You are here:  Home  >  The Classic by NatGLC  >  Current Article

Here’s What Would Happen if We Got Rid of All Livestock in the U.S.

By   /  February 1, 2021  /  4 Comments

    Print       Email

From our 2018 archives, here’s what the research tells us.

What if we got rid of all livestock? Would that reduce greenhouse gases? And what would we eat instead?

You can download and read the paper by clicking here.

Those are some of the questions that authors Robin White and Mary Beth Hall tried to answer. To see what would happen they modeled a United States where no livestock existed, and we ate only plant-based diets. Their conclusion, published in their paper,  “Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture,” is that the total US greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by 2.6% and that this decrease would come at a high cost.

First, with a plant only diet, it would be much more difficult for people to meet their nutritional requirements. Animals are our only non-pill form of calcium, 3 fatty acids, and vitamin B12. Two of these fatty acids reduce heart disease and are critical for the visual and mental development of infants. The authors found that, “Even though it is possible to balance plant- based diets for individual humans, it may be a challenge for these diets to scale well within the US food production system because of the types of crops that can be grown in the available climates and soils.” They pointed out that animals convert energy-dense, micronutrient-poor foods like grain into micro-nutrient dense foods like meat, milk, and eggs, making it possible for the U.S. to meet the population’s nutritional requirements.

We might also have to import more food. Current U.S. fruit and vegetable consumption is 203% and 164% of what we produce domestically. The authors point out that given this high demand, if it was viable to produce more of these high-value crops in the U.S., it would already be occurring. They concluded that limitations on production may be a result of suitable land, climate and infrastructure to grow these crops.

Figure 1 from the paper. “United States food production as an ecosystem with transactions be- tween components as identified in this study. Crops are processed or consumed directly by animals. Processing products and byproducts are shuttled to industrial applications or to animals and humans for consumption. Animals provide manure used to produce crops, byproducts used in a variety of industrial applications, and human food. Values are those calculated for the present study. Adapted with permission from ref. 63, copyright (1997) American Chemical Society.”

According to the authors, we’d face other challenges as well in a no-livestock world. Assuming we kept our pets, how would we replace the almost 1.5 billion pounds of protein and almost 300 million pounds of fat we need to feed our cats and dogs every year? How would we get rid of the inedible vegetable waste that we currently feed to animals? We’d also have to produce more synthetic fertilizers to replace animal manures. Finally, with no animal agriculture, 1.6 million people would need to find new jobs, and we’d need to replace a $32 billion hit to our exports.

One of the reasons for suggesting getting rid of livestock is their role in greenhouse gas emissions. Past models of a shift to a plants-only diets have shown reductions in a household’s carbon footprint when people ate less meat. But these Life Cycle Assessments did not consider all the changes that White and Hall realized would have to be made in the food system as a result. That’s why their numbers have come out so differently.

In the end, after subtracting out greenhouse gas emissions for livestock, and adding in increases to synthetic fertilizer production, disposal of inedible waste, and changes in land use, agricultural emissions were reduced from 622.6 CO2 equivalents to 446. Since agriculture makes up only 9% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this change meant a reduction of only 2.6% in total U.S emissions.

Based on their results, White and Hall concluded, “Overall, the removal of animals resulted in diets that are nonviable in the long or short term to support the nutritional needs of the U.S. population without nutrient supplementation.” They recommend that any discussion of our food system should include the kinds of direct and indirect effects they considered in their paper so we can properly evaluate impacts of potential changes.

Thanks to Jon Previant for inspiring us to follow up on this article! 

Thanks to the National Grazing Lands Coalition for making this article possible.

They’re gearing up for their 2021 conference, which is always a great opportunity to meet and talk with other graziers. Early bird registration is happening now. Register before March 31 to get a good deal.


    Print       Email

About the author

Publisher, Editor and Author

Kathy worked with the Bureau of Land Management for 12 years before founding Livestock for Landscapes in 2004. Her twelve years at the agency allowed her to pursue her goal of helping communities find ways to live profitably AND sustainably in their environment. She has been researching and working with livestock as a land management tool for over a decade. When she's not helping farmers, ranchers and land managers on-site, she writes articles, and books, and edits videos to help others turn their livestock into landscape managers.


  1. emily macdonald says:

    Not to nit pick this great article, but in the interest of accuracy, it is not correct that animals are the only non-pill source of calcium as the article states. Green leafy plants and legumes contain calcium ( thats where grazing animals get it).

  2. red says:

    Yet, methane emissions would rise because plants are much harder for bacteria and fungus to digest than manure. CO2 would rise for the same reason, and that soil fauna depend more on animals than plants to feed on, and to create humus/high carbon material in the soil. Desert soils would be destroyed simply because cattle pock the soil, creating shelters for small seeds from the sun and birds. In 1800 we had 60 million bison on the plains, millions of deer all over the nation. Today, the number of bovine is reduced to 41.3 million and they claim we have problems with methane and CO2.

  3. Carole Soule says:

    Not to mention the spiritual loss if livestock disappeared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You might also like...

Make calving more fun and less work

Read More →
Translate »