Land for grazing could be "halved"? The reality of climate change that will alter the future of cattle, sheep, and goats by 2100

Land for grazing could be "halved"? The reality of climate change that will alter the future of cattle, sheep, and goats by 2100

"Places for Grazing" are Decreasing Worldwide

Milk, cheese, yogurt, wool, and meat. Livestock farming, deeply embedded in our lives, is not solely sustained by factory-like indoor breeding. In fact, in many regions of the world, grazing livestock on grasslands is the mainstay.


However, this "norm" could be fundamentally shaken by climate change. Recent research warns that by the end of this century (2100), land suitable for grazing cattle, sheep, and goats could decrease by **36-50%** globally.


What this figure signifies is not merely a fluctuation in production volume. It implies a potential ripple effect on the lives of people dependent on grazing, regional cultures, and even national stability.


The Study Reveals the "Safe Climate Range"

The key point of this study is that it defines the "climatic conditions framework" under which livestock farming has been viable, based on data.
Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which grazing cattle, sheep, and goats have been relatively stable, including factors like temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind.


The land within this "safe range" is shrinking due to rising temperatures and climate change. Moreover, the shrinkage is not uniform and may manifest as "sudden difficulty in grazing" in certain regions. This is because not only heat but also dryness, humidity changes, and wind conditions combine to rapidly exceed the limits of grass growth, water availability, and livestock heat stress.


Impact Scale: Over 100 Million Pastoralists, Up to 1.6 Billion Livestock

Grazing is conducted over a significant portion of the world's land and is a massive production system. The study highlights that over 100 million pastoralists and up to 1.6 billion head of grazing livestock could be affected.


What is important here is that "pastoralists = poor people" is an oversimplification. While there are many highly vulnerable regions, pastoralism is not just a source of income but also a wisdom of land use, a community institution, and sometimes an ethnic identity. The loss of grazing land could lead to not just a loss of livelihood but also a destabilization of social foundations.


Hotspot is Africa: Temperatures Already Near "Upper Limit"

The study particularly points out that Africa is vulnerable. The reason is simple: many regions are already near the upper limit of the "safe climate range."


Even a slight increase in temperature can intensify livestock heat stress, reduce grassland productivity, and make securing water and feed more difficult if droughts and extreme events increase in frequency. Even in low-emission futures, reduction is hard to avoid, and in high-emission futures, the impact could be even more severe.


What cannot be overlooked here is that the impact is not limited to "food." When pastoralism collapses, household economies crumble, conflicts over mobility and land use increase, youth outflow and urban population concentration accelerate. In some countries, it could raise the risk of security and political instability. The study emphasizes that countries with high hunger, economic and political instability, and gender inequality are more susceptible to these impacts.


It's Not About "Grazing is Bad/Good," But That "Conditions Are Changing"

The topic of climate and livestock often becomes a dichotomy of "livestock should be reduced because it's a cause of greenhouse gases" versus "no, grazing helps environmental regeneration."


However, what this study highlights is the reality that "physical conditions are changing" before ideology. Grazing heavily depends on environmental conditions like grasslands, water, temperature, and humidity. This means that no matter how much demand there is or how strong the tradition is, if climate conditions exceed thresholds, grazing becomes difficult to sustain.


And when it becomes difficult to sustain, what happens is not necessarily a "neat reduction." It manifests as burdens accumulating on the ground, such as deteriorating livestock health, increased external procurement of feed, rising costs, overgrazing of land, household financial pressure, and longer distances for movement.


Adaptation Options: Changes in Movement, Breeds, and Rearing, and "Water"

So, are there no options? There are already several adaptation strategies on the ground.

  • Livestock Breed Conversion/Improvement: Transition to heat-resistant and disease-resistant strains

  • Changes in Grazing Methods: Adjusting grazing pressure, rotational grazing, managing to avoid the hot hours of the day

  • Feed and Pasture Innovations: Introducing drought-resistant grass species, combining with feed crops

  • Securing Water: Wells, water supply facilities, reservoirs, watershed management (though funding and consensus-building are necessary)

  • Diversification of Income Sources: Crops other than livestock, tourism, processed products, community businesses, etc.


However, adaptation comes with costs. In regions lacking funding, infrastructure, technology, and administrative services, adaptation strategies tend to be "theoretically correct but practically difficult." This is why the structure of "those most affected are already vulnerable countries" highlighted by the study is significant.


Reactions on Social Media: Anxiety, Political Distrust, and "Food Transition" Debate

This topic easily spreads on social media. The reason is simple: the familiar theme of "meat and dairy" combined with the strong figures of "2100" and "half" stir people's emotions.

 

In fact, the following reactions are notable in overseas communities.


1) A Sense of "It's Already Too Late" and Resignation
On a certain forum, amidst the lack of progress in addressing the climate crisis, there were voices expressing despair over the slim prospects of societal change, using expressions like "humans are clever dumb beasts."
Such reactions are more about exhaustion with politics, media, and division than scientific discussion.


2) Spread of "Livestock = Bad" Narrative
Posts saying "That's why livestock should be reduced" or "Shift to plant-based diets" have strong spreading power. Many tones link it to greenhouse gases (especially methane) and simultaneously call for changes in individual eating behaviors and policies.


3) Realistic Focus on "But What About Pastoralists?"
On the other hand, there is a strong perspective asking, "If grazing lands are lost, what about the lives of pastoralists?" and "Who will support the transition of culture and livelihoods?" This voice seeks adaptation support and a just transition, avoiding simple good-versus-bad debates.


4) Reactions Directly Related to "Price"
On social media, discussions often end up with concerns like "Will meat and dairy products become more expensive?" or "Will supply become unstable?" Here, there are signs that climate change is beginning to be understood not as a "distant future" but as a household risk.


Our Reinterpretation: "Crisis in Pastoralism" is a Crisis in Food and Society

This study shows that the future of pastoralism is linked not only to "technology" but also to "society." The reduction of grazing lands is not merely a supply issue of meat and dairy. The impact is greater in vulnerable regions and could extend to food security, conflict risk, and gender disparities.


Thus, the response also becomes twofold.
One is mitigation, which involves reducing greenhouse gases to curb temperature rise.
The other is adaptation, which involves protecting livelihoods in a changing climate.


And between these two lies the issue of "who bears the cost" and "whether vulnerable people are left behind." The next focus will be whether we can treat the future of shrinking grazing lands not as "numbers" to consume but as a societal design challenge.


Source

Related Articles