Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A model for ‘sustainable’ US beef production


Food production dominates land, water and fertilizer use and is a greenhouse gas source. In the United States, beef production is the main agricultural resource user overall, as well as per kcal or g of protein. Here, we offer a possible, non-unique, definition of ‘sustainable’ beef as that subsisting exclusively on grass and by-products, and quantify its expected US production as a function of pastureland use. Assuming today’s pastureland characteristics, all of the pastureland that US beef currently use can sustainably deliver ≈45% of current production. Rewilding this pastureland’s less productive half (≈135 million ha) can still deliver ≈43% of current beef production. In all considered scenarios, the ≈32 million ha of high-quality cropland that beef currently use are reallocated for plant-based food production. These plant items deliver 2- to 20-fold more calories and protein than the replaced beef and increase the delivery of protective nutrients, but deliver no B12. Increased deployment of rapid rotational grazing or grassland multi-purposing may increase beef production capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Per-capita weekly availability of ‘sustainable’ beef as a function of the utilized fraction f of current beef pastureland (approximately 0.3 billion ha).
Fig. 2: Alternative per-capita food energy and protein delivery associated with reallocating the ≈32 million high-quality ha currently used to produce crop-based feed for US beef cattle to the shown alternatives.
Fig. 3: Nutritional consequences of producing 'sustainable' beef (that use only industrial by-products and the full pastureland currently used by beef; that is, at f = 1) and the associated reallocation of cropland (currently used for producing feed for beef) to each of the shown alternatives.
Fig. 4: Resource savings associated with beef cropland reallocation to the shown plant- and animal-based alternatives.


  1. Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Noor, E. & Milo, R. Environmentally optimal, nutritionally aware beef replacement plant-based diets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8164–8168 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ranganathan, J. et al. Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future (World Resources Institute, 2016);

  3. Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T. & Milo, R. Partitioning United States’ feed consumption among livestock categories for improved environmental cost assessments. J. Agric. Sci. 153, 432–445 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T. & Milo, R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11996–12001 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark, M. & Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 64016 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nickerson, C. & Borchers, A. How is Land Used (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2012);

  7. Doering, O. C., Galloway, J. N., Theis, T. I. & Swackhamer, D. I. Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences and Management Options: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011);$File/EPA-SAB-11-013-unsigned.pdf.

  8. Maupin, M. A. et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010 Circular 1405 (USGS, 2010).

  9. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

  10. Willett, W. C. & Skerrett, P. J. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating (Simon & Schuster Source, New York, 2005).

  11. Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A. & Willett, W. C. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 12632–12647 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jahn, J. L., Stampfer, M. J. & Willett, W. C. Food, health & the environment: a global grand challenge & some solutions. Daedalus 144, 31–44 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Machmuller, M. B. et al. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nat. Commun. 6, 6995 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Braun, A., van Dijk, S., Del Rio Paracolls, C. & Grulke, M. Upscaling Silvopastoral Systems in South America (Inter-American Development Bank, 2016).

  15. Garnett, T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 491–503 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tichenor, N. E., Peters, C. J., Norris, G. A., Thoma, G. & Griffin, T. S. Life cycle environmental consequences of grass-fed and dairy beef production systems in the northeastern United States. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1619–1628 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pelletier, N., Pirog, R. & Rasmussen, R. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the upper midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103, 380–389 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Entz, M. H. et al. Potential of forages to diversify cropping systems in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94, 240–250 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu, Z. et al. A synthesis of the effect of grazing exclusion on carbon dynamics in grasslands in China. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1385–1393 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pierrehumbert, R. T. & Eshel, G. Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 85002 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Daley, C. A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P. S., Nader, G. A. & Larson, S. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutr. J. 9, 10 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 105002 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang, Q. et al. Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern. Med. 174, 516–524 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Craig, W. J. & Mangels, A. R. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 109, 1266–1282 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tuso, P., Stoll, S. R. & Li, W. W. A plant-based diet, atherogenesis, and coronary artery disease prevention. Perm. J. 19, 62–67 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li, Y. et al. Saturated fats compared with unsaturated fats and sources of carbohydrates in relation to risk of coronary heart disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66, 1538–1548 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pan, A. et al. Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Arch. Intern. Med. 172, 555–563 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hu, F. B. Plant-based foods and prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78, 544S–551S (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Eshel, G. A geophysical foundation for alternative farm policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3651–3655 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Satija, A. et al. Plant-based dietary patterns and incidence of type 2 diabetes in US men and women: results from three prospective cohort studies. PLoS Med. 13, e1002039 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alfaia, C. P. M. et al. Effect of the feeding system on intramuscular fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid isomers of beef cattle, with emphasis on their nutritional value and discriminatory ability. Food Chem. 114, 939–946 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Röös, E., Patel, M., Spångberg, J., Carlsson, G. & Rydhmer, L. Limiting livestock production to pasture and by-products in a search for sustainable diets. Food Policy 58, 1–13 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peters, C. J. et al. Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: ten diet scenarios. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 4, 116 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hannaway, D. B., Ballerstedt, P. J. & Fribourg, H. A. Country Profiles - The United States (FAO, 2011).

Download references


R.M. and E.S. are supported by the European Research Council (project NOVCARBFIX 646827); the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 740/16); Beck-Canadian Center for Alternative Energy Research; Dana and Yossie Hollander; R.M. holds the Charles and Louise Gartner professional chair.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



G.E., A.S., R.M., S.G., D.G. and M.E.R. initiated the study. G.E. compiled the data, conducted all analyses, produced the graphics and wrote the paper. R.M. edited an initial draft. G.E., A.S., T.S., B.D.C., S.G., D.G., M.E.R. and R.M. edited and commented on subsequent drafts and discussed the results.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gidon Eshel or Ron Milo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary models, figures and references.

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Shaket, T. et al. A model for ‘sustainable’ US beef production. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 81–85 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing