A critical analysis of the latest study on grass-fed beef – and why sustainability is more than a CO₂ number
A recently published Study by Eshel et al. (PNAS, 2024) concludes that grass-fed beef is just as harmful to the climate as industrially produced beef – and causes up to ten times more greenhouse gas emissions than plant-based protein sources.
This study joins a long list of publications that reduce the discussion on sustainable agriculture to a single key figure: the CO₂ balance per kilogram Food. But that's exactly the problem.
A sustainable food system is not just a question of emissions – it is a question of Soil health, water cycles, biodiversity, food security and social structuresIf we evaluate sustainability only through an isolated number, we will inevitably make wrong decisions.
1. The selective exploitation of “vulnerabilities” as a political tool
The main problem with much scientific work on sustainability in agriculture is not necessarily a deliberate manipulation of the data – but the deliberate selection of indicators that make one system look bad compared to another.
Depending on my goal, I can always find a factor that puts a particular form of agriculture in a negative light:
- Greenhouse gas emissions? Animal husbandry performs worse than plant-based foods.
- Energy consumption? Lab-grown meat doesn’t fare well in this regard.
- Land use? This makes pasture farming look inefficient.
- Erosion & soil fertility? Industrial monocultures are losing out by a landslide.
This kind of selective approach is at the heart of the problem: it leads us to decouple agriculture from reality and to pursue isolated optimization measures that can even be harmful in the overall balance.
Myopia is the end of sustainability
The following graphic by Sarah C. Klopatek, Ph.D., illustrates this problem:
📌 The myopic (short-sighted) perspective focuses on greenhouse gases and isolated environmental factors, but ignores systemic connections.
📌 The holistic perspective recognizes the comprehensive role of agriculture in ecology, social structures and food security.
An example: Pasture-based livestock farming is often portrayed as inefficient because it requires more land per calorie than industrial livestock farming. However, this ignores the fact that these areas often have no alternative to cropland – they sequester carbon, store water, and preserve biodiversity. Industrial feedlots may seem more "efficient" in the short term, but they destroy soils and are unsustainable in the long term.
2. The fairy tale of industrial “efficiency”
Another problem with the study is its assumption that industrial fattening farms are "more efficient" because they produce fewer methane emissions per kilogram of meat. However, this efficiency is achieved at the expense of animals, soil, and the environment:
❌ Concentrated feed instead of pasture: Industrial fattening farms rely on corn and soy feed produced in monocultures with high levels of pesticides and fertilizers. The climate impact of this feed production is often ignored.
❌ High use of antibiotics: Feedlots are not only climate killers, but also a breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant germs.
❌ Soil degradation: While soils regenerate under holistic pasture management, fodder cultivation for industrial animal husbandry leads to the destruction of fertile agricultural landscapes.
Efficiency is only sustainable if it is viable in the long term. Agriculture that destroys soils, water cycles, and biodiversity is not "efficient" in the long run—it is suicidal.
3. Lab-grown meat: The wrong solution to a misunderstood problem
CO₂ fixation leads many climate activists to view lab-grown meat as the supposedly most sustainable solution. After all, it requires less grazing land and, on paper, has lower emissions—but here, too, the problem of selective indicators becomes apparent:
🔴 Extremely high energy consumption: The production of lab meat in bioreactors requires a gigantic amount of electricity – in many cases more than that required for pasture-fed cattle.
🔴 Sterile, highly processed end product: A real ecosystem consists of soil, microbes, plants, and animals – not isolated cell cultures.
🔴 Lack of positive environmental impact: Grazing animals preserve grasslands, promote biodiversity, and sequester carbon in the soil. Lab-grown meat does not.
🔴 Central control: Who benefits? Agricultural corporations and investors who create a monopolized substitute product.
If we were to eliminate livestock farming altogether, there would be nothing left to maintain our grasslands—they would become barren and desert. Regeneratively managed pastures are the most effective way to promote soil fertility and carbon sequestration.
4. Ask the right question
Instead of always asking:
(I.e. “Which agriculture has the lowest emissions?”
Should we finally ask:
✅ “Which agriculture regenerates soils, stabilizes ecosystems, and secures our food production in the long term?”
The answer is clear: holistic pasture management is the most sustainable form of agriculture.
But this solution will only become visible if we stop reducing agriculture to emissions figures – and start looking at the whole picture.
5. Conclusion: Sustainability needs a new perspective
Focusing on CO₂ emissions as the sole criterion for sustainable agriculture is not only inaccurate but dangerous. It distracts from the real problems: progressive soil degradation, water scarcity and loss of agricultural resilience.
Sustainable agriculture does not mean producing fewer emissions in the short term – but rather regenerating soils and ecosystems in the long term.
Studies like those by Eshel et al. provide a number, but no solution. Anyone who wants to promote truly sustainable agriculture must finally begin to recognize soil as the most important factor in our food security.
Because whoever destroys the soil destroys the basis of all life.
Create comment