Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Grass-fed beef; Carbon footprint; Livestock farming; Climate change; Methane emissions; Regenerative grazing

Introduction

The livestock industry is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with beef production being one of the primary sources of methane (CH₄) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). Conventional grain-fed beef systems, which rely on feedlot operations, have been criticized for their high environmental impact due to deforestation, feed production emissions, and waste management challenges [1]. As concerns about climate change and sustainability grow, grass-fed beef has emerged as a potential alternative that may reduce the carbon footprint of livestock farming. Grass-fed beef production utilizes natural grazing systems, allowing cattle to consume forage-based diets rather than grain-based feed. This approach has several environmental benefits, including improved soil health, enhanced carbon sequestration, and increased biodiversity. Regenerative grazing techniques, such as rotational grazing and silvopastoral systems, further optimize land use while reducing methane emissions per unit of land. Additionally, well-managed pastures can serve as carbon sinks, offsetting emissions associated with cattle production [2].

Despite these advantages, challenges remain in adopting grass-fed systems at a large scale. Longer production cycles, land use constraints, and market accessibility pose economic and logistical concerns. Moreover, the actual climate impact of grass-fed versus grain-fed beef depends on various factors, including grazing practices, regional ecosystems, and methane mitigation strategies. This review explores the role of grass-fed beef in reducing the carbon footprint of livestock farming. It examines the environmental benefits and challenges associated with this production system while considering economic feasibility and policy implications. By understanding the sustainability potential of grass-fed beef, stakeholders can make informed decisions to promote climate-friendly livestock practices [3].

Discussion

The potential of grass-fed beef to mitigate climate change has been widely debated, with proponents highlighting its environmental benefits and critics pointing to its challenges in large-scale sustainability. This section examines the key aspects of grass-fed beef production, including its impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil health, biodiversity, land use efficiency, and economic viability [4].

One of the main arguments for grass-fed beef as a sustainable alternative is its role in reducing GHG emissions, particularly through soil carbon sequestration. Well-managed grazing systems, such as rotational and regenerative grazing, can enhance soil organic matter, effectively storing atmospheric carbon in pastures. This process helps offset methane emissions from cattle digestion, which are typically higher in grass-fed systems due to longer production cycles [5]. However, the extent of carbon sequestration depends on factors such as soil type, climate, and grazing intensity. While some studies indicate that well-maintained grasslands can become net carbon sinks, others suggest that the sequestration potential may not fully compensate for methane emissions over the animal’s lifetime.

Grass-fed beef production supports improved soil health by reducing soil erosion, enhancing water retention, and promoting microbial diversity. Compared to feedlot operations, where confined animal waste management can lead to soil and water pollution, pasture-based systems distribute nutrients more evenly across the land. Furthermore, regenerative grazing techniques contribute to the restoration of degraded lands, increasing the land’s long-term productivity and resilience to climate variability. These benefits align with sustainable agriculture goals, ensuring that pasture-based livestock systems can continue to function effectively under changing environmental conditions [6].

A key advantage of grass-fed beef systems is their potential to maintain or enhance biodiversity. Unlike intensive feedlot systems that rely on monoculture crops for feed production, pasture-based systems support a diverse range of plant species, pollinators, and wildlife [7]. Silvopastoral systems, which integrate trees and livestock, further enhance habitat diversity while improving carbon sequestration and reducing heat stress in animals. However, grass-fed systems require more land per unit of meat produced compared to feedlot operations, raising concerns about land use efficiency. Expanding pasture-based production without sustainable land management strategies could contribute to deforestation and habitat loss, negating its environmental benefits [8].

While grass-fed beef offers environmental advantages, its economic feasibility remains a challenge. Grass-fed cattle typically have slower growth rates, requiring more time to reach market weight compared to grain-fed cattle. This extended production cycle increases costs for farmers and results in higher retail prices for consumers. Additionally, supply chain limitations, inconsistent product quality, and limited consumer awareness can hinder market expansion. Addressing these challenges requires policy support, consumer education, and investment in infrastructure to make grass-fed beef more competitive and accessible [9]. The sustainability of grass-fed beef production depends on supportive policies that incentivize regenerative agriculture and carbon-friendly grazing practices. Governments and industry stakeholders can promote research into methane-reducing strategies, such as dietary supplements and selective breeding for low-methane cattle. Additionally, carbon credit programs that reward farmers for soil carbon sequestration can enhance the economic viability of pasture-based systems. Future efforts should focus on integrating grass-fed beef into broader climate change mitigation strategies while ensuring food security and economic sustainability [10].

Conclusion

Grass-fed beef presents a viable approach to reducing the carbon footprint of livestock farming, particularly when managed with regenerative grazing techniques. Its benefits include improved soil health, increased biodiversity, and enhanced carbon sequestration, but challenges such as land use efficiency, methane emissions, and economic feasibility must be addressed. By implementing science-based policies and sustainable land management strategies, grass-fed beef can contribute to a more climate-resilient livestock industry while balancing environmental and economic priorities.

References

1. Melaku T (2011) Oxidization versus Tractorization: Options and Constraints for Ethiopian Framing System. Int J Sustainable Agric 3: 11-20.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

2. World Bank (2017) International Development Association: Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 121.1 Million (US$ 170 Million Equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Livestock and Fisheries Sector Development Project (Project Appraisal Document No. PAD2396). Washington DC.
3. FAO (2014) OECD, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, Agricultural Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing FAO.
4. Belay G, Negesse T (2019) Livestock Feed Dry Matter Availability and Utilization in Burie Zuria District, North Western Ethiopia. Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems 22: 55–70.

Google Scholar

5. Management Entity (2021) Ethiopia’s Livestock Systems: Overview and Areas of Inquiry. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems.
6. Azage T (2004) Urban livestock production and gender in Addis Ababa. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Urban Agric Mag 12:3.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

7. Balehey S, Tesfay G, Balehegn M (2018) Traditional gender inequalities limit pastoral women’s opportunities for adaptation to climate change: Evidence from the Afar pastoralists of Ethiopia. Pastoralism 8. 

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Emama B, Mohammed H, Mohammed S (2015) A situational analysis of agricultural  production  and  marketing,  and  natural  resource  management  systems in the Ethiopian highlands. ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Google Scholar

9. Environmental Policy Review (EPR) (2011) Livestock Production Systems and their Environmental Implications in Ethiopia.

Google Scholar

10. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2019) FAOSTAT database.