Eat beef filled with grass, help the planet? Research says not so simple

For cattle in the fields instead of feedlots, grass can be greenery, but there are no carbon emissions.

A study on Monday in the National Academy of Sciences proceedings shows that even in the most optimistic landscapes, beef filled beef does not produce less planetary-wise carbon emissions than industrial beef. As a more environmentally friendly alternative, grass-oriented questions question the frequent propagation of beef. Nevertheless, other scientists say that grass-fed beefs win over other factors such as animal welfare or local environmental pollution, complicating the option for honest consumers.

“I think there is a large part of the population that really wants their purchasing decisions to reflect their values,” said Gidon Eshel, a research professor in environmental physics at Bard College and one of the authors of the study. “But they are being misled by incorrect information, essentially.”

When it comes to food, beef contributes the most emissions to fuel climate change and is one of the most resources- and land-intensive to produce. Nevertheless, the demand for beef is expected only to increase worldwide. In most parts of the world, where beef production is expanding in most parts of the world, such as South America, it is being done as South America, which will store carbon, which will otherwise store carbon.

Experts say the discovery of this study is understood as it is less efficient to produce grass -filled cattle than their industrial counterparts. Animals that are torn into the fields instead of feedlots grow more slowly and are not as large, so they carry more of the same amount of meat to produce the same amount of meat.

Researchers used a numerical model of emissions generated in the process of increasing beef, then followed many herds of industrial and grass -filled cattle. This compared the difference to eat how much food they would eat, they would emit methane and carbon dioxide and how much meat they would produce. Those differences mirror real -life scenarios; Cattle in dry New Mexico and lush northern Michigan have separate inputs and outputs.

Eshel and his team also analyzed previous studies in which the cattle grazing had promoted how much carbon storage had promoted, but it was found that even in the best-case scenarios, the amount of carbon that could exceed the grass, which could not exceed the grass, was not made for the emission of cattle.

Randy Jackson, Professor at Grassland Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,, who was not involved in the study, said that he has found similar results in his own research, showing that there is a similar demand in high emissions in grasses. In fact, the Isal team cited his work. But he worries that the study focuses on much less, “without worrying for environmental effects beyond the GHG load in the atmosphere,” like biodiversity and soil and water quality, he has written in an email.

The American Grassfed Association, a non-profit membership group for grass-filled livestock producers, did not immediately give a comment on the study.

Jennifer Schmidt, who study the stability of American agricultural supply chains at the University of Minnesota and was not involved in the study, said that he feels that the paper “Helps us a little closer to answer the question of how much beef should we have on the protein of the landscape vs. plant,” he said.

Schmid said that perhaps if beef was scales back on a large scale and if farmers can free more cropland for other foods that humans eat, the local environmental benefits of grass -filled cattle can create for the fact that they come with high emissions.

However, it will be difficult to explain to Eshel. He thinks that climate change is “not another” when it comes to global problems and should be preferred in this way.

“I have a difficult time imagination, even, a situation in which this environment, really intelligent, would prove to be wise, really beneficial, to increase beef,” Eshel said.

For consumers who really want to be environmentally aware, he said, “Do not make beef a habit.”

X @Mellinawalling and bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social follow the melina waling.

Associated press’ climate and environmental coverage provide financial assistance from many private foundations. AP is completely responsible for all materials. Find out the standards of AP to work with philanthropists, a list of supporters and coverage field funded on AP.org.