ASH CLOUD

Beef sustainability frequently gets framed as something imposed on the ranchers and the industry from outside—regulatory requirements, consumer pressure, climate obligations driven by environmental groups and activists, leaving the industry industry to respond or resist.
But this frame misses something fundamental.
My guest today, Tom McDonald, is chair of the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and sustainability lead at Five Rivers Cattle. His reframing is powerful because it turns sustainability from an external demand into something the beef industry has been pursuing for generations. As he puts it: "Sustainability is a journey and not a destination." 
The three pillars are simple: environmentally sound, socially responsible, economically viable. But McDonald breaks this down further into language that resonates with producers: efficiency. The beef industry has been working on efficiency for decades. Feed efficiency. Land efficiency. Resource efficiency. When you talk to ranchers about doing more with less, you're speaking their language.
"Methane emissions is lost efficiency. Methane is energy that doesn't get converted to pounds of beef… As the beef industry, we didn't start focusing on that when it became a political issue. We've been focused on that for a long time, trying to make the animals more efficient." says McDonald
This reshaping of the methane conversation from primarily a climate problem to be solved for environmental virtue to lost productivity is powerful.
The insight is profound. When McDonald sat on a methane roundtable with the oil and gas industry, they described their leaking valves the same way: uncaptured gas is money walking out the door. The economics align across industries. Methane capture isn't virtue—it's profit optimization.
But there's an important caveat embedded in this philosophy. McDonald is clear about something critical: the beef industry doesn't need to reach zero methane to make significant impact. Complete elimination isn't the goal—substantial improvement is. This reframes the entire conversation away from perfectionism.
As he puts it: "Can we improve it? I think so. Can we make it zero? I doubt it."
This conversation explores how the efficiency lens reshapes sustainability from burden to opportunity, and why incremental improvements across the value chain, without demanding perfection, matter far more than seeking impossible silver bullets.
 
Send us Fan Mail

The beef industry has spent decades optimizing feed efficiency in one place: the feedlot. Genetics have been selected for finishing performance, cattle are placed on feed at lighter weights and fed to heavier carcasses, and the result is measurable improvement in how much feed converts to pounds of beef. Al Rotz's 50-year life cycle assessment comparing 1972 to 2022 documents this clearly—the industry has made tremendous progress.
But this optimization has created a misalignment: the most profitable cattle for the finishing sector are not the most profitable cattle for cow-calf operations.
Today we are joined by Matt Beck from Texas A&M, whose research reveals a profound inefficiency hiding in plain sight. For every 100 pounds of additional cow body weight, weaned calf weight increases by only 14 pounds. That extra 100 pounds of cow, however, requires approximately 600 pounds of additional forage annually. Simple math: ranchers are feeding 600 pounds to produce 14 pounds of marketable product.
This isn't a visible problem. Ranchers can't see the extra 600 pounds of pasture consumption. But it's there, compounding year after year, driving profitability down precisely when the industry needs it up. Meanwhile, herd sizes have crashed to 1950s levels—not because ranchers want smaller herds, but because drought cycles are becoming more severe and smaller cows are more resilient to them.
Matt's most exciting work focuses on methane as a proxy for feed efficiency on pasture. Within the herds he's measured, there's 30% variation in methane emissions among animals producing identical output. And separate research shows that 10% reductions in feed intake are achievable without any loss in productivity. As Matt puts it: "Feed efficiency on pasture is the next great frontier, and with advances in technology, we're becoming more and more able to do that."
The challenge isn't scientific. It's economic alignment and infrastructure access for small producers who comprise the majority of the US cow-calf sector.
Send us Fan Mail

Meat consumption has risen every single year that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has been measuring. Despite warnings about climate impacts spanning over a century, from carbon and methane's  effects to James Hansen's congressional testimony in 1986, to a book called "Diet for a Small Planet" published 52 years ago, global meat production continues its upward trajectory. All available analysis indicates the world will eat at least 50% more meat by 2050.

But here's the challenge: human beings struggle with anything requiring self-denial. Energy consumption keeps rising. Miles driven keeps rising. Meat consumption keeps rising. This is not a failure of knowledge or information, it's rooted in human nature itself. Consuming more feels like improvement in quality of life.

Today we are joined by Bruce Friedrich, founder and CEO of the Good Food Institute, whose new book "Meat" (meatbook.org) articulates this systems-level thinking. Friedrich offers pragmatic frameworks rather than ideological purity. He recognizes that renewable energy succeeded not by asking people to consume less energy, but by providing better alternatives at competitive prices, enabled by decades of government policy coordinating R&D support, manufacturing incentives, tax credits, and infrastructure investment. He argues that alternative proteins require similar government commitment including: sustained funding for open-source R&D, manufacturing scale-up support, regulatory clarity, and policies that genuinely protect farmer prosperity rather than threatening it. Without government policy as the coordinating force, tribalism, geopolitics, and farmer opposition will likely ensure failure.

Friedrich highlights how ranchers and farmers face genuine economic threats that current policy fails to address. Without deliberate government policy protecting their interests, alternative proteins can be seen as an existential threat rather than an opportunity. Ranchers worry about market cannibalization, stranded assets, and unfair competition subsidized by tech investment. These concerns are legitimate and can be addressed by government policy that actively ensures traditional livestock producers share in the opportunities including to where alternative proteins address commodity demand and beef becomes an increasingly valuable luxury product commanding higher prices.

The geopolitical dimension cannot be ignored. Eight of the top twenty patent holders in plant-based and cultivated meat over the past five to six years are Chinese companies. China is investing strategically in alternative proteins driven by food security concerns and soft power ambitions, capabilities the West cannot afford to cede. This is not merely about climate or sustainability; it's about technological sovereignty and the future of protein production as a strategic asset.

The conversation with Bruce explores how these competing forces, government ambition, farmer/rancher prosperity, technological innovation, and geopolitical competition, can be aligned rather than opposed to accelerate the transition toward sustainable protein production.
Send us Fan Mail

Forty leading global food and agriculture companies recently declared their commitment to regenerative agriculture. This unprecedented industry alignment signals that the sector has moved beyond looking at sustainable farming an aspirational ideal and into investment and scale. Yet challenges remain as adoption of regenerative practices is sliding backward in North America.
Satellite imagery processed with AI and biogeochemical modeling reveals that cover cropping and conservation tillage adoption have declined over recent years. In many Midwest states, the losses reach double digits percentage points.This data comes from monitoring 1.5 billion acres globally, representing 52% of global arable land. Simultaneously, farmers are facing a squeeze with rising diesel and fertilizer costs coinciding with weak commodity markets and decreasing government funding. The $3.8 billion investment in climate-smart practices from the Inflation Reduction Act has been partially replaced by a $700 million regenerative pilot program
Today we are joined by Anastasia Volkova from Regrow Ag, an early leader and advocate for regenerative agriculture. Regrow has evolved from evangelizing regenerative practices to managing a critical transition to making regenerative agriculture repeatable and scalable across radically different conditions through creative co-investment, alternative funding mechanisms, and regional innovation.
Regrow’s framework identifies three distinct market stages: the evangelizing phase focused on building common nomenclature, the investing phase amplified by government dollars and corporate commitments, and the current challenge of making practices repeatable in a constrained funding environment. Her work spans North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia, revealing how different regions activate different capital sources, from European carbon certification frameworks to Brazilian vertically integrated agro-holdings pioneering methane measurement in livestock. The conversation explores how emerging allies, water markets, and MRV technology innovations could replace disappearing government support without compromising farmer economics or climate outcomes.
 
Send us Fan Mail

The poultry and swine industries have transformed feed efficiency over the past two decades. Through systematic improvement in nutrition, enzyme utilization, and animal genetics, they now produce vastly more protein from  fewer resources.  The challenge is not simply reducing methane emissions from cows, but reducing methane per unit of milk produced while maintaining farmer profitability and food security.
But here's the complexity: feed intake in dairy cattle is difficult to measure in controlled research facilities; in pasture-based systems where 88% of global cattle graze, measurement becomes extraordinarily challenging. Yet without precise data, researchers cannot translate laboratory findings into reliable commercial recommendations. This measurement gap between what science discovers and what farmers can practically implement represents agriculture's critical bottleneck. When you combine this with the variability in dairy systems—roughly 20% natural variation in methane emissions even among genetically similar control animals—the path forward requires nuanced, system-level analysis rather than simple silver bullets.
Today we are joined by Ermias Kebeab from UC Davis, whose research demonstrates that genetic selection offers a permanent, cumulative, and heritable pathway to improved feed efficiency. Kebeab's recent work evaluated the EcoFeed index developed by STgenetics, a genomic breeding value tool based on over 10,000 animals—7,623 growing Holstein heifers and 2,538 lactating cows. Results showed that selecting for improved residual feed intake (RFI) reduces lifetime emissions without compromising productivity. A one-standard-deviation improvement in genomic RFI decreased feed consumption by 2.73% and reduced lifetime CO2 equivalent emissions by 2.42% per animal—equivalent to 868 kg CO2e savings per cow. A three-standard-deviation improvement showed even greater potential, reducing feed intake by 8.2% and emissions by 7.31%, while simultaneously lowering feed costs by $199 per female.
Ermias's research bridges research discovery with practical implementation across both the Global North and Global South. Kebeab's work on grape pomace byproducts—incorporated at 10-15% of dairy rations—demonstrates milk yield improvements alongside methane intensity reductions, while pre-fermenting almond hulls shows additional potential when economic trade-offs are favorable.
Crucially, he emphasizes that the Global South's emissions reduction challenge differs fundamentally from the North. Where dairy systems produce less than 2,000 kg milk annually, the priority must be productivity improvement rather than limiting animal numbers. Rising energy and fertilizer costs disproportionately impact low and middle-income countries, making locally-adapted tropical breeds and resilient farming systems more viable than input-intensive Western genetics. 
Send us Fan Mail