• Regular
  • Medium
  • Large
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Print

Actually, Raising Beef Is Good for the Planet

Despite environmentalists’ worries, cattle don’t guzzle water or cause hunger—and can help fight climate change

Grasslands for cattle safeguard soil, water and land. ENLARGE
Grasslands for cattle safeguard soil, water and land. Getty Images

People who advocate eating less beef often argue that producing it hurts the environment. Cattle, we are told, have an outsize ecological footprint: They guzzle water, trample plants and soils, and consume precious grains that should be nourishing hungry humans. Lately, critics have blamed bovine burps, flatulence and even breath for climate change.

As a longtime vegetarian and environmental lawyer, I once bought into these claims. But now, after more than a decade of living and working in the business—my husband, Bill, founded Niman Ranch but left the company in 2007, and we now have a grass-fed beef company—I’ve come to the opposite view. It isn’t just that the alarm over the environmental effects of beef are overstated. It’s that raising beef cattle, especially on grass, is an environmental gain for the planet.

Let’s start with climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, all of U.S. agriculture accounts for just 8% of our greenhouse emissions, with by far the largest share owing to soil management—that is, crop farming. A Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further. The primary concern is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

But methane from cattle, now under vigorous study by agricultural colleges around the world, can be mitigated in several ways. Australian research shows that certain nutritional supplements can cut methane from cattle by half. Things as intuitive as good pasture management and as obscure as robust dung beetle populations have all been shown to reduce methane.

At the same time, cattle are key to the world’s most promising strategy to counter global warming: restoring carbon to the soil. One-tenth of all human-caused carbon emissions since 1850 have come from soil, according to ecologist Richard Houghton of the Woods Hole Research Center. This is due to tillage, which releases carbon and strips the earth of protective vegetation, and to farming practices that fail to return nutrients and organic matter to the earth. Plant-covered land that is never plowed is ideal for recapturing carbon through photosynthesis and for holding it in stable forms.

Most of the world’s beef cattle are raised on grass. Their pruning mouths stimulate vegetative growth as their trampling hoofs and digestive tracts foster seed germination and nutrient recycling. These beneficial disturbances, like those once caused by wild grazing herds, prevent the encroachment of woody shrubs and are necessary for the functioning of grassland ecosystems.

Research by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K. beef cattle and half its dairy herd. Similarly, in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 2% of all greenhouse gases (slightly less than what’s attributed to cattle) could be eliminated by sequestering carbon in the soils of grazing operations.

Grass is also one of the best ways to generate and safeguard soil and to protect water. Grass blades shield soil from erosive wind and water, while its roots form a mat that holds soil and water in place. Soil experts have found that erosion rates from conventionally tilled agricultural fields average one to two orders of magnitude greater than erosion under native vegetation, such as what’s typically found on well-managed grazing lands.

Nor are cattle voracious consumers of water. Some environmental critics of cattle assert that 2,500 gallons of water are required for every pound of beef. But this figure (or the even higher ones often cited by advocates of veganism) are based on the most water-intensive situations. Research at the University of California, Davis, shows that producing a typical pound of U.S. beef takes about 441 gallons of water per pound—only slightly more water than for a pound of rice—and beef is far more nutritious.

Eating beef also stands accused of aggravating world hunger. This is ironic since a billion of the world’s poorest people depend on livestock. Most of the world’s cattle live on land that cannot be used for crop cultivation, and in the U.S., 85% of the land grazed by cattle cannot be farmed, according to the U.S. Beef Board.

The bovine’s most striking attribute is that it can live on a simple diet of grass, which it forages for itself. And for protecting land, water, soil and climate, there is nothing better than dense grass. As we consider the long-term prospects for feeding the human race, cattle will rightly remain an essential element.

—Ms. Hahn Niman is the author of “Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production” (Chelsea Green), from which this is adapted.

  • Regular
  • Medium
  • Large
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
79 comments
Marshall Dillon
Marshall Dillon subscriber

When taking rides in the countryside, I can't help but notice some farmers spreading cow dung on soil used for plantings. Cow dung is high in nitrogen and also eliminates the need for man-made fertilizer, which is resource intensive to make. Another interesting fact from this article that 85% of grazing pastures used by cows cannot be farmed.  What other use is there for non-farming lands? We also need cows to produce milk and many forms of dairy products, e.g., cheest, yogurt.  I think the likes of the EPA and so called environmentalist should cool their jets on the dangers of raising cows. They're making fools of themselves. 

Harvey Davis
Harvey Davis subscriber

I appreciate different perspectives, the author makes many good points and has higher credibility as a "vegetarian and environmental lawyer".  That said, the sustainable practices used by Niman Ranch are probably neither used by the majority of producers, nor supply McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc. 


Recently, National Geographic reported on the beef industry and covered many environmental and health pro's and con's related to beef.  I'd recommend it for the most balanced picture I've read.  I eat beef quite lightly and moderately.

DWIGHT OGLESBY
DWIGHT OGLESBY subscriber

Speaking of vegetarians ... the origin of the word vegetarian is an ancient Comanche word meaning "lousy hunter".


Merry Christmas!

Paul Curasi
Paul Curasi subscriber

it is amazing the perspective you glean from an issue when facts are introduced. 

Vikram Khanna
Vikram Khanna subscriber

Excellent essay. Certainly, there are probably points you could quibble with, but it is nice to read a thoughtfully presented set of ideas and data to counter the hysterical presentation that is SOP in the vegan/vegetarian/environmental crowd.


As an exercise and fitness expert, I have always found beef (and dairy), in modest quantities to be an outstanding source of vital nutrients. I consume both myself and I tell my clients to eat them, along with a wide variety of other whole, fresh foods.


I have eaten many products from Niman Ranch and their competitor Coleman Ranch, and found their quality and flavor top notch. It matters to me that the animals are raised and dispatched humanely. Just because we can raise animals in filthy, cloistered environments and pay no attention to the manner of their death, doesn't mean we should. Gratuitous cruelty is wrong, even in food production, and the Nimans have helped show the way to better practices. Kudos.

BRIAN D FOSTER
BRIAN D FOSTER subscriber

Most of the worlds cattle eat corn and soybean - not grass.  In fact huge swaths of the Amazon rain forest have been systematically destroyed - slashed and burned - to grow soybeans to feed cattle.  Would you rather have biodiversity or beef?  A world of made up of humans and cows is what the future holds every time you scarf down a piece of beef. 


Better yet go "meatless Mondays," Paul McCartney's push to reduce Man's dependency on meat.


DOUGLAS BOSNIK
DOUGLAS BOSNIK subscriber

Good Article.  Good insight.  Beef! its what's for dinner.

Clarence Wilbur
Clarence Wilbur subscriber

Just remember, parents have gone to jail for failing to serve meat to their children. To learn more, Google: Vitamin B12 couple sentenced .

S. Paul Lim
S. Paul Lim subscriber

The author seems to be ignorant of the fact that most cattle are raised in factory farms, not pastures.  This article just muddles the whole issue.  Shame on WSJ.

Burns Matkin
Burns Matkin subscriber

More carbon in the atmosphere, please.   Let's increase it by double to 800 PPM.

ALL food on this planet (except a really, really tiny miniscule amount by hot vents in the ocean) is based on atmospheric carbon.  Period.

Warm is better than cold.  Cold really, really kills things.  Ask any mammoth.  

Animal protein is good for you.  Salt is good for you.  Saturated fats are good for you.  Organic foods are good for you but so are non-organic foods.

More carbon.   If you want a greener world, you need more atmospheric carbon for a lot of reasons.

If you want deforestation on large scales ban fossil fuel.   Remember what the Greeks did to their parks just to keep warm, when they couldn't afford heat?

John Theobald
John Theobald subscriber

OMG, where to begin?  As a faculty member of the one university quoted in the article and a regular consumer of the author's family's outstanding food products, I want to let this go.  But . . . 1) Why publish this in the WSJ, which you had to know was going to use an absurd headline that skirts the point of the article?  2) Yes, most countries' beef production has less environmental impact than ours, so why are we congratulating ourselves?  3) Only a tiny percentage of U.S. cattle grazes--a lot more of it is fed in factories--so why are you defending those who produce such inferior quality meat to yours?  4) "Good pasture management"?  In the U.S.?  Really?  Our beef doesn't come from pastures, it comes from confined animal feedlot ops.  5) Australian research on nutritional supplements?  We're too busy jamming antibiotics down our cattle's throats to fit in any more supplements.  6) As most U.S.-produced beef is directly raised by tilled land, that advantage goes out the window.  

Klaus Mager
Klaus Mager user

totally agree with the premise that grass fed beef, raised on an organic farm, is contributing to the natural development of the soil. The criticism against beef is directed at CAFOS, concentrated animal feeding operations. These are an unnatural way to raise animals, and cause significant environmental issues, not just the methane, but also the water pollution due to highly concentrated and mostly untreated manure that is allowed to enter water beds. But organic will never be able to raise the quantity of beef the market demands, counting in increasing demand in China and other developing nations. So yes there will always be beef, but don't count on prices coming down again, ever. 

Koti Ravi Kiran Chalasani
Koti Ravi Kiran Chalasani subscriber

My comment is slightly tangential to the article.  Though in the western media Veganism is promoted as being good to the environment, to my mind the essence of Veganism is compassion, compassion for all sentient beings. 

"All life trembles when faced with death". 

The compassion manifests into a vow not to take, aganist the will of the sentient being.  Compassionate raising of cattle, where they are part of the society and family, has always been beneficial and practiced through ages. 

DENIZ ASLAN
DENIZ ASLAN subscriber

I learnt that when you see this kind of counter arguments to a consensus view are presented (not to mention wsj talking their book), you need to go right down to the evidence and review yourself in order to figure out what is going on. This is an opinion article not a literature review.

By the way, red meat is not good for your health, check that evidence too.

Dennis Cotter
Dennis Cotter subscriber

Great article but it accepts the premises that AGW is real and that "carbon" or at least carbon dioxide is evil.  The lack of any warming despite increasing CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 18 years ought to have quieted the debate. If one understands that environmentalism is a religion, one can see that mere facts and data will not shake the faith of the true believers. 

I for one am glad for what little warming effect might flow from increased CO2.  The world has, for millions of years, alternated between ice ages and warm periods.  Ice ages are far worse for warm blooded creatures like us.  Imagine a sheet of ice a thousand feet thick covering most of North America and Eurasia.  Then imagine that ice sheet moving and scraping off and grinding to sand everything down to bedrock,  Contrast that to a couple of degrees of warming.  If we can postpone the next ice age for a couple of centuries, we will have done our best to postpone the destruction of civilization,  I'm all for it.

James Atwood
James Atwood subscriber

Ms Niman, thank you for speaking truth to power!  No truth, no peace!  No truth, no peace!  No truth, no peace!

Karl Noell
Karl Noell subscriber

As a beef defender, Niman is underpowered. She finds one "ecologist", Houghton, who supports her view--one thin reed. She agrees that cows "consume water", when in fact they store a small amount in their tissues and turn the rest right back as exhaled water vapor and urine, just like people! Water is used and recycled by living things, not consumed or used up.


It is a tricky thing for the scientifically ill-informed to use scientific stuff as weapons. I am with her on cows and grazing but I want a stronger and better spokesperson, not someone who as an able marketer gets above-market prices for her "grass-fed" Niman beef by selling to the organic nuts.. 

Stephen Craffen
Stephen Craffen subscriber

The environmental wackos think we should not affect anything here on earth. I'm sorry; we conquered the planet and while I love animals, and the environment, is important we need to live, advance as a race and hopefully go to the stars. If these Luddites had their druthers we'd be hunting for wild vegetables in the woods until they were close to extinction at which point they would want us to starve.

James Ransom
James Ransom subscriber

Here in Kansas, we have one of the largest native grasslands still in its original form--the Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie.  Most of it is grazed.  However, Ms. Hahn Niman doesn't mention that to be maximally productive, the prairie grasses need to be burned periodically.  This creates quite a bit of smoke (imagine that!).  It is analogous to the wildfires that kept the prairies free of trees in the days of the bison, which favored grazing on recently burned areas.  So, the grazing of large ungulates and burning--just like volcanic eruptions--has been a fact of life on Earth for eons. 

But don't tell the climate alarmists or the other crazies that are not going to be happy until human life on earth is brought to an end.

Randy Fann
Randy Fann subscriber

In other words , it's ok , now that someone will hack my email and know I once profited from it .  

Andre Terra
Andre Terra subscriberprofilePrivate

The biggest problem with raising cattle isn't the greenhouse effect. It's the continued deforestation following the ever increasing need for pastures.

Stanley Viglione
Stanley Viglione subscriber

Environmentalists have an outsize societal footprint: They guzzle wine, talk too much, trample the rights of others, and consume precious tax dollars that would be better put to other purposes, or returned to taxpayers!

Additionally, their "reasoning" usually leave me with a headache!

William Reeves Jr.
William Reeves Jr. subscriber

Animals are not the problem with the environment, we need more of them. Man on the other hand challenges the planet.

Keith Dowling
Keith Dowling subscriber

Slowly, one at a time, these enviro Nazi claims are being refuted.  Why were they accepted with so much certainty previously? 

I doubt it is happening, but hopefully the younger generation is learning not to believe every new theory that comes out.

Allan Smith
Allan Smith subscriber

How could peacefully grazing cattle...(and the delicious rib-eyes they produce) possibly be a bad thing !! Beef, it's what's for dinner!


Pittsburgh style, med rare.  Almost better than sex.

Arthur Harris
Arthur Harris subscriber

  Of course, this has nothing to do with the factory farms that almost all beef comes from.

Jane Debros
Jane Debros subscriber

INCREDIBLY WEAK ARTICLE! 


we should let every envirowhacko own a cow.

Henry Newbold
Henry Newbold subscriber

The climate is always in a constant state of change no matter how many cows burp or fert :)

The hubris of the AGW astrologers that they can somehow control the climate is stupefying!

John Williams
John Williams subscriber

Actually , eating beef is good for humans. I have seen multiple vegetarians who could not get pregnant. Once the doctor told them to eat meat they got pregnant.


The environmental movement was turned wacko. For millions of years people have been eating beef and the world has been fine.


TIMOTHY HOPKINS
TIMOTHY HOPKINS subscriber

If the enviro-nazis  want to make the world a better place they can really help by not exhaling.

Frank Roso
Frank Roso subscriber

Did the author purposely use the term Carbon rather than Carbon Dioxide? Carbon is not a greenhouse gas. The author may be using carbon as "short hand" for CO2, but the AGW faithful tend to use the term to obfuscate the argument.   Either way, if the use of the term carbon confuses the argument.  

Myrtle Johnston
Myrtle Johnston subscriber

@Harvey Davis I would say that the majority of ranchers are acutely aware of the implications of poor conservation practices. We call it ranching, but it is like manufacturing.   

If you owned a manufacturing facility you would have dedicated maintenance personnel, stopping production for frozen bearings is not good for your day.

Having clean water, good quality feed (grass in particular), well maintained equipment, weed free pastures, and healthy livestock are just a beginning, the degradation of any of these and more factors have immediate and lasting implications for your operation.  The majority of the ranches  in our area, (Montana) and the farms I have visited east and west of the Mississippi are long term on going operations. 

I have also seen some not so good operations, like raising 4 or 5 million chickens on 20 acres, its not impossible to find some real messes either.

Gary J. Rhine
Gary J. Rhine subscriber

@BRIAN D FOSTER

Correction - cattle are fed whatever is cheapest and in excess at the time which is sometimes corn and soybean but often just scraps.  Get your facts straight.

Gary J. Rhine
Gary J. Rhine subscriber

@S. Paul Lim

What is a factory farm?  Something you made up?  I think you mean pasture then finished in stockyards.

Matthew Rensen
Matthew Rensen subscriber

@S. Paul Lim I understand your wish to debunk those that want to control our lives with propaganda but we do need to think things through. Assuming there is such a thing as a cattle factory farms, just where do these factory farms get the grain to feed the Cattle?

PRESTON ROBERTS
PRESTON ROBERTS subscriber

@S. Paul Lim  I have never in my life seen a factory farm for beef.  Are you talking about feed lots where cattle are finished just before slaughter????

:

You, I believe, are the "ignant" one!

Gary J. Rhine
Gary J. Rhine subscriber

@John Theobald

OMG, where to begin?


Actually forget it it I will not waste my time.


The point of the article is GRASS FED beef is good for the environment and good for your body.

Gary Stevenson
Gary Stevenson subscriber

I was just about to post the same link - it's a great talk on how cattle - get this - are actually part of nature and serve a role in the ecosystem. It's a ver worthwhile talk.

DENIZ ASLAN
DENIZ ASLAN subscriber

You would have been hunting vegetables in the woods today already if our approach to the environment was same as 1960s. Perspective, environmental wackos have already saved your skin.

mike budig
mike budig subscriber

@James Ransom Not all life, just sensible life.   The fools want us all gone, then they can fix "it."   

Don Griffiths
Don Griffiths subscriber

@Stanley Viglione  Stanley, I represent something like that all-important 1% who are non-environmentalists that drink lots of wine and love eating beef. Coincidentally I love to converse with other like-minded individuals. We have sort of a little 'club' of Midwesterners who have discovered that grapes and beef are surely 2 of the most important food groups, in our estimation.


I give Ms. Hahn Neman credit for recognizing that the world we live in has room for all sorts of diverse humans, including those who like to eat beef! This is a fact that many vegetarians find (pardon the intended pun) hard to swallow.

David Hedenberg
David Hedenberg subscriber

@Allan Smith Allen if you were drinking a fine Oregon Pinot Noir with that Tomahawk steak of yours. It would be better than sex.

George Hollister
George Hollister subscriber

@Arthur Harris

Most (all) beef spend most of their lives on the range.  Feedlots are for fattening, are expensive, and keep cattle destined for slaughter for a limited time.

Keith Dowling
Keith Dowling subscriber

@Arthur Harris  Factory farms - you need to get out more.  Drive through the countryside.  See the cattle in the pastures on each side of the road.  Yes, those are farms.  The typical cycle for beef is to be in the pasture until they reach a certain age, then they are separated.  A few heifers are kept for future breeding purposes.  The remaining young steers and heifers are sent to feed lots for fattening.  Many times the feed lot is on the same farm.  Often, it is a large operation that is sometimes called a factory farm. Often, these larger feedlots are service only providers.  Investors own the cattle, pay the feedlot to fatten them up, then sell them on the open market. 

What specifically about beef production do you object to?  overuse of antibiotics?  that is a legitimate complaint. 

JERRY KURTYKA
JERRY KURTYKA subscriber

@Keith Dowling @Arthur Harris Not in the dairy industry or at least not here in NM.  It is feed lots with thousands of cows living in their doo-doo, effluent poisoning the ground water, and milked to make dairy products.  We do not buy dairy products made locally. 


NM ain't Wisconsin.  

Frank Roso
Frank Roso subscriber

@Glen MacLeod @Frank Roso They can claim what they like, and they will.  The problem is that there is no evidence to support the thesis.  The thesis is based on epidemiological studies and assumptions about pollution levels that lack any scientific backing.

Tom Williams
Tom Williams subscriber

@Glen MacLeod @Frank Roso so diamonds are a form of pollution? how about the nano-tubes the techno-gee-wiz crowd are so fond of?  both are pure carbon.

Show More Archives
Advertisement

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks