Want to save the world? Start by eating less beef

December 5, 2017 by Sarah Fecht, Earth Institute, Columbia University, Earth Institute, Columbia University
If Americans halved their meat consumption, all our beef could theoretically be raised on pastures instead of factory farms. Credit: Martin Abegglen

Cows are like the Humvees of the animal world; they're not very efficient, at least when it comes to producing food for humans. A hectare of land that would be able to grow 1,500 or 2,000 pounds of protein from peanuts or soybeans per year can only support about about 82 pounds of beef protein. That's because compared to other animals we use for food, cows are a lot bigger and slower-growing, so they need to take in more calories before they're ready to be eaten. They also consume a lot of water, produce an overwhelming amount of manure that can choke lakes and streams, and generate a significant portion of our nation's climate-changing carbon emissions.

Yet not everyone who wants to live an environmentally conscious lifestyle can or wants to give up beef. That's one of the reasons Maureen Raymo, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, got together with her colleagues to imagine what a more sustainable beef industry might look like. The resulting study, published today in Nature Ecology & Evolution, estimates that switching from today's factory farm model to pasture-raised cows could support nearly half of America's current beef consumption. At the same time, it would dramatically reduce water use and carbon emissions, while feeding more people.

Greener Pastures

As a paleoclimatologist, Raymo normally studies things like ancient sea level rise. But several years ago she heard a talk by Bard College environmental scientist Gideon Eshel (the lead author on the new study), and was struck by beef's huge impact on the environment. Later, while overseeing a sustainability project by students at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Raymo suggested researching beef's effect on climate. Eshel joined the group, and eventually one of the projects grew into today's paper, with two of the SIPA students as co-authors.

The group initially wanted to know what would happen if ranchers raised their cows on pasture land, locally baled hay and food byproducts (such as carrot tops and leftover grains from alcohol distillation) instead of the crowded farms popular today. How much beef could such a system support?

"We had no idea what that number would be," says Raymo. "I thought it would be something like maybe 5 to 10 percent of the beef in the country could be grown that way." But the real number turned out to be much higher. Their calculations found that America already has enough pasture land to support up to 45 percent of the cattle raised for food today.

Since those cows would roam around eating grass, this hypothetical system would free up 32 million hectares of land that's currently used to grow food for cows; the land could instead be used to grow food for humans. The team estimates that planting those fields with foods like soy beans, kidney beans, barley, and sweet potatoes could provide up to 20 times more calories and protein than the beef they'd replace. This changeover would reduce the nation's water use by 24 percent (saving 27 billion square meters of water per year) and slash fertilizer use by 28 percent. It would cut by two-thirds, saving approximately 590 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from entering Earth's atmosphere each year.

Want to save the world? Start by eating less beef
The crowded living conditions of most modern cattle farms necessitate food to be grown elsewhere and shipped in, which increases beef’s impact on the environment. Credit: Michael Zimmer

But if you're not into eating plant-based proteins, those croplands could alternately be used to support four times as many pork and chicken calories, producing three and five times as much protein, respectively, than the beef they'd replace.

None of the scenarios gets rid of all of the negatives that come along with beef and agriculture in general, says Raymo, "but you get rid of a lot of the environmental impacts."

"Sustainable" Beef?

The study isn't perfect, as the authors readily admit. They've defined "sustainable beef" as meat that's raised primarily on pasture, but in fact, the exact definition of a "sustainable" beef industry is much debated. Eshel agrees that the paper's definition is limited—it doesn't include social values, such as considerations for how Native Americans might prefer to use the land that's freed up in the model, or things like biodiversity and ecosystem health.

Transitioning to a model where all beef is raised on pasture land is also much easier said than done. "To me it seems deeply socially unsustainable," says Eshel, pointing out that genuine grass-finished beef can be prohibitively expensive.

In a commentary about the paper, biologist Les Firbank from the University of Leeds said that "enacting such a consensus will be a huge challenge, given how the global market currently puts great pressure on farmers to produce cheap food with less regard to the other domains of sustainability."

Fortunately, cutting back on beef consumption can have environmental benefits no matter what food system we subscribe to. The paper's findings suggest that small changes in our diet—like replacing beef with chicken or beans for one or two meals per week—can add up to a big difference.

"Literally the most impactful thing you can do right away is just cut your consumption in half, or treat it like lobster," says Raymo. "You don't have to become a vegan or a vegetarian. Many people can make a subtle change to their diet that doesn't require a huge cultural shift in how they eat, and it can have a really impactful, positive effect on the environment."

Explore further: Bigger, more intensive dairy farms may also mean bigger milk footprints

More information: Gidon Eshel et al. A model for 'sustainable' US beef production, Nature Ecology & Evolution (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0390-5

Related Stories

How to cook a more sustainable Sunday roast

October 20, 2017

The Sunday roast is an institution for many families across the globe. From Australia to the UK, families come together on a Sunday to share a meal. More often than not, this meal is centred around a joint of roast meat – ...

Recommended for you

Oceans of garbage prompt war on plastics

December 15, 2018

Faced with images of turtles smothered by plastic bags, beaches carpeted with garbage and islands of trash floating in the oceans, environmentalists say the world is waking up to the need to tackle plastic pollution at the ...

A damming trend

December 14, 2018

Hundreds of dams are being proposed for Mekong River basin in Southeast Asia. The negative social and environmental consequences—affecting everything from food security to the environment—greatly outweigh the positive ...

Data from Kilauea suggests the eruption was unprecedented

December 14, 2018

A very large team of researchers from multiple institutions in the U.S. has concluded that the Kilauea volcanic eruption that occurred over this past summer represented an unprecedented volcanic event. In their paper published ...

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

Death near the shoreline, not life on land

December 13, 2018

Our understanding of when the very first animals started living on land is helped by identifying trace fossils—the tracks and trails left by ancient animals—in sedimentary rocks that were deposited on the continents.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Big problem with this sort of article is the assumption that land is better at producing veggies than meat. The reality is much of the land is not conducive to cropping but is excellent for pasture because it is hilly, stoney or otherwise not workable for crops. There are land areas that are very good for crops. There are other land areas that are very good for pasture. Additionally, grazed pasture sequesters carbon at a far higher rate than forest, brush or non-grazed land. Not sure against cropped but probably better since cropped lands need intensive fertilizing.
not rated yet Dec 15, 2017
Sustainability needs to be defined holistically, not simplistically as above. As pubwvj states, crops are not automatically interchangeable, corn grown for ethanol & feed ≠ human edible plant food.

A significant amount of ruminant feed is already non-human edible by-products. The paper referenced defines 'sustainable' as basically grassfed with some by-products, ignoring the fact that finishing on feed requires a smaller herd for the same output of beef. They also ignore the role of cattle in buffering grain markets and using distillers grains from the ethanol industry.

To better understand the role of livestock's role in ag systems, read "Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate" by Anne Mottet et al, where you will find that contrary to popular belief, it takes 14% more human edible food to produce 1 kg of monogastric meat than 1kg of ruminant meat.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.