable food system. Massive American corporations and the livestock industry — not Indigenous producers and traditional pastoral systems in the Global South — are the problem. The foremost solution to the problems of U.S. beef production — whether grazing or feedlot — is to produce less beef.
Factory farming is harmful to wildlife, people and the planet.
There's no question we need to get rid of factory farms. The vast majority of cattle end up in feedlots before being sent to slaughterhouses. One-quarter of all pesticide use in the United States is for corn and soy fed to factory farmed animals (see Collateral Damage, the Center’s report on pesticides). Intensified animal agriculture creates enormous environmental damage, is cruel to animals, and jeopardizes worker safety. Industrialized meat production is destructive at every stage, including processing and slaughter. Because of the outsized impact of the cattle industry, holding it accountable and reducing beef consumption and production are core to the Center’s work. [Read more: A Guide to the Impact of Beef on Wildlife and Biodiversity]
Grazing is the most pervasive habitat destroyer on public lands.
Cattle production is a continued source of pollution in riparian areas the Center strives to protect, like the Verde River watershed, and a leading source of the water scarcity and fish imperilment of the Colorado River basin. Livestock grazing on public lands has an outsized impact on America’s public lands. More than 90% of public lands are open to grazing by livestock.
Clean water and protection of endangered wildlife are mandated by law; livestock grazing on public lands threatens both. Cattle consume native grasses and outcompete native wildlife for food, facilitate the spread of flammable invasive weeds, pollute rivers and streams with fecal matter and sediment from erosion of steam banks, and drive the killing of native predators such as wolves and grizzly bears.
Grazing on federal public lands is heavily subsidized and is based on an arcane formula that keeps the fees cattle producers pay to graze as low as $1.35 per month for a mother and calf. Cattle should be removed from sensitive habitats and taxpayer-funded subsidies for public lands grazing should be discontinued.
Cattle production is rooted in injustice.
From colonial days to corporate meatpacking, cattle operations are rooted in injustice and graze the stolen lands of Indigenous peoples. The beef industry is heavily subsidized, consolidated and powerful. Most beef comes from just four companies, and meatpacking is one of the most dangerous jobs in the United States, carried out in some of the worst conditions and providing the least amount of pay.
Shifting toward a more just and sustainable food system will include, among other things, a lot less beef. Beef prices will rise to reflect the realities of production, as the national diet shifts toward more sustainable and equitable systems of plant-forward agriculture. It is vital to address injustices of land ownership and access to healthy, sustainable food, and the ability to grow it — thus putting beef issues at the intersection of environmental and social justice.
Without significant beef reduction, “regenerative beef” isn’t a viable solution.
The Center does not advocate for abolishing meat or “banning” beef. However, alternative methods of production like regenerative beef represent only a fraction of the market, are poorly regulated, and aren't feasible without substantial reduction due to their outsized requirement for land use and conversion, along with the devastating impact of cattle grazing on wildlife.
Promotion of regenerative beef actively misdirects public attention from the urgent need to drastically reduce meat and dairy production. [Read The Problem with Regenerative Beef and Visit GrazingFacts.com.]
That’s because claims about environmental benefits from regenerative beef are more marketing than science. While some operations have observed better environmental outcomes through regenerative practices, they were regionally specific, with low stocking rates, and couldn’t be scaled. Regenerative grazing benefits also come with tradeoffs such as using more land, causing more harm to wildlife, and emitting more methane.
Trying to meet current U.S. beef demand by switching to grazing-only systems would require a significantincrease in the number of grazing cattle at a time when we urgently need less cattle and less emissions. More cattle on the land would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, habitat loss, and wildlife conflicts.
The United States simply does not have the land available. To switch to a grazing-based system, studies show U.S. production and consumption would need to be chopped by at least 70%. In other words, we’d need to eat and produce far less beef. Another way of thinking about this is that an all-grazing system, even a regenerative one, would mean putting cows on most land in the country.
Our vision for food systems is one that is just and sustainable. In a sustainable food system, small herds could be part of well-managed, diversified farming. By emphasizing a substantial reduction in beef, we can create a food system where realistically scaled, improved grazing practices can support healthier diets, food sovereignty (the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sustainable methods), food security, and reduce harm to biodiversity.
FAQs
Q: Why is cattle production particularly harmful to the environment?
A: Livestock production has been identified as the single biggest factor in species endangerment and has a significant impact on biodiversity. For example, in the United States grazing is a key source of the endangerment of 22% federally listed species — almost equal to logging (12%) and mining (11%) combined. Livestock grazing is especially harmful to plant species, affecting 33% of endangered plants. More than 175 species listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act are affected by livestock production.
Cattle production is responsible for 65% of animal agriculture emissions. As the largest source of agricultural land use, water use, and deforestation and the largest driver of global habitat loss, the industry worsens the impacts of the climate crisis and undermines adaptation. Cattle are a top source of domestic methane emissions, according to the EPA’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory. Methane emissions are more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. Despite a wide call from scientific bodies to pay more attention to methane emissions to avert catastrophic climate change, and a recent study indicating the EPA is undercounting domestic methane, U.S. policymakers continue to downplay methane broadly, including from beef. [Read more: Cattle & Climate Change Factsheet.]
Q: Does cattle grazing help sequester carbon?
A: Even in a best-case scenario, cattle grazing results in a net increase in greenhouse gasses. Cattle grazing cannot offset its own emissions. Even with carbon sequestration, the tradeoff is an increase in methane emissions. The ability to sequester carbon varies greatly in different ecosystems and microclimates and is temporary. Soil carbon in topsoil is easily lost during drought and when land is converted. Also, there are far greater benefits to conserving native ecosystems or rewilding pastureland than relying on cattle for sequestration. Carbon sequestration is best found in grasslands and forests with sparse grazing from native herbivores. Grassland ecosystems are better suited to a rewilding and return of native species with naturally evolved foraging and grazing systems than nonnative cattle. [Read more: Cattle and Climate Change Factsheet]. Of course emissions are just one concern from the powerful environmental impacts of grazing, along with biodiversity impacts.
Q: Aren’t methane emissions from cattle small and temporary?
A: Animal agriculture contributes up to one-third of human caused methane emissions, (mostly from cattle). Methane, a greenhouse gas more than 80 times as potent as CO2 over a 20 year period, will continue to warm the planet as long as cattle are grazing it. The cattle industry is always trying to expand, so herd sizes do not stay constant, and there’s an urgent need to reduce, not maintain, methane over the next decade to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Reducing methane emissions in the Global North is the key issue for meeting emissions targets. [Read more: Cattle and Climate Change Factsheet]
Q: Do cattle fulfill the ecological role caused by the demise of native grazers (like bison) that have been eradicated?
A: Cattle have different impacts on landscapes than native grazers.
Even in the limited scenarios where grazing can be beneficial to native plants, nonnative cattle cause more harm than good since they graze vegetation differently than native species. Cattle are not viable replacements for herds of displaced or eradicated bison, elk, and other herbivores that graze grasslands.
Cattle production degrades riparian habitats, replaces native wildflowers with invasive weeds, adds fences to landscapes and disrupts natural migratory cycles. 22% of all US-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species are impacted by habitat degradation or destruction resulting from livestock grazing. [Read more: A Guide to the Impact of Beef on Wildlife and Biodiversity]
Wild herbivores are managed by natural predators in regular life cycles that provide important nutrients for ecosystems. The biomass of these native ungulates stays on the land to regenerate. These natural cycles of life maintain herd size and health for wild species and ecosystems. Despite the claims of regenerative grazing, for example, cattle production actually removes one of the most crucial potential nutrient-sources of regeneration: the cattle. To produce meat and dairy, domesticated cattle are removed from the landscape for slaughter, eliminating the last stage in the cycle where scavengers and insects recycle nutrients into the ecosystem.
Q: Can’t good grazing systems coexist with wildlife?
A: Grazing cattle is a leading threat to biodiversity.
The ecological costs of livestock grazing exceed that of any other western land use. In the arid Southwest, livestock grazing is the most widespread source of wildlife endangerment. By destroying vegetation and damaging habitats with trampling and fecal contamination, grazing wreaks havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike, causing significant harm to native species and the ecosystems on which they depend. After decades of grazing, riparian areas have been reduced to wastelands; topsoil turned to dust, causing erosion, sedimentation and elimination of aquatic habitats. Meanwhile, not only is cattle grazing a leading threat to numerous forms of endangered and imperiled wildlife, including carnivores, but research has shown removing cattle from riparian areas creates significant ecological restoration. [Read more: A Guide to the Impact of Beef on Wildlife and Biodiversity]
Q: Aren’t cattle efficient producers of protein, turning forage into food people can eat?
A: Cattle production is not an efficient source of protein.
More than half of the world’s agricultural land, and more than half of U.S. agricultural land, is used for meat and dairy production. Twice as much land is used for grazing as for growing crops. Yet globally, grazed animals produce only a fraction of the total protein consumed per person per day. We obtain little food at great environmental cost by relying on livestock.
While the Center does not support factory farmed animal agriculture, cattle grazing is even worse in terms of feed conversion efficiency than industrial models. Plant-based food systems, designed to produce plants for human consumption, use far less land, less water, and create fewer greenhouse gases to produce nutritious food.
Q: Isn’t it the how — not the cow?
A: It’s the cow, the how, and the how many.
In a sustainable, just, and resilient food system, with meat consumption at a fraction of current rates, small herds could be one part of well-managed, diversified food production. However, while there are better and worse ways of grazing livestock, the notion that cattle can be less environmentally damaging to the planet without substantial reductions in both production and consumption is a myth.
While there are better and worse ways of grazing livestock, the fact is that most grazing is harmful. Even the best-managed systems require individual operations to size down. With significant reduction in production and consumption of beef and dairy, limited well-managed operations can be a part of our food system. But this only further emphasizes the fact that the best way to make cattle less impactful on the planet is to produce far, far less of them.
Additional Resources
Contacts:
Jennifer Molidor - Population and Sustainability Senior Food Campaigner: [email protected].
