A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has revealed that grass-fed beef does not significantly reduce carbon emissions compared to beef produced in industrial feedlots. The research suggests that even under the most favorable conditions, grass-fed cattle contribute comparable levels of planet-warming emissions. This conclusion challenges the perception that grass-fed beef is a more sustainable option. Despite this finding, some experts argue that grass-fed beef still holds advantages in terms of animal welfare and localized environmental benefits. The study emphasizes the need for consumers to reconsider the environmental impact of their food choices, particularly given the increasing global demand for beef. Researchers highlighted concerns that beef production in regions like South America often leads to deforestation, further contributing to carbon emissions.

The study’s results indicate that grass-fed cattle require more time and resources to reach slaughter weight, making the production process less efficient. Grass-fed cattle grow more slowly and remain smaller than their industrial counterparts, meaning more animals are needed to produce the same volume of meat. Researchers employed numerical modeling to analyze emission levels across the beef production process, considering methane output, carbon dioxide emissions, and overall meat yield. Although some scientists have suggested that grass-fed cattle may enhance carbon sequestration in pastures, the study found that this benefit does not offset the increased emissions. Experts continue to debate the trade-offs between reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable agricultural practices that prioritize biodiversity, soil health, and water quality.