By Andi Anderson
Regenerative agriculture has gained popularity for its promise to improve soil and offset carbon emissions. Often praised in documentaries and policy, it is seen as a climate-friendly farming method. However, climate scientists warn that its benefits may be overestimated when applied at scale.
The core practices of regenerative farming—cover cropping, no-till farming, and rotating grazing animals—can benefit soil. But experts say these methods do not permanently store carbon in the ground, especially in topsoil where it breaks down quickly.
Jonathan Foley of Project Drawdown and soil scientist Rattan Lal stress that regenerative farming alone cannot cancel out the climate impact of meat. Studies show that regenerative grazing uses more land than conventional farming and still produces significant methane emissions. In fact, grass-fed beef can have a larger carbon footprint due to lower efficiency.
A 2020 study found regenerative beef farming needs up to 2.5 times more land than conventional methods. That means a larger footprint and greater environmental costs. Simply switching to grass-fed beef isn’t enough—reducing meat consumption is essential.
Both Foley and Lal suggest that cutting emissions starts with eating less meat, especially beef. They advocate rewilding—returning agricultural land to forests, prairies, or wetlands—to restore nature’s ability to absorb carbon.
The World Resources Institute recommends a 40% reduction in U.S. beef consumption to help meet climate goals. Experts agree this shift must include changes in diet, food systems, and mindset.
Lal summarizes the challenge: “We need regeneration not just in agriculture, but in our way of thinking and living.”
True climate solutions, they argue, require collective action and a willingness to rethink how we eat, farm, and treat the planet.
Photo Credit: gettyimages-pamwalker68
Categories: Ohio, Livestock, Beef Cattle