What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, expanding grazing increases methane emissions and often displaces land uses that would deliver greater carbon sequestration and biodiversity outcomes. It is therefore “Not Recommended” as a climate solution. 

What is it?

Expanding grazing includes converting cropland, degraded land, or native landscapes (e.g. forests, savannas) to pasture to increase beef production. As a climate solution, it assumes that soil organic carbon (SOC) can be increased sufficiently to offset methane emissions, resulting in net climate mitigation.

Does it work?

Expanding grazing does not generate net carbon removal because SOC gains are insufficient to offset associated enteric methane emissions. Claims that alternative grazing systems can generate net carbon removal or that grass-finished beef offers climate advantages are not supported by independent scientific evidence, with any gains limited to narrow, context-specific cases that exclude full-scope emissions. SOC gains, where they occur, are slow, saturating, and reversible, while ruminants emit methane continuously. Offsetting global current ruminant emissions would require sequestering 135 Gt of carbon (≈495 Gt CO₂ ) over 100 years, nearly twice the carbon stock in all the world’s managed grasslands. Because sequestration potential is uneven and many regions are degraded or constrained by soil and climate conditions, the required gains, to offset enteric methane emissions, would be concentrated on a subset of lands. This translates into required increases in soil carbon of roughly 25–2,000% locally over 61–225 years. This not only is unlikely, but also overlooks evidence that removing grazing livestock can increase plant growth, biomass, and SOC across grasslands, meaning that expanding grazing would compete with more effective forest or grassland carbon sequestration restoration pathways on degraded lands.

Why are we excited?

Expanding grazing can involve converting intensive cropland, such as land used for biofuels, to perennial pastures, which may increase SOC under low ruminant stocking rates and favorable environmental conditions (see Reduce Grazing Intensity). However, these benefits are driven by perennial vegetation and can be achieved more effectively through restoration approaches that do not introduce ongoing methane emissions.

Why are we concerned?

The core climate concern with expanding grazing is that it introduces cattle, a continuous methane source, on land that could capture carbon below and above ground more rapidly in the absence of cattle grazing. SOC gains under grazing, if they occur, are slow, reversible, and limited by saturation, while emissions from ruminants are immediate and ongoing.

Grazing is already the largest human use of land, and many grazing lands are affected by degradation and overstocking. Approximately 42% of global pastureland could support forests. Restoring these areas could sequester 445 Gt CO₂ by 2100, equivalent to more than a decade of global fossil fuel emissions. In addition, 50% of all global natural nonforest ecosystem conversion between 2005 and 2020 was driven directly by pasture expansion.

Demand for food is rising, while climate change is already reducing agricultural productivity and increasing crop losses. Some projections show a 36 to 50% decline in climatically viable areas for grazing by 2100 due to rising heat and shifting water conditions, alongside risks of broader yield declines. Expanding grazing, which would increase cattle herds and their feed demands, is an inefficient way to increase food supply, converting large amounts of land and feed into relatively small amounts of food. The global food system loses 7.22 quadrillion calories annually through the conversion of crops into animal products and other nonfood uses rather than direct human consumption, enough to feed 7.2 billion people. Cattle are the most inefficient of these pathways, with a 91% caloric loss when crops are converted into beef. Beef production uses 40% of global cropland yet provides only 9% of animal-source calories.

Improving diets and other demand-side changes are critical to avoid expanding grazing. The impacts of beef production exist along a spectrum: more extensive pasture-based systems require more land and typically produce more methane per unit of output, while more intensive, feedlot-based systems use less land per unit of beef but rely more heavily on cropland for feed, antibiotics, and concentrated waste management. Whether expansion occurs through more extensive or intensive systems, beef remains among the most emissions- and land-intensive ways to produce food.

In addition, animal-sourced foods are a major driver of biodiversity and habitat loss globally, with grazing cattle bearing disproportionate responsibility. Beef is the largest single contributor to the loss of biodiversity in Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), at around 31% of total biodiversity loss; 60% of KBAs are used for livestock ranching. Expanding grazing therefore reinforces the leading driver of biodiversity loss.

What is our assessment?

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.

What is it?

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.

Does it work?

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.

Why are we excited?

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 making infection treatments in humans less effective. 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.

Why are we concerned?

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.