The Deploy Grass-Finished Beef solution involves raising cattle entirely on pasture for their full lives, as opposed to grain-finished beef, where cattle spend the final four to six months in feedlots prior to slaughter. Grass-finished beef has higher GHG emissions than grain-finished due to slower growth and forage diets, which increase enteric methane emissions per unit of beef and requires substantially more land for what is already the most resource-intensive food option available. Interest in grass-finished systems reflects efforts to reduce feed crop use, gain modest nutritional improvements, and reduce antimicrobial use. However, maintaining the current beef supply with grass-finished systems would require more cattle, far more land, and result in higher GHG emissions. Therefore, Deploy Grass-Finished Beef is “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
Based on our analysis, grass-finished beef production has higher emissions of enteric methane and emissions from land use conversion than does conventional beef production, and would increase risks of biodiversity loss if scaled to meet current demand. Therefore, it is "Not Recommended" as a climate solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | No |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | No |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | ? |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
Grass-finished beef production involves raising cattle exclusively on available pasture for their entire lives, eliminating the need for feed crops and associated resources. All cattle begin life on pasture; however, in conventional beef production, the animals spend their final four to six months in high-density feedlots, often called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In these systems, cattle are fed high-calorie, mostly grain-based-energy feeds to gain weight quickly.The animals put on one-third to one-half of their total weight during this time, to reach slaughter weight by ~18 months. In contrast, grass-finished beef production requires ~24 to 28 months for animals to reach market weight on forage alone.
Cattle raised entirely on grazing with no other feed inputs provide only about 1% of global protein. Using broader definitions of grass-finished that allow supplementary forage increases the global beef that would qualify to roughly one-third of global production (about 2–3% of global protein). Grass-fed cattle often receive supplementary feed in pasture-based systems in places such as Brazil, Ireland, and Australia, particularly during seasonal feed shortages.
Deploying grass-finished beef is not an effective climate mitigation strategy. Grass-finished cattle eat a more fibrous diet that produces higher methane emissions per unit of energy intake, and they take longer to reach market weight, resulting in higher lifetime methane emissions per animal. One widely cited study found that forage-fed cattle produce around four times more methane per unit of digestible energy intake than those fed corn- and grain-based diets. In addition, slower weight gain and longer production time require more grazing land, which would likely increase emissions from deforestation and other land use change. Life-cycle assessments consistently show higher emissions per kilogram for grass-finished beef than for grain-finished beef. Even the most efficient grass-finished systems produce 10–25% more emissions per kilogram of protein than grain-finished U.S. beef, and three to over 40 times more than a wide range of plant and animal protein alternatives.
Interest in grass-finished beef reflects a broader effort to reduce the environmental harms of industrial livestock systems and improve land stewardship. In limited local contexts, if grass-finished and feedlot grain–finished cattle could gain weight equally, this could alleviate the need for crops destined for feedlot. A recent estimate found that, globally, 34% of crops grown on recently converted natural ecosystems went to animal feed instead of feeding people directly. While grass-finished beef has a higher total water use, it can reduce water risk by shifting from irrigated feed crops for cattle feedlots to rain-fed pastures.
From a human health standpoint, grass-finished beef may contain slightly higher omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E, but the differences are small and unlikely to meaningfully affect health outcomes. It is often slightly leaner, which can reduce total fat and saturated fat somewhat, but beef in general remains higher in fat than most food options, which increases the risk of heart disease. Within the broader category of red meat, it is still a Group 2A probable carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization.
Another human health consideration is that grass finishing requires less antimicrobial use. Antibiotics and other antimicrobials are often used in large quantities in confined livestock systems, and cattle account for over half of antimicrobial use among cattle, chickens, and pigs. This use increased by 43% between 2010 and 2020, raising concerns about accelerating antimicrobial resistance and reducing the effectiveness of infection treatments in humans. This may be the strongest case for grass-finished beef, particularly within a global demand reduction scenario.
From an animal welfare perspective, pasture-based systems allow natural behaviors such as walking, socializing, and grazing freely. However, animals are still slaughtered at a young age (before 3 years old) relative to their natural lifespan of 20 years.
Beef production is already the largest single land use globally and the most emissions-intensive food option. Shifting to grass-finished systems would further increase this footprint. Beef is inherently protein-inefficient, requiring large amounts of feed and land. While grass-finished systems were historically the norm, the rise of grain-finishing feedlots after the 1950s modestly improved efficiency by shortening cattle lifespans and reducing per-kilogram land use. Land is a key limiting factor in any expansion of grass-finished production. In the United States, pastureland could support only approximately 27% of current beef production under grass-finished systems. Maintaining current output would require roughly 30% more cattle and 270% more land and would result in a 43% increase in associated methane emissions.
Such land expansion would pose serious biodiversity loss risks. Animal-sourced foods are the leading driver of biodiversity and habitat loss globally. Ruminant meat is disproportionately responsible, causing extinction risks ~340 times higher than grains by mass and ~100 times higher than legumes both by mass and when adjusted for protein, according to a 2025 study.
Last, many government and commercial “grass-fed” certifications are not well enforced and often include cropland-grown forage, which still results in slower weight gain, more methane emissions, and often land carbon leakage. As a result, there are concerns about greenwashing as major fast-food chains market grass-fed beef as environmentally friendly.
While there will likely continue to be an appeal to consumers to choose grass-finished beef, it does not meaningfully change the environmental reality of producing it.
Ardakani, Z., Aragrande, M., & Canali, M. (2024). Global antimicrobial use in livestock farming: An estimate for cattle, chickens, and pigs. Animal, 18(2), 101060. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.101060
Ball, T. S., Dales, M., Eyres, A., Green, J. M., Madhavapeddy, A., Williams, D. R., & Balmford, A. (2025). Food impacts on species extinction risks can vary by three orders of magnitude. Nature Food, 6(9), 848–856. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01224-w
Blaustein-Rejto, D., Soltis, N., & Blomqvist, L. (2023). Carbon opportunity cost increases carbon footprint advantage of grain-finished beef. PLOS ONE, 18(12), e0295035. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295035
Capper, J. L. (2011). The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 89(12), 4249–4261. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784
Clark, M. A., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Shaket, T., Cotler, B. D., Gilutz, S., Giddings, D., Raymo, M. E., & Milo, R. (2018). A model for “sustainable” US beef production. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(1), 81–85. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0390-5
Eshel, G., Flamholz, A. I., Shepon, A., & Milo, R. (2025). US grass-fed beef is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and ≈10-fold more intensive than common protein-dense alternatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(12), e2404329122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2404329122
Feigin, S. V., Wiebers, D. O., Blumstein, D. T., Knight, A., Eshel, G., Lueddeke, G., & Winkler, A. S. (2025). Solving climate change requires changing our food systems. Oxford Open Climate Change, 5(1), kgae024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgae024
Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I. J. M., van Zanten, H., Herrero, M., Schader, C., van Middelaar, C., & Thornton, P. (2017). Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question. Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford. Link to source: https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
Harper, L. A., Denmead, O. T., Freney, J. R., & Byers, F. M. (1999). Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 77(6), 1392–1401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7761392x
Hayek, M. N., & Garrett, R. D. (2018). Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environmental Research Letters, 13(8), 084005. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
Hayek, M. (2022). Missing the grassland for the cows: Scaling grass‐finished beef production entails tradeoffs–Comment on “Grazed perennial grasslands can match current beef production while contributing to climate mitigation and adaptation.” Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 7(2). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20073
International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2018). Red meat and processed meat (IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans, Vol. 114). World Health Organization. Link to source: https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Red-Meat-And-Processed-Meat-2018
Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Smid, A. M. C., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. (2020). The influence of different types of outdoor access on dairy cattle behavior. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00257
Sun, Z., Behrens, P., Tukker, A., Bruckner, M., & Scherer, L. (2022). Global human consumption threatens key biodiversity areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(12), 9003–9014. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00506
Improving aquaculture involves reducing CO₂ and other GHG emissions during the production of farmed fish and other aquatic animals through better feed efficiency and the decarbonization of on-farm energy use. Advantages include reduced demand for feedstocks produced from both wild capture fisheries and terrestrial sources, which benefits marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Disadvantages include the costs of transitioning to fossil-free energy sources. While these interventions are unlikely to lead to globally meaningful emissions reductions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), we consider Improve Aquaculture as “Worthwhile” given the rapid and ongoing expansion of the industry, its potential to replace higher-emission protein sources, and the ecosystem benefits of reducing feedstock demand.
While Improve Aquaculture is unlikely to have a major climate impact, our assessment concludes that it is “Worthwhile” due to its ability to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and terrestrial biomass, and because efficiency improvements made now are likely to scale into greater climate impact as the sector continues to expand.
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | ? |
GHG emissions from aquaculture can be reduced by increasing the feed conversion efficiency of the cultured animals and decarbonizing on-farm energy use. Aquaculture – farming aquatic animals or plants for food or other purposes – is rapidly growing and now accounts for over half of the global production of aquatic animals, exceeding wild capture fisheries. Over 7% of human-consumed protein is aquaculture-produced. As this sector has grown, it has become increasingly reliant on external feed sources, with the share of non-fed aquaculture (e.g., bivalves that feed from the water column) dropping from nearly 40% in 2000 to 27% in 2022. Improving feed conversion ratios (FCR) – the amount of feed it takes to produce a given amount of biomass – can lower feed demand and reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions tied to feed production and transport. FCRs can be improved by feed formulations that increase digestibility, genetic or breeding modifications to improve digestive efficiency in the cultured animal, species-specific feed formulations, and optimizing ration size and feeding frequency. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use can help reduce CO₂ emissions from common equipment, such as aerators and water pumps.
Interventions to improve feed and energy efficiency can reduce CO₂ emissions from aquaculture operations, although the potential achievable climate impact of these actions is currently unlikely to be globally meaningful (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Total annual emissions from aquaculture were estimated to be 0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in 2017, with nearly 60% of that attributed to feed production. Improving FCR is both plausible and effective, since it directly reduces the amount of food needed to cultivate fish and other species, thereby lowering emissions tied to feed production and transport. Between 1995 and 2007, improvements in FCR have ranged between 5 to 15% for a variety of species, including shrimp, salmon, carp, and tilapia.
Decarbonizing on-farm energy use can reduce equipment-related emissions, particularly in intensive systems that use energy for automated feeding systems, water temperature control, and circulation and aeration systems. In general, the potential impact of decarbonizing varies widely because on-farm energy use differs significantly across species and production systems. For instance, shrimp and prawn farming use nearly 20,000 MJ/t of live weight (LW), with over 75% from electricity, while bivalve production uses around 3,000 MJ/t of LW supplied largely by diesel.
Improving feed efficiency in aquaculture reduces demand for captured wild fish used in feed, reducing pressure on overfished stocks. It also lowers reliance on terrestrial biomass, such as soy, wheat, and rice, which come with additional land-use and emission costs. More efficient feeding can help reduce nutrient pollution, which can be responsible for high methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in some inland aquaculture systems. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use might ultimately lead to lower long-term operating costs and improved energy reliability.
There are relatively few drawbacks associated with improving aquaculture. In the case of decarbonizing on-farm energy use, upfront costs could be high. For instance, installing solar panels or upgrading pumps can be financially challenging for small-scale operations. Energy use on farms can also vary throughout the day and night, which might not always align with renewable energy sources, like solar, without storage. While this solution focuses on reducing GHG emissions from existing aquaculture practices, it is important to recognize that aquaculture can be environmentally harmful and that impacts vary widely depending on how it is done, where it occurs, and which species are being cultivated.
Badiola, M., Basurko, O. C., Piedrahita, R., Hundley, P., & Mendiola, D. (2018). Energy use in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS): a review. Aquacultural Engineering, 81, 57-70. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.03.003
Boyd, C. E., McNevin, A. A., & Davis, R. P. (2022). The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to the global protein supply. Food Security, 14(3), 805-827, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01246-9
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i9540en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd0683en
Henriksson, P. J. G., Troell, M., Banks, L. K., Belton, B., Beveridge, M. C. M., Klinger, D. H., ... & Tran, N. (2021). Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security. One Earth, 4(9), 1220–1232. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.009
Jones, A. R., Alleway, H. K., McAfee, D., Reis-Santos, P., Theuerkauf, S. J., & Jones, R. C. (2022). Climate-friendly seafood: the potential for emissions reduction and carbon capture in marine aquaculture. BioScience, 72(2), 123–143. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab126
MacLeod, M. J., Hasan, M. R., Robb, D. H., & Mamun-Ur-Rashid, M. (2020). Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11679. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68231-8
Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., ... & Nichols, P. D. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), 15103–15110. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905235106
Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Buschmann, A. H., Bush, S. R., Cao, L., Klinger, D. H., ... & Troell, M. (2021). A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature, 591(7851), 551–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6
Scroggins, R. E., Fry, J. P., Brown, M. T., Neff, R. A., Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., & Love, D. C. (2022). Renewable energy in fisheries and aquaculture: Case studies from the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 376, 134153. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134153
Shen, L., Wu, L., Wei, W., Yang, Y., MacLeod, M. J., Lin, J., ... & Zhuang, M. (2024). Marine aquaculture can deliver 40% lower carbon footprints than freshwater aquaculture based on feed, energy and biogeochemical cycles. Nature Food, 5(7), 615–624. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01004-y
Stentiford, G. D., Bateman, I. J., Hinchliffe, S. J., Bass, D. 1., Hartnell, R., Santos, E. M., ... & Tyler, C. R. (2020). Sustainable aquaculture through the One Health lens. Nature Food, 1(8), 468–474. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0127-5
Tacon, A. G., & Metian, M. (2008). Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285(1-4), 146–158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015
Vo, T. T. E., Ko, H., Huh, J. H., & Park, N. (2021). Overview of solar energy for aquaculture: The potential and future trends. Energies, 14(21), 6923. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14216923
Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Jin, J., Zhu, X., Han, D., & Xie, S. (2024). Towards a low-carbon footprint: Current status and prospects for aquaculture. Water Biology and Security, 3(4), 100290. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2024.100290
Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, vertically stacking multiple layers of plants and providing controlled conditions using artificial light, indoor heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and advanced automation systems. In theory, vertical farms could reduce the need to clear more agricultural land and the distance food travels to market. However, because vertical farms are so energy and material intensive, and food transportation emissions are a small fraction of the overall carbon footprint of food, vertical farms do not reduce emissions overall. We conclude that vertical farms are “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
Based on our analysis, vertical farms are not an effective climate solution. The tremendous energy use and embodied emissions of vertical farm operations outweigh any potential savings of reducing food miles or land expansion. Moreover, the ability of vertical farms to truly scale to be a meaningful part of the global food system is extremely limited. We therefore classify this as “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | No |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | No |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, with multiple layers of plants stacked on top of each other, using artificial lights, large heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and complex building automation systems. In principle, vertical farms can dramatically shrink the land “footprint” of agriculture, and this could help reduce the need for agricultural land. Moreover, by growing crops closer to urban centers, vertical farms could potentially reduce “food miles” and the emissions related to food transport.
The technology of growing some kinds of crops – especially greens and herbs – in indoor facilities is well developed, but there is no evidence to show that doing so can reduce GHG emissions compared to growing the same food on traditional farms. Theoretically, vertical farms could reduce emissions associated with agricultural land expansion and food transportation. However, the operation and construction of vertical farms require enormous amounts of energy and materials, all of which cause significant emissions. Vertical farms require artificial lighting (even with efficient LEDs, this is a considerable energy cost), heating, cooling, humidity control, air circulation, and water pumping – all of which require energy. Vertical farms could be powered by renewable sources; however, this is an inefficient method for reducing GHG emissions compared to using that renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. Growing food closer to urban centers also does not meaningfully reduce emissions because emissions from “food miles” are only a small fraction of the life cycle emissions for most farmed foods. Recent research has found that the carbon footprint of lettuce grown in vertical farms can be 5.6 to 16.7 times greater than that of lettuce grown with traditional methods.
While vertical farms are not an effective strategy for reducing emissions, they may have some value for climate resilience and adaptation. Vertical farms offer a protected environment for crop growth and well-managed water use, and they can potentially shield plants from pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Moreover, the controlled environment can be adjusted to adapt to changing climate conditions, helping ensure continuous production and lowering the risks of crop loss.
Vertical farms use enormous amounts of energy and material to grow a limited array of food, all at significant cost. That energy and material have a significant carbon emissions cost, no matter how efficient the technology becomes. On the whole, vertical farms appear to emit far more GHGs than traditional farms do. Moreover, vertical farms are expensive to build and operate, and are unlikely to play a major role in the world’s food system. At present, they are mainly used to grow high-priced greens, vegetables, herbs, and cannabis, which do not address the tremendous pressure points in the global food system to feed the world sustainably. There are also concerns about the future of the vertical farming business. While early efforts were funded by venture capital, vertical farming has struggled to become profitable, putting its future in doubt.
Blom, T. et al.., (2022). The embodied carbon emissions of lettuce production in vertical farming, greenhouse horticulture, and open-field farming in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 377, 134443. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262204015X
Cornell Chronicle, (2014). Indoor urban farms called wasteful, “pie in the sky.” Link to source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/02/indoor-urban-farms-called-wasteful-pie-sky
Cox, S., (2012). The vertical farming scam, Counterpunch. Link to source: https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/11/the-vertical-farming-scam/
Cox, S., (2016). Enough with the vertical farming fantasies: There are still too many unanswered questions about the trendy practice, Salon. Link to source: https://www.salon.com/2016/02/17/enough_with_the_vertical_farming_partner/
Foley, J.A. et al., (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet, Nature. Link to source: http://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
Foley, J.A., (2018). No, vertical farms won’t feed the world, Medium. Link to source: https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0
Hamm, M., (2015). The buzz around indoor farms and artificial lighting makes no sense. The Guardian. Link to source: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/10/indoor-farming-makes-no-economic-environmental-sense
Peters, A., (2023). The vertical farming bubble is finally popping, Fast Company. Link to source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90824702/vertical-farming-failing-profitable-appharvest-aerofarms-bowery
Ritchie, H., (2022). Eating local is still not a good way to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, Sustainability by the numbers. Link to source: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/food-miles
Tabibi, A. (2024). Vertical farms: A tool for climate change adaptation, Green.org. January 30, 2024. Link to source: https://green.org/2024/01/30/vertical-farms-a-tool-for-climate-change-adaptation/
Ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, can be selectively bred for reduced enteric methane production. Some experimental breeding programs have reduced methane production by 4-45% over multiple generations of animals. An advantage of improved ruminant breeding is that it could reduce methane emissions from the majority of ruminants that are managed on pasture or rangelands. However, intentionally breeding ruminants for reduced methane production is in its early stages, and deploying this solution across multiple species and breeds will take decades. Furthermore, reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if ruminant numbers increase, or if it diverts efforts to reduce consumption and waste of ruminant meat and milk products in wealthy countries. As a climate solution, improved ruminant breeding is not yet ready for large-scale deployment, and it will not yield quick results, but it is probably a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”
Based on our analysis, improved ruminant breeding is one of the few promising solutions for reducing enteric methane production from the many millions of ruminants, including those managed on pasture and rangeland. However, it is not a climate solution that will yield quick results, nor is it ready for large-scale deployment at this time. Instead, it should be considered a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | No |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Limited |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | No |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | Yes |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Selective breeding can produce ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, that produce less enteric methane during digestion. Enteric methane represents 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, equivalent to 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Enteric methane is produced by microbes in the digestive system – primarily in the rumen, which is the first stomach compartment – and not by ruminants themselves, but its production is a symptom of inefficient digestion by the animal. Therefore, breeding for more efficient use of food by ruminants can reduce enteric methane emissions, while also potentially increasing meat and milk production.
Selective breeding of ruminants for reduced enteric methane production has been shown to be effective. One 10-year pilot breeding program resulted in a 12% methane reduction in animals born in the last generation. Other studies have reported emissions reductions ranging from 4 to 45 percent. The effect can be cumulative, with greater reductions in enteric methane production with every selected generation of ruminants.
Despite their disproportionate climate impact, ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk could, if broadly adopted, yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). A major advantage of this selective breeding approach is that it is suitable for both confined and grazing ruminants. The vast majority of ruminant animals spend all or part of their lives on pasture or rangeland. In contrast, feed additives, which can also reduce enteric methane production, are only suitable for confined animals. In addition, there is some evidence that this solution could increase the meat and milk productivity of ruminants by capturing energy from feed and forages that would otherwise have been lost as enteric methane.
Breeding ruminants to reduce enteric methane production is not a climate solution that will show quick results. It will require prolonged testing using expensive measurement equipment on thousands of animals and selective breeding for each breed of each ruminant livestock species over many generations. Some researchers say that decade-long breeding programs will be required. Other than a few research projects, however, the current adoption of selective breeding for methane reduction is very low. Furthermore, selective breeding focused only on methane reduction could result in the loss of other desirable traits, such as productivity or adaptation to local conditions and farming systems. It is also possible that reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if, for example, farmers or ranchers increase their herd sizes. Finally, there is the concern that improved ruminant breeding could be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from the importance of reducing consumption of ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.
Arndt, C., Hristov, A. N., Price, W. J., McClelland, S. C., Pelaez, A. M., Cueva, S. F., ... & Yu, Z. (2022). Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(20), e2111294119.
Beauchemin, K. A., Ungerfeld, E. M., Abdalla, A. L., Alvarez, C., Arndt, C., Becquet, P., ... & Kebreab, E. (2022). Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(12), 9297-9326.
Black, J. L., Davison, T. M., & Box, I. (2021). Methane emissions from ruminants in Australia: Mitigation potential and applicability of mitigation strategies. Animals, 11(4), 951.
de Souza Congio, G. F., Bannink, A., Mogollón, O. L. M., Jaurena, G., Gonda, H., Gere, J. I., ... & Hristov, A. N. (2021). Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127693.
FAO (2023) Pathways towards lower emissions: A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. FAO, Rome, 2023.
Kelliher, M., Bogueva, D., & Marinova, D. (2024). Meta-Analysis and Ranking of the Most Effective Methane Reduction Strategies for Australia’s Beef and Dairy Sector. Climate, 12(4), 50.
Króliczewska, B., Pecka-Kiełb, E., & Bujok, J. (2023). Strategies used to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: Controversies and issues. Agriculture, 13(3), 602.
Lassen, J., & Difford, G. F. (2020). Review: Genetic and genomic selection as a methane mitigation strategy in dairy cattle. Animal 14: s473–s483.
Manzanilla-Pech, C. I. V., Stephansen, R. B., Difford, G. F., Løvendahl, P., & Lassen, J. (2022). Selecting for feed efficient cows will help to reduce methane gas emissions. Frontiers in Genetics, 13, 885932.
Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.009
Roques, S., Martinez-Fernandez, G., Ramayo-Caldas, Y., Popova, M., Denman, S., Meale, S. J., & Morgavi, D. P. (2024). Recent advances in enteric methane mitigation and the long road to sustainable ruminant production. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 12(1), 321-343.
Van Eenennaam, A. L. (2024). Addressing the 2050 demand for terrestrial animal source food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2319001121.
Feed additives can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep. Most feed additive compounds are still being researched to determine their efficacy and safety; however, at least one product, 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol), has been shown to be effective, has recently been approved for use in many countries, and has experienced some early adoption. However, because of cost and the need to be administered daily, the use of feed additives is currently limited to confined ruminants in high-income countries and is not feasible for the majority of global ruminant livestock. Based on these limitations and current levels of adoption, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
Based on our analysis, feed additives are a promising technology that could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions. A few, including 3-NOP, are just on the threshold of commercial adoption and may be widely used by confined ruminant producers in the coming years. The current use of feed additives is low, and the effectiveness of most feed additive compounds is not well-documented. Consequently, wide-scale adoption is largely confined to confined livestock in high-income countries. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | No |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | Yes |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
Feed additives are a diverse group of natural and synthetic compounds that, when fed daily, can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, including cattle, sheep, and goats. Enteric methane from livestock is the source of 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, or 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Feed additives reduce enteric methane production by suppressing the activity of microbes in the digestive system. 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) is a synthetic that inhibits an enzyme involved in enteric methane production.
More than 170 different feed additives have been developed and tested so far, but only a few of them have been studied enough to offer predictable outcomes and proper doses. Methane reductions from these well-studied additives typically range from 10-30%. The feed additive 3-NOP, the first compound approved for commercial use, reduces enteric methane by an average of 32.5%. A second feed additive derived from active compounds found in Asparagopsis seaweed has shown promising results in some studies and has recently received regulatory approval in two countries. In addition, because different feed additives use different mechanisms to suppress enteric methane production, it’s possible that multiple additives can be used together to achieve greater methane reductions. The great majority of other additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns.
Ruminants are a major source of methane emissions, yet ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Therefore, any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk is potentially very valuable and, if broadly adopted, could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). The feed additive 3-NOP, first approved for commercial use in two countries in 2021, is now legal in 55 countries. Research on other feed additives is active and generally well-supported with funding from philanthropic and investment sources. Although current use of feed additives is very low, successful research and pilot studies, increasing regulatory approvals, and strong positive interest from the livestock industry suggest that wider-scale adoption of this emissions reduction technology could occur quickly. In addition to potential emissions reduction benefits, some additives offer other benefits such as increased productivity and parasite control.
Because they must be fed daily as a supplement to a concentrated feed, use of feed additives is limited to ruminants managed under confined conditions. Most of the billions of ruminant animals today are raised or managed in extensive grazing or pastoralist systems, often in small herds in remote areas. This makes use of feed additives infeasible, although some research is underway to develop methane-reducing compounds that could be added to water troughs instead of to feed. Feed additives are also costly. Though they may be cost-effective in terms of dollars per ton of CO₂‑eq reduced, the cost of additives themselves would likely be prohibitive for smallholders and pastoralists in low-income countries. These limitations mean that feed additives, as currently under development, are only suitable for a subset of total ruminant livestock – those that are raised in confinement systems in wealthy countries. The great majority of feed additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns. There are also other challenges, including regulatory issues, public acceptance, and effects on livestock and human health. There is also concern that feed additives could be used to divert attention from the importance of reducing ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.
Almeida, A. K., Hegarty, R. S., & Cowie, A. (2021). Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems. Animal Nutrition, 7(4), 1219-1230. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.09.005
Batley, R. J., Chaves, A. V., Johnson, J. B., Naiker, M., Quigley, S. P., Trotter, M. G., & Costa, D. F. (2024). Rapid screening of methane-reducing compounds for deployment in livestock drinking water using in vitro and FTIR-ATR analyses. Methane, 3(4), 533-560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/methane3040030
Canadell, J.G., P.M.S. Monteiro, M.H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P.M. Cox, A.V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P.K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, and K. Zickfeld, 2021: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 673–816. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.007
Foley, J. (2021) To stop climate change, time is as important as tech. February 20, 2021, Medium. Link to source: https://globalecoguy.org/to-stop-climate-change-time-is-as-important-as-tech-1be4beb7094a
Hanson, M. (2024) What can we really expect from Elanco’s new Bovaer®?. Dairy Herd Management, June 24, 2024. Link to source: https://www.dairyherd.com/news/education/what-can-we-really-expect-elancos-new-bovaerr
Herrmann, M. (2023) The rise of the ‘climate friendly’ cow. April 26, 2023, DeSmog. Link to source: https://www.desmog.com/2023/04/26/rise-of-the-climate-friendly-cow/
Hodge, I., Quille, P., & O’Connell, S. (2024). A review of potential feed additives intended for carbon footprint reduction through methane abatement in dairy cattle. Animals, 14(4), 568. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040568
Krogsad, K. (2024) Dairy cow enteric carbon mitigation calculator. Link to source: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdairy.osu.edu%2Fsites%2Fdairy%2Ffiles%2Fimce%2FVideos_and_Software%2FDairy%2520Carbon%2520Return%2520Calculator%25202.0.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Morse, C. (2024a) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in New Zealand. July 22, 2024 Rumin8.com. Link to source: https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-new-zealand/
Morse, C. (2024b) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in Brazil. October 8, 2024 Rumin8.com.
Link to source: https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-brazil/
Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009
Paddision, L. (2023) Bill Gates backs start-up tackling cow burps and farts. CNN.com, January 24, 2023. Link to source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/cows-methane-emissions-seaweed-bill-gates-climate-intl/index.html
Roques, S., Martinez-Fernandez, G., Ramayo-Caldas, Y., Popova, M., Denman, S., Meale, S. J., & Morgavi, D. P. (2024). Recent advances in enteric methane mitigation and the long road to sustainable ruminant production. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 12(1), 321-343. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-021022-024931
We define the Deploy Silvopasture solution as the adoption of agroforestry practices that add trees to grazing land, including planted pastures and natural rangelands. (Note that this solution does NOT include creating forested grazing land by thinning existing forest; this is a form of deforestation and not desirable in terms of climate.) Some silvopastures are open savannas, while others are dense, mature tree plantations. The trees may be planted or managed to naturally regenerate. Some silvopasture systems have been practiced for thousands of years, while others have been recently developed. All provide shade to livestock; in some systems, the trees feed livestock, produce timber or crops for human consumption, or provide other benefits. New adoption is estimated from the 2025 level as a baseline which is therefore set to zero.
In silvopasture systems, trees are planted or allowed to naturally regenerate on existing pasture or rangeland. Tree density is generally less than forest, allowing sunlight through for good forage growth.
Silvopasture has multiple climate impacts, though carbon sequestration is the only one which has been thoroughly studied across all climates and sub-practices.
Silvopasture sequesters carbon in both soil and woody biomass. Carbon sequestration rates are among the highest of any farming system (Toensmeier, 2017). The lifetime accumulation of carbon in both soils and biomass is higher than for managed grazing alone (Montagnini et al., 2019; Nair et al., 2012).
Silvopasture can also reduce GHG emissions, though not in every case. We do not include emissions reductions in this analysis.
Conversion from pasture to silvopasture slightly increases capture and storage of methane in soils (Bentrup and Shi, in press). In addition, in fodder subtypes of silvopasture systems, ruminant livestock consume tree leaves or pods. Many, but not all, of the tree species used in these systems have tannin content that reduces emissions of methane from enteric fermentation (Jacobsen et al., 2019).
Some subtypes of silvopasture reduce nitrous oxide emissions from manure and urine, as grasses and trees capture nitrogen that microbes would otherwise convert to nitrous oxide. There are also reductions to nitrous oxide emissions from soils: 76–95% in temperate silvopastures and 16–89% in tropical-intensive silvopastures (Ansari et al., 2023; Murguietio et al., 2016).
Many silvopasture systems increase productivity of milk and meat. Yield increases can reduce emissions from deforestation by growing more food on existing farmland, but in some cases can actually worsen emissions if farmers clear forests to adopt the profitable practice (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019). The yield impact of silvopasture varies with tree density, climate, system type, and whether the yields of other products (e.g., timber) are counted as well (Rojas et al., 2022).
Ansari, J., Udawatta, R. P., & Anderson, S. H. (2022). Soil nitrous oxide emission from agroforestry, rowcrop, grassland and forests in North America: a review. Agroforestry Systems, 97(8), 1465–1479. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00870-y
Basche, A., Tully, K., Álvarez-Berríos, N. L., Reyes, J., Lengnick, L., Brown, T., Moore, J. M., Schattman, R. E., Johnson, L. K., & Roesch-McNally, G. (2020). Evaluating the untapped potential of US conservation investments to improve soil and environmental health. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 547876. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.547876
Batcheler, M., Smith, M. M., Swanson, M. E., Ostrom, M., & Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2024). Assessing silvopasture management as a strategy to reduce fuel loads and mitigate wildfire risk. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5954. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56104-3
Bentrup, G. & Shi, X. (in press). Multifunctional buffers: Design guidelines for buffers, corridors and greenways. USDA Forest Service.
Bostedt, G., Hörnell, A., & Nyberg, G. (2016). Agroforestry extension and dietary diversity–an analysis of the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption in West Pokot, Kenya. Food Security, 8, 271–284. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0542-x
Briske, D. D., Vetter, S., Coetsee, C., & Turner, M. D. (2024). Rangeland afforestation is not a natural climate solution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2727
Cadavid, Z., & BE, S. T. (2020). Sistemas silvopastoriles: aspectos teóricos y prácticos. CIPAV. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/sdm_downloads/sistemas-silvopastoriles-aspectos-teoricos-y-practicos/
Cardinael, R., Umulisa, V., Toudert, A., Olivier, A., Bockel, L., & Bernoux, M. (2019). Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and biomass carbon storage in agroforestry systems. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 124020. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaeb5f
Chapman, M., Walker, W.S., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W., Farina, M., Griscom, B.W., & Baccani, A. (2019). Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands Global Change Biology, 26(80), 4357–4365. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15121
Chatterjee, N., Nair, P. R., Chakraborty, S., & Nair, V. D. (2018). Changes in soil carbon stocks across the forest-agroforest-agriculture/pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 266, 55–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.014
Damania, Richard; Polasky, Stephen; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Russ, Jason; Amann, Markus; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Gerber, James; Hawthorne, Peter; Heger, Martin Philipp; Mamun, Saleh; Ruta, Giovanni; Schmitt, Rafael; Smith, Jeffrey; Vogl, Adrian; Wagner, Fabian; Zaveri, Esha. (2023). Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. Environment and Sustainable Development series. Washington, DC: World Bank Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/39453
de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L. K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., Hunter, L. M., Twine, W., & Walker, R. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 38–53. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.005
Den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, R. M., Palma, J. H., Sidiropoulou, A., Freijanes, J. J. S., & Burgess, P. J. (2017). Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 241, 121–132. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.005
Di Prima, S., Wright, E. P., Sharma, I. K., Syurina, E., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2022). Implementation and scale-up of nutrition-sensitive agriculture in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of what works, what doesn’t work and why. Global Food Security, 32, 100595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100595
deStefano, A, & Jacobson, M.G. (2018). Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A review. Agroforestry Systems, 92, 285–299. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y
Dudley, N., Eufemia, L., Fleckenstein, M., Periago, M. E., Petersen, I., & Timmers, J. F. (2020). Grasslands and savannahs in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(6), 1313–1317. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13272
Dupraz, C, and Liagre, F.(2011). Agroforesterie: Des Arbres et des Cultures. Editions France Agricole. Link to source: https://agroboutique.com/agroecologie-catalogue/12-agroforesterie-des-arbres-et-des-cultures.html
FAO Statistical Service (2024). FAOStat. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Feliciano, D., Ledo, A., Hillier, J., & Nayak, D. R. (2018). Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions?. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 254, 117–129. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.032
Frelat, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Douxchamps, S., Djurfeldt, A. A., Erenstein, O., Henderson, B., Kassie, M., Paul, B. K., Rigolot, C., Ritzema, R. S., Rodriguez, D., Van Asten, P. J. A., & Van Wijk, M. T. (2016). Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(2), 458–463. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518384112
Garrett, H. E., Kerley, M. S., Ladyman, K. P., Walter, W. D., Godsey, L. D., Van Sambeek, J. W., & Brauer, D. K. (2004). Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. In New Vistas in Agroforestry: A Compendium for 1st World Congress of Agroforestry, 2004 (pp. 21–33). Springer Netherlands. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_2
Goracci, J., & Camilli, F. (2024). Agroforestry and animal husbandry. IntechOpen. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1006711
Government of Colombia (2020). Actualización de la Contribución Determinada a Nivel Nacional de Colombia. Government of Colombia. Link to source: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/NDC%20actualizada%20de%20Colombia.pdf
Greene, H., Kazanski, C. E., Kaufman, J., Steinberg, E., Johnson, K., Cook-Patton, S. C., & Fargione, J. (2023). Silvopasture offers climate change mitigation and profit potential for farmers in the eastern United States. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1158459. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1158459
Hart, D.R.T, Yeo, S, Almaraz, M, Beillouin, D, Cardinael, R, Garcia, E, Kay, S, Lovell, S.T., Rosenstock, T.S., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S, Stolle, F, Suber, M, Thapa, B, Wood, S & Cook-Patton, S.C (2023). “Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution”. Nature Climate Change. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8209212
Husak, A. L., & Grado, S. C. (2002). Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(3), 159–164. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/26.3.159
IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
IPCC AR6 WG3 (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
Jacobsen (2019). Secondary metabolites in leaf hay as a mitigation option for enteric methane production in ruminants. Aarhus University. Link to source: https://pure.au.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/197235590/Secondary_Metabolites_in_Leaf_Hay_as_a_Mitigation_Option_for_Enteric_Methane_Production_in_Ruminants.pdf
Jose, S., & Dollinger, J. (2019). Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry systems, 93, 1-9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8
Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. R., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of soil and water conservation, 73(6), 145A–152A. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A
Lee, S., Bonatti, M, Löhe, K, Palacios, V., Lana, M.A., and Sieber, S (2020). Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral systems in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region. Cogent Environmental Science 6(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632
Lemes, A. P., Garcia, A. R., Pezzopane, J. R. M., Brandão, F. Z., Watanabe, Y. F., Cooke, R. F., Sponchiado, M., Paz, C. C. P., Camplesi, A. C., Binelli, M., & Gimenes, L. U. (2021). Silvopastoral system is an alternative to improve animal welfare and productive performance in meat production systems. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14092. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93609-7
Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2018). Carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. Springer, Cham. Link to source: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-92318-5
Mehrabi, Z., Tong, K., Fortin, J., Stanimirova, R., Friedl, M., & Ramankutty, N. (2024). Global agricultural lands in the year 2015. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2024, 1–44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-279
Montagnini, F (2019). Función de los sistemas agroforestales en la adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático. Sistemas agroforestales: Funciones productivas, socioeconómicas y ambientales, 269-299. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sistemas-agroforestales-funciones-productivas-socioeconomicas-y-ambientales.pdf
Morena, G., & Rolo, V. (2019). Agroforestry practices: Silvopastoralism. In Agroforestry for sustainable agricultura (1st ed.). Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429275500
Murgueitio, E., Uribe, F., Molina, C., Molina, E., Galindo, W., Chará, J., & González, J. (2016). Establecimiento y manejo de sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos con Leucaena. Editorial CIPAV, Cali, Colombia. Link to source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Naranjo-R/publication/310460876_Establecimiento_y_manejo_de_sistemas_silvopastoriles_intensivos_con_leucaena/links/582e30cb08ae138f1c01d8b9/Establecimiento-y-manejo-de-sistemas-silvopastoriles-intensivos-con-leucaena.pdf
Nair, P.K. R. (2012). Climate change mitigation: A low-hanging fruit of agroforestry. Agroforestry: The future of global land use, 31–69. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3_7
Ortiz, J., Neira, P., Panichini, M., Curaqueo, G., Stolpe, N. B., Zagal, E., & Gupta, S. R. (2023). Silvopastoral systems on degraded lands for soil carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa, 207–242. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8_7
Pent, G. J. (2020). Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 94(5), 1741–1758. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00494-6
Pezo, D., Ríos, N., Ibrahim, M., & Gómez, M. (2018). Silvopastoral systems for intensifying cattle production and enhancing forest cover: the case of Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Bank. Link to source: https://www.profor.info/sites/default/files/Silvopastoral%2520systems_Case%2520Study_LEAVES_2018.pdf
Poudel, S., Pent, G., & Fike, J. (2024). Silvopastures: Benefits, past efforts, challenges, and future prospects in the United States. Agronomy, 14(7), 1369. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071369
Quandt, A, Neufeldt, G, & Gorman, K (2023). Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: Opportunities and gaps. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 60, 101244. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101244
Rivera, J. E., Serna, L., Arango, J., Barahona, R., Murgueitio, E., Torres, C. F., & Chará, J. (2023). Silvopastoral systems and their role in climate change mitigation and Nationally Determined Contributions in Latin America. In Silvopastoral systems of Meso America and Northern South America (pp. 25–53). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43063-3_2
Rojas, D, & Rodriguez Anido, N. (2022) Potential of silvopastoral systems for the mitigation of greenhouse gasses generated in the production of bovine meat. In Sistemas silvopastoriles: Hacia una diversificación sostenible. CIPAV. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/sistemas-silvopastoriles-hacia-una-diversificacion-sostenible/
Riset, J.Å., Tømmervik, H. & Forbes, B.C. (2019). Sustainable and resilient reindeer herding. Reindeer Caribou Health Dis, (23–43). Link to source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344787755_Ch13_Sustainable_and_resilient_reindeer_herding
Shelton, M., Dalzell, S., Tomkins, N. and Buck, S. R. (2021). Leucaena: The productive and sustainable forage legume. University of Queensland. Link to source: https://era.dpi.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/9425/
Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Agroforestry systems: Meta‐analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degradation & Development, 29(11), 3886–3897. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136
Smith, M. M., Bentrup, G., Kellerman, T., MacFarland, K., Straight, R., Ameyaw, L., & Stein, S. (2022). Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 326, 107818. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818
Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S. Griscom, B., Griffey, V., Munshi, E., Chapman, M. (2024). Maximizing tree carbon in cropland and grazing lands while sustaining yields. Carbon Balance and Management 19:23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00268-y
Toensmeier, E. (2017). Perennial staple crops and agroforestry for climate change mitigation. Integrating landscapes: Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty, 439-451. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69371-2_18
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. (2025). Conservation Practice Physical Effects [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/conservation-practice-physical-effects
Udawatta, R. P., Walter, D., & Jose, S. (2022). Carbon sequestration by forests and agroforests: A reality check for the United States. Carbon footprints, 1(8). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20517/cf.2022.06
Zeppetello, L. R. V., Cook-Patton, S. C., Parsons, L. A., Wolff, N. H., Kroeger, T., Battisti, D. S., Bettles, J., Spector, J. T., Balakumar, A., & Masuda, Y. J. (2022). Consistent cooling benefits of silvopasture in the tropics. Nature communications, 13(1), 708. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28388-4
Zhu, X., Liu, W., Chen, J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Mao, Z., Yang, X., Cardinael, R., Meng, F.-R., Sidle, R. C., Seitz, S., Nair, V. D., Nanko, K., Zou, X., Chen, C., & Jiang, X. J. (2020). Reductions in water, soil and nutrient losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: A review of evidence and processes. Plant and Soil, 453(1–2), 45–86. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04377-3
Eric Toensmeier
Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Aiyana Bodi
Hannah Henkin
Ted Otte
Paul C. West, Ph.D.
We found a median carbon sequestration rate of 9.81 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1). This is based on an above-ground biomass (tree trunks and branches) accumulation rate of 6.43 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr and a below-ground biomass (roots) accumulation rate of 1.61 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr using a root-to-shoot ratio of 0.25 (Cardinael et al., 2019). These are added to the soil organic carbon sequestration rate of 1.76 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr to create the combined total.
Table 1. Effectiveness at carbon sequestration.
Unit: t CO₂-eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis
| 25th percentile | 4.91 |
| Mean | 14.70 |
| Median (50th percentile) | 9.81 |
| 75th percentile | 20.45 |
100-yr basis
Reductions in nitrous oxide and methane and sustainable intensification impacts are not yet quantifiable to the degree that they can be used in climate mitigation projections.
Because baseline grazing systems are already extensive and well established, we assumed there is no cost to establish new baseline grazing land. In the absence of global data sets on costs and revenues of grazing systems, we used a global average profit per hectare of grazing land of US$6.28 from Damania et al. (2023).
Establishment costs of silvopasture vary widely. We found the cost to establish one hectare of silvopasture to be US$1.06–4,825 (Dupraz & Liagre, 2011; Lee et al., 2011). Reasons for this wide range include the low cost of natural regeneration and the broad range in tree density depending on the type of system. We collected costs by region and used a weighted average to obtain a global net net cost value of US$424.20.
Cost and revenue data for silvopasture were insufficient. However, data on the impact on revenues per hectare are abundant. Our analysis found a median 8.7% increase in per-hectare profits from silvopasture compared with conventional grazing, which we applied to the average grazing value to obtain a net profit of US$6.82/ha. This does not reflect the very high revenues of silvopasture systems in some countries.
We calculated cost per t CO₂‑eq sequestered by dividing net net cost/ha by total CO₂‑eq sequestered/ha.
Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.
Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂-eq
| Median | $43.25 |
100-yr basis & 20-yr basis are the same.
There is not enough information available to determine a learning curve for silvopasture. However, anecdotal evidence showed establishment costs decreasing as techniques for broadscale mechanized establishment were developed in Australia and Colombia (Murguietio et al., 2016; Shelton et al., 2021).
Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.
At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.
Deploy Silvopasture is a DELAYED climate solution. It works more slowly than gradual or emergency brake solutions. Delayed solutions can be robust climate solutions, but it’s important to recognize that they may not realize their full potential for some time.
Living biomass and soil organic matter only temporarily hold carbon (decades to centuries for soil organic matter, and for the life of the tree or any long-lived products made from its wood in the case of woody biomass). Sequestered carbon in both soils and biomass is vulnerable to fire, drought, long-term shifts to a drier precipitation regime, and other climate change impacts, as well as to a return to the previous farming or grazing practices. Such disturbances can cause carbon to be re-emitted to the atmosphere (Lorenz & Lal, 2018).
Like all upland, terrestrial agricultural systems, over the course of decades, silvopastures reach saturation and net sequestration slows to nearly nothing (Lorenz & Lal, 2018).
Lack of data on the current adoption of silvopasture is a major gap in our understanding of the potential of this solution. One satellite imaging study found 156 million ha of grazing land with more than 10 t C/ha in above-ground biomass, which is the amount that indicates more than grass alone (Chapman et al., 2019). However, this area includes natural savannas, which are not necessarily silvopastures, and undercounts the existing 15.1 million ha of silvopasture known to be present in Europe (den Herder et al., 2017).
Sprenkle-Hippolite et al. (2024) estimated a current adoption of 141.4 Mha, or 6.0% of grazing land (Table 3). We have chosen this more recent figure as the best available estimate of current adoption. Note that in Solution Basics in the dashboard above we set current adoption at zero. This is a conservative assumption to avoid counting carbon sequestration from land that has already ceased to sequester net carbon due to saturation, which takes place after 20–50 years (Lal et al., 2018).
Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.
Unit: million ha
| Mean | 141.4 |
There is little quantifiable information reported about silvopasture adoption trends.
Grazing is the world’s largest land use at 2,986 Mha (Mehrabi et al., 2024). Much grazing land is too dry for trees, while other grasslands that were not historically forest or savanna should not be planted with trees in order to minimize water use and protect grassland habitat (Dudley et al., 2020). Three studies estimated the total potential area suitable for silvopasture (including current adoption).
Lal et al. (2018) estimated the technical potential for silvopasture adoption at 550 Mha.
Chapman et al. (2019) estimated the suitable area for increased woody biomass on grazing land as 1,890 Mha.
Sprenkle-Hippolite (2024) assessed the maximum area of grazing land to which trees could be added without reducing livestock productivity. They calculated a total of 1,589 Mha, or 67% of global grazing land (Table 4). To our knowledge, this is the most accurate estimate available.
Table 4. Adoption ceiling.
Unit: ha converted
| 25th percentile | 1069000000 |
| Mean | 1343000000 |
| Median (50th percentile) | 1588000000 |
| 75th percentile | 1739000000 |
Unit: % of grazing land
| 25th percentile | 45 |
| Mean | 36 |
| Median (50th percentile) | 53 |
| 75th percentile | 58 |
In our Achievable – High scenario, global silvopasture starts at 141.4 Mha and grows at the Colombian Nationally Determined Contribution growth rate of 6.5%/yr. This would provide the high end of the achievable potential at 206.3 Mha by 2030, of which 64.9 million ha are newly adopted (Table 5). For the Achievable – Low scenario, we chose 1/10 of Colombia’s projected growth rate. This would provide 147.0 Mha of adoption by 2030, of which 5.6 Mha are new.
Few estimates of the global adoption potential of silvopasture are available, and even those for the broader category of agroforestry are rare due to the lack of solid data on current adoption and growth rates (Shi et al., 2018; Hart et al., 2023). The IPCC estimates that, for agroforestry overall, 19.5% of the technical potential is economically achievable (IPCC AR6 WG3, 2022). Applying this rate to Sprenkle-Hippolite’s estimated 1,588 Mha technical potential yields an achievable potential of 310 Mha of convertible grazing land.
Our high adoption rate reaches 13% of the adoption ceiling by 2030. This suggests that silvopasture represents a large but relatively untapped potential that will require aggressive policy action and other incentives to spur scaling.
Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.
Unit: Mha
| Current adoption | 141.4 |
| Achievable – low | 147.0 |
| Achievable – high | 206.3 |
| Adoption ceiling | 1,588.0 |
Unit: Mha
| Current adoption | 0.00 |
| Achievable – low | 5.6 |
| Achievable – high | 64.9 |
| Adoption ceiling | 1,447.4 |
Carbon sequestration continues only for a period of decades; because silvopasture is an ancient practice with some plantings centuries old, we could not assume that previously adopted hectares continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. Much of the current adoption of silvopasture has been in place for centuries and sequestration there has presumably already slowed down to almost zero. We apply an adoption adjustment factor of 0.25 to current adoption (see Methodology) to reflect that most current adoption is no longer sequestering significant carbon, yet there is substantial new adoption within the past 20–50 years.
For new adoption the calculation is effectiveness * new adoption = climate impact.
For current adoption the calculation is effectiveness * 0.25 * current adoption = climate impact
Climate impacts shown in Table 6 are the sum of current and new adoption impacts. Carbon sequestration impact is 0.35 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for current adoption, 0.40 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for Achievable – Low, 0.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for Achievable – High, and 14.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for our Adoption Ceiling.
Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.
Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
| Current adoption | 0.35 |
| Achievable – low | 0.40 |
| Achievable – high | 0.98 |
| Adoption ceiling | 14.54 |
100-yr basis, New adoption only
Lal et al. (2018) estimated a technical global carbon sequestration potential of 0.3–1.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) estimated a silvopasture technical potential of 1.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ; this assumes a tree density of 2–6 trees/ha, which is substantially lower than typical silvopasture. For agroforestry overall (including silvopasture and other practices), the IPCC (2022) estimates an achievable potential of 0.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a technical potential of 4.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.
Silvopasture can also increase and diversify farmer income. Tree fruit and timber often provide income for ranchers. A study in the southern United States showed that silvopasture systems generated 10% more income than standalone cattle production (Husak & Grado, 2002). A more comprehensive analysis across the eastern United States (Greene et al., 2023) found that virtually all silvopasture systems assessed had a positive 20- and 30-yr internal rate of return (IRR). For some systems, the 30-yr IRR can be >15% (Greene et al., 2023).
While evidence on the impact of silvopasture on yields is mixed, this practice can improve food security by diversifying food production and income sources (Bostedt et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2022). In pastoralists in Kenya, Bostedt et al. (2016) found that agroforestry practices were associated with increased dietary diversity, an important aspect of food and nutrition security. Diverse income streams can mediate household food security during adverse conditions, such as droughts or floods, especially in low- and middle-income countries (de Sherbinin et al., 2008; Di Prima et al., 2022; Frelat et al., 2016).
Trees boost habitat availability, enhance landscape connectivity, and aid in forest regeneration and restoration. In most climates they provide a major boost to biodiversity compared with pasture alone (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018).
By providing shade, silvopasture systems reduce heat stress experienced by livestock. Heat stress for cattle begins at 30 °C or even lower in some circumstances (Garrett et al., 2004). In the tropics, the cooling effect of integrating trees into a pastoral system is 0.32–2.4 °C/t of woody carbon added/ha (Zeppetello et al., 2022). Heifers raised in silvopasture systems had higher body mass and more optimal body temperature than those raised in intensive rotational grazing systems (Lemes et al., 2021). Improvement in livestock physiological conditions probably results from access to additional forage, increased livestock comfort, and reduced heat stress in silvopastoral systems. Silvopasture is highly desirable for its improvements to animal welfare (Goracci & Camilli, 2024).
Silvopasture and agroforestry are important for ensuring soil health (Basche et al., 2020). These practices improve soil health by reducing erosion and may also contribute to soil organic matter retention (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service ([USDA NRCS], 2025). There is evidence that silvopasture may improve soil biodiversity by preventing soil organism habitat loss and degradation (USDA NRCS, 2025).
Perennials in silvopasture systems could reduce runoff and increase water infiltration rates relative to open rangelands (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018). This increases the resilience of the system during drought and high heat. Silvopasture can improve water quality by retaining soil sediments and filtering pollutants found in runoff (USDA NRCS, 2025). On average, silvopasture and agroforestry practices can reduce runoff of sediments and excess nutrients into water 42–47% (Zhu et al., 2020). The filtering benefits of silvopasture can also mitigate pollution of antibiotics from livestock operations from entering waterways (Moreno & Rolo, 2019).
Some of the tree and forage species used in silvopastures are invasive in certain contexts. For example, river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala) is a centerpiece in intensive silvopasture in Latin America, where it is native, but also in Australia, where it is not. Australian producers have developed practices to limit or prevent its spread (Shelton et al., 2021).
Livestock can damage or kill young trees during establishment. Protecting trees or excluding grazing animals during this period increases costs (Smith et al., 2022).
Poorly designed tree layout can make herding, haying, fencing, and other management activities more difficult. Tree densities that are too high can reduce livestock productivity (Cadavid et al., 2020).
Silvopasture represents a way to produce some ruminant meat and dairy in a more climate-friendly way. This impact can contribute to addressing emissions from ruminant production, but only as part of a program that strongly emphasizes diet change and food waste reduction.
Forms of silvopasture that increase milk and meat yields can reduce pressure to convert undeveloped land to agriculture.
Silvopasture is a technique for restoring farmland.
Silvopasture is a form of savanna restoration.
Expanding silvopasture could restrict land availability for renewable energy or raw material and food production, since many technologies and practices could be sited on grazing lands. Silvopasture and forest restoration can also compete for the same land.
Silvopasture is a kind of agroforestry, though in this iteration of Project Drawdown “Deploy Agroforestry” refers to crop production systems only. With that said, some agroforestry systems integrate both crops and livestock with the trees, such as the widespread parkland systems of the African Sahel.
ha converted from grazing land to silvopasture
CO₂
Solutions that improve ruminant production could undermine the argument for reducing ruminant protein consumption in wealthy countries.
Certain silvopasture systems reduce per-hectare productivity of meat and milk, even if overall productivity increases when the yields of timber or food from the tree component are included. For example, silvopasture systems that are primarily focused on timber production, with high tree densities, will have lower livestock yields than pasture alone - though they will have high timber yields.
The costs of establishment are much higher than those of managed grazing. There is also a longer payback period (Smith et al., 2022). These limitations mean that secure land tenure is even more important than usual, to make adoption worthwhile (Poudel et al., 2024).
Silvopasture is primarily appropriate for grazing land that receives sufficient rainfall to support tree growth. While it can be implemented on both cropland and grassland, if adopted on cropland, it will reduce food yield because livestock produce much less food per hectare than crops. In the humid tropics, a particularly productive and high-carbon variation called intensive silvopasture is an option. Ideally, graziers will have secure land tenure, though pastoralist commons have been used successfully.
Areas too dry to establish trees (<450 mm annual precipitation) are not suitable for silvopasture by tree planting, but regions that can support natural savanna may be suitable for managed natural regeneration.
Most silvopasture today appears in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapman et al., 2019), though this may reflect grazed natural savannas rather than intentional silvopasture. This finding neglects well-known systems in Latin America and Southern Europe.
Chapman et al. (2019) listed world grasslands by their potential to add woody biomass. According to their analysis, the countries with the greatest potential to increase woody biomass carbon in grazing land are, in order: Australia, Kazakhstan, China, the United States, Mongolia, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, Sudan, Afghanistan, Russia, and Mexico. Tropical grazing land accounts for 73% of the potential in one study. Brazil, China, and Australia have the highest areas, collectively accounting for 37% of the potential area (Sprenkle-Hippolite 2024).
We do not present any maps for the silvopasture solution due to the uncertainties in identifying current areas where silvopasture is practiced, and in identifying current grasslands that were historically forest or savanna.
There is a high level of consensus about the carbon biosequestration impacts of silvopasture, including for the higher per-hectare sequestration rates relative to improved grazing systems alone. A handful of reviews, expert estimations, and meta-analyses have been published on the subject. These include:
Cardinael et al. (2018) assembled data by climate and region for use in the national calculations and reporting.
Chatterjee et al. (2018) found that converting from pasture to silvopasture increases carbon stocks.
Lal et al. ( 2018) estimated the technical adoption and mitigation potential of silvopasture and other practices.
Udawatta et al. (2022) provided an up-to-date meta-analysis for temperate North America.
The results presented in this document summarize findings from two reviews, two meta-analyses, one expert opinion and three original studies reflecting current evidence from a global scale. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.
There is low consensus on the reduction of methane from enteric emissions, nitrous oxide from manure, and CO₂ from avoided deforestation due to increased productivity. We do not include these climate impacts in our calculations.
Until recently there was little understanding of the current adoption of silvopasture. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) used Delphi expert estimation to determine current adoption and technical potential. Rates of adoption and achievable potential are still largely unreported or uninvestigated. See the Adoption section for details.
Join the 80,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.
