Free-Range Cattle 101

Photo by Jake Nicol of the Wall Street Journal

If you're a meat eater, you've probably happened upon beef or steaks labeled "free-range." In the U.S., many free-range cattle are born and raised on the western plains, called "rangeland." In this post, I'll tell you all about the ecology, economics and politics of rangelands of the U.S.

What is rangeland?

A huge portion of land in the western half of the United States is devoted to grazing cattle. Much of this land is owned and regulated by either the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. Both these organizations rent land to ranchers, who pay yearly fees based on how many animals they graze.

On this land, ranchers let their cattle roam freely (often within a fenced area) and partake of any and all vegetation they please. Compared to confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs — think: lots of cows in a v tiny factory) the free-range method of raising cattle is much preferred.

Grazing on rangelands spreads out animal waste (AKA poop) a lot more than CAFOs, which leads to less extreme land pollution. The grazing method also allows the cows some breathing room, so they don't have to deal with extreme confinement in poorly kept spaces.

For these reasons, environmentalists tend to favor free-range cattle operations, and food corporations who get beef from rangeland love to gloat about their free-range status. However, the environmental impact of rangeland isn't all hunky-dory...

Bottom line: Ranchers graze their cattle on rangelands rented from the U.S. government.

Do rangelands harm the environment?

Absolutely. Despite the benefits of free-range cattle operations, they occupy and destroy a heck ton of land. Cattle grazing has led to soil compaction and depletion, erosion of natural waterways and other nasty environmental issues in many parts of the West.

Cows compact soil because they are really heavy animals. When soils become compacted, it is more difficult for them to absorb rainwater. This leads to soil erosion (which is v bad because we need soil to survive) and makes it more difficult for plant roots to grow deeper.

When soils become compacted and erode, this can make waterways wider and more shallow. Wide and shallow waterways are not as hospitable to lush, diverse and productive ecosystems, so this decreases overall ecosystem health.

As soils erode and ecosystems become less diverse, native plants struggle to survive. This is made even worse because cows are really picky eaters. They like to eat native plants and ignore other potentially invasive plants. Without native and robust ecosystems, lands could become desertified (i.e. become infertile, with little to no new growth).

Making matters even worse, the ranchers' rent money is not nearly enough to cover the cost of restoring this land. This leaves the burden on taxpayers to pay for restoring rangelands. However, this taxpayer money usually goes toward projects that are proven to harm ecosystems. For example, some of this money contributes to installing fences on rangelands. Although fencing keeps cattle within a given area, fences make it harder for native animals to move through the land, thus disrupting the ecosystem.

Bottom line: Cattle contribute to soil erosion and compaction, discourage native plant growth and harm waterways.

What’s next?

Ranchers don't want the current system to change because they are getting a great deal: they get a lot of profit from free-range beef and don't have to pay their fair share for the land. Ranchers also have mega political power in the West, so they've been able to resist many environmentalist attempts to make grazing more sustainable.

From a consumer perspective, if the U.S. government started charging higher rent rates for grazing on rangelands, the price of free-range beef would increase in tow. This means that consumers would need to pay more for sustainable meat, but wouldn't have to contribute as much to the cost of rangeland "improvement" project like installing fences.

Environmentally, the current system is just not sustainable. If cattle keep compacting soils, eroding lands surrounding waterways and selectively eating grasses, Western rangelands will not be able to support raising cattle or much life of any kind. So although it might not be desirable for ranchers or for consumers looking to eat sustainably for cheap, the status quo must change.

One potential policy solution is to increase both rent fees for rangeland and the cost of meat, while also scaling back significantly on meat consumption in the U.S. This way, ranchers would contribute more to the cost of maintaining their land and fewer cattle would inhabit rangelands. With fewer cattle on rangelands, ranchers and the government could more easily improve the ecology of these lands and cattle production would contribute less to climate change.

Likely, no solution will please every party involved. However, change needs to occur if the Western lands of the U.S. are going to be fertile for generations to come.

Bottom line: This is a thorny issue, but we most def need to eat less meat.

Primary source: The Environmental Case by Judith A. Layzer