Avid fans of Chick-fil-A are all too familiar with their infamous slogan “Eat Mor Chikin.” Although the Chick-fil-A cow may just be trying to promote Chicken Biscuits, he may also be encouraging environmental health. Because people often point fingers at coal, factories, and car pollution when talking about climate change, many are unaware that eating beef has become the “new SUV,” a selfish American indulgence. Although the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation is the main cause of global warming, the consumption of beef plays a significant role. Because the world is trying to limit the increase in global temperature by even 2 degrees Celsius, limiting the emission of greenhouse gases, which traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, is critical, but with the U.S. emitting alarming amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, cow’s release of methane as a by-product of digestion has started to gain the attention of environmentalists and consumers alike.

There are now about 3.6 billion ruminants, animals which include cattle, sheep, and goats, on the planet, and from the digestive systems of these ruminants is the single largest human-related source of greenhouse gases, methane. Ruminants have multi chamber stomachs that contain bacteria that enable the digestion of cellulose from grass that they eat. However, because farmers primarily give livestock corn and soy based feeds, the result is the production of methane. CNN states that an average North American cow eructs, or burps, about 117 pounds of methane a year. However, non-ruminants, such as pigs and chickens, do not belch out large quantities of methane. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 43% of greenhouse gas emissions related to cattle come from “enteric fermentation,” or methane burping. Additionally, the production and transportation of beef add to greenhouse gas emissions. The FAO reports that 36% of emissions are from fertilizers used to produce cattle feed, 8% of emissions are caused by the processing and refrigeration of beef, and 5% of emissions come from manure storage and management. Although a simple solution to reducing the release of methane would be to decrease the population of ruminants, unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives because people have to and want to eat beef. With the FAO predicting a 73% increase in global beef consumption by 2050, a worldwide diet change seems impossible.

By adopting better farming practices, producers can decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Junior Hayley Canal, the head of the Key Goes Green Committee and an AP Environmental Science student, believes that “there are ways to stop the amount of contamination and pollution that’s occurring [by changing] how we’re getting our cows, how we’re killing our cows, and how we’re feeding our cows.” By decreasing the use of fertilizer, using packaging with less plastic, and cutting back on food waste, emissions could be reduced from the livestock industry. Better soil management can increase the land’s ability to act as a carbon sink. Additionally, changing the diets of cattle can have a significant impact. Stonyfield Farm, a yogurt manufacturer, had initiated a program among the Vermont farms that supplied it with organic milk. This program adjusted the livestock’s feed to include more plants like alfalfa and flaxseed, which, unlike corn or soy, mimic the grasses that the animals evolved to eat. This program not only led to an 18% decrease in methane output, but also an improvement in the cattle’s health, for Guy Choiniere, one Vermont farmer, stated that “their coats are shinier, and the breath is sweet,” a sign that methane eructations, or burps, had decreased.

Consumer decisions can also encourage change. Although studies show eating less red meat would cut carbon emissions more than giving up cars, the subject of giving up beef is always controversial. Eric Davidson, director of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, says that “there are huge challenges in convincing people in the west to reduce portion sizes or the frequency of eating meat… [because] that is part of our culture right now.” However, a study conducted by the University of Oxford found that meat-rich diets, or diets consisting of more than 100g of meat a day, resulted in about 7.2 kg of carbon dioxide emissions while vegetarian and fish-rich diets resulted in about 3.8 kg of carbon dioxide a day. Additionally, a CNN report states that if the world adopted a “climate carnivore” diet, or a diet that replaces three-quarters of beef, ruminant, and dairy meals with chicken or other non-methane eructing animals, agricultural emissions would drop to 4.9 billion tons by 2050, and if the world adopted a “flexitarian” diet, or a diet that replaces three-quarters of beef, ruminant, and dairy meals with vegetables and other sources of protein, emissions would drop to 3.1 billion tons by 2050. Although decreasing beef consumption can clearly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, giving up meat entirely isn’t necessary. Davidson states that “simply reducing portion sizes and frequency [of beef consumption] would go a long way,” so even having smaller quantities of meat or switching from beef to chicken or fish can greatly reduce our carbon footprint. Additionally, our purchases can influence producers and farmers. Senior Devina Naidu, a member of the Green Team, an environmental club, states that “[buying] fewer products that come from cattle would lower demand for their products, and perhaps farmers would raise fewer cows to emit methane.”

Because the consequences of beef production and consumption are far and wide, it is important that producers and consumers both make efforts in order to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Because livestock can be the key to sustainability of global agriculture, we should stay aware of how our food choices impact the environment and just “Eat Mor Chikin.”