New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences challenges the notion that grass-fed beef is a more climate-friendly option than its feedlot-raised counterpart. The study, which modeled emissions from both grazing and feedlot cattle in the U.S., found that, pound for pound, grazing cattle generate at least as much heat-trapping gas as those raised in feedlots. This revelation has significant implications for the agriculture sector and investors alike.
The study’s findings stem from the fact that grazing cows grow more slowly and yield less meat than their feedlot counterparts. To produce the same amount of beef, ranchers must raise more cows over a longer period, leading to increased emissions per ounce of beef. Even though grass can absorb some emissions, it does not offset the impact of grazing. In fact, emissions from grass-fed beef can be as much as 25 percent higher than from feedlot beef, and several times higher than from other protein sources like eggs, milk, beans, and nuts.
For the agriculture sector, these findings suggest a need to reevaluate the environmental impact of beef production, regardless of the method. The study does not dismiss the potential benefits of grazing, such as reduced pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and more humane treatment of cattle. However, it does highlight the need for more sustainable practices across the board. This could include improving grazing management to maximize carbon sequestration, or investing in technologies that reduce methane emissions from cattle.
Investors, too, should take note. The study underscores the importance of considering environmental factors when investing in the agriculture sector. Companies that prioritize sustainability and innovative practices may be better positioned to weather regulatory changes and shifting consumer preferences. Moreover, investors could look into alternative protein sources, which the study found to have a significantly lower environmental impact.
The study’s lead author, Gidon Eshel of Bard College, suggested that the best option for minimizing climate impact is to reduce beef consumption. This aligns with a growing trend of consumers seeking more plant-based diets, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the agriculture sector and investors. Companies that can adapt to this shift, perhaps by diversifying their product offerings or investing in plant-based alternatives, may find themselves at an advantage.
