Not the Cow but the How: Why Pastoral Livestock Defy Simple Climate Accounting

Livestock have long been cast as villains in the climate story. Since the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published its landmark report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” nearly two decades ago, researchers, policymakers and the public have increasingly scrutinized the environmental consequences of rearing domesticated animals. Yet a new collection of studies published in the journal Pastoralism argues that this scrutiny has rested on dangerously simplistic foundations, and that the true relationship between grazing animals and the global climate is far more complicated than standard accounting methods suggest.

The scale of the issue is enormous. According to FAO land use data, roughly one-fourth of the world’s land area—almost 3.2 billion hectares—is covered by permanent meadows and pastures, and about 80 percent of all agricultural land is devoted to livestock, whether as grazing land or for fodder production. An estimated 4.6 billion livestock animals, excluding poultry and pigs, roam the continents, tended in part by several hundred million pastoralists whose production systems, climates, species and environments vary enormously. Despite this diversity, academic debates and policy decisions often rely on uniform approaches that approximate each livestock species’ climate impact using standardized data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The editors of the Special Issue, led by Andrei Marin of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences together with Jonathan Davies, Fiona Flintan, Carol Kerven and Rashmi Singh, contend that such one-size-fits-all estimates misrepresent the complex realities of pastoral systems.

The evidence for this misrepresentation is mounting. A recent exchange between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Norwegian statistics authority revealed that reported enteric methane emissions from sheep in Norway were overestimated by 30 percent in every annual report going back to 1990. Similarly, a global meta-analysis of methane emissions from bovids indicates that emissions from yaks on the Asian Plateau may be as much as 39 percent lower than the standard IPCC Tier 2 model would predict. The editors are careful to note that this does not mean IPCC models are wrong or always overestimate; rather, even flexible estimates depend on difficult simplifications and approximations of each livestock system.

The details required for reliable methane emission indicators are extraordinarily fine-grained. Researchers would need to know how much an animal moves during a day, the seasonal cycle of weather conditions, the temperature of the animal facility, and even whether a crust is allowed to form on top of liquid manure tanks. Because of this, measuring emissions directly in the atmosphere above livestock systems holds promise for better estimates—and at least one study shows that for highly intensive systems, methane emissions may actually be as much as 90 percent higher than IPCC calculations suggest. This discrepancy carries a sobering implication: the hypothesis that intensifying livestock production reduces greenhouse gas emissions, especially in developing countries, deserves caution. Even with ambitious and costly technological improvements, the effect may amount to less than a quarter of the emissions expected under a business-as-usual scenario—and that is before accounting for the broader social and environmental costs of such transformations.

There is also a pronounced data bias. Most of the data used in greenhouse gas emission assessments comes from intensive livestock systems in the global North, while narratives about livestock emissions continue to shape policies targeting the extensive systems of pastoralists in the global South. The stakes are high: positions taken by governments, international donors and NGOs can influence support for livestock sectors through initiatives such as the Breakthrough Agenda. Consumers, meanwhile, increasingly factor environmental impact into food choices, and official dietary guidelines in some regions promote major reductions in livestock products for so-called planetary health—guidelines that have drawn criticism, most recently in the form of legislative initiatives banning meat-related product names such as “hamburgers” and “sausages” for plant-based alternatives. The textile industry is likewise marketing alternatives to livestock products as less climate-damaging. All of these choices rest on a limited understanding of the complex relationship between pastoralist systems and climate, one that seldom accounts for local specificities or indirect effects such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation and albedo maintenance.

The Special Issue probes this debate by distinguishing two broad forms of livestock production. Intensive systems rely on capital investment, technologies such as housing and fencing, and supplementary feed, allowing denser animal populations and faster growth driven by concentrated feed and antibiotics. Extensive systems—pastoralism—involve animals predominantly grazed on open pastures, often with mobile herding and communal land use, characterized by lower external inputs, a higher ratio of labour, and lower livestock density per unit of land. Evidence is accumulating that intensive systems carry greater negative climate impacts, while extensive systems can play a substantial role in safeguarding climate-regulating ecosystem services. To assume all livestock production systems have comparable harmful effects may overlook the genuine benefits of pastoralism.

Yet the picture is not uniformly rosy for extensive systems. A study of cattle farming in Amazonia, Brazil, by Corrêa and colleagues found that moderately intensified farms achieve 55 percent higher meat production than extensive farms with similar energy consumption per hectare. Intensive farms produce dramatically higher yields—nine times those of extensive systems—but consume 14 times more energy per hectare, primarily through fertilization and supplemental feed, and emit seven times more greenhouse gases per hectare, with methane accounting for the bulk. Intriguingly, intensive farms show 55 percent lower emissions per ton of meat. The authors conclude that eco-efficiency can be improved through moderate intensification, but that further intensification reverses these gains, crossing a tipping point into energy-hungry, mechanized production. Recommended practices—many already used by pastoralists—include rotational grazing, improved stocking rate management, soil fertility maintenance, pasture restoration and forage management.

Other case studies reinforce the need for precision. In Tanzania, Mwilawa and colleagues compared traditional grazing with feedlot systems, showing that supplementary concentrate feeding raises the feed conversion ratio and lowers methane emission intensity per unit of product, while also revealing breed differences: Boran cattle produced more enteric methane than Tanzanian Short Horn Zebu, likely due to greater dry matter intake associated with larger body size. In Kenya, Gurmu and colleagues calculated Tier 2 annual emission factors for cattle across seasons, finding significant differences by breed, herd composition, live weight, weight gains, milk yield and digestible energy—variability that Tier 1 assumptions ignore and that risks miscalculating pastoral emissions. From Mongolia, Lkhamaachin and colleagues produced country-specific Tier 2 calculations for sheep across desert-steppe, steppe and forest-steppe zones, incorporating seasonal weight change, pasture quality and the energy cost of migration. Their findings included surprises: young adult sheep emitted up to 20 percent less than the IPCC standard, while mature sheep and lambs exceeded it, and Mongolian sheep converted more feed energy into methane, presumably due to harsh climate, extensive mobility and low forage digestibility. Rather than blanket livestock reduction, the authors propose management targeted at ewes during pregnancy and lactation.

Goats, often blamed for environmental degradation, receive a more nuanced verdict. A review by Kerven shows that goats, with high feed conversion efficiency, emit less enteric methane than all other domestic ruminants, and that goat-based pastoral systems play a vital role in building livelihoods in difficult socio-environmental contexts—including the cashmere trade. In Mediterranean Turkey, Ocak Yetişgin and Canan document the Sarıkeçililer community’s annual 400–450 kilometre migration between coastal highlands and upland pastures, a tradition now squeezed by climate change, market pressures and policy neglect. They argue pastoralism should be recognized as a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture, not a relic. From the Indian Himalayas, Banka and colleagues show that the Chopan community’s rotational grazing remains within ecological limits, maintains soil fertility and supports regional food security, despite structural marginalization. Davies and colleagues map the enormous photovoltaic and wind energy potential of pastoral rangelands, warning that green transition projects could either secure pastoral land rights or dispossess communities, depending on safeguards and consent. An ethnographic study in northern Mongolia by Imoli critiques the detached, abstract concept of climate change used by institutions, showing how post-socialist upheaval left pastoralists navigating a volatile market and changing climate with minimal institutional support.

The overarching message is captured in a phrase the editors highlight: “it’s not the cow, it’s the how!” Rather than seeking common metrics, the editors propose understanding the complexities and particularities of individual pastoral systems. Future research should incorporate fine-grained seasonal data and extended methodologies such as Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costs and Social Life Cycle Assessment. With the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralism in 2026 uniting more than 420 organizations to dispel myths and strengthen policy frameworks, the editors argue that nuanced, context-specific understanding is indispensable for just policy pathways—and that pastoralists, far from being a climate problem, may yet prove part of the solution.

Subject of Research: The role of pastoral livestock systems in climate change, methane emissions accounting and rangeland sustainability

Article Title: Editorial: The role of pastoral livestock and products in climate change: a complicated issue

Article References: Marin, A., Davies, J., Flintan, F., Kerven, C., & Singh, R. (2026). Editorial: The role of pastoral livestock and products in climate change: a complicated issue. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 16, Article 16611. https://doi.org/10.3389/past.2026.16611

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/past.2026.16611

Keywords: pastoralism, livestock, climate change, methane emissions, IPCC, rangelands, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, green transition, transhumance, sustainable agriculture, Tier 2 emissions