How much land is used for animal agriculture?

Animal agriculture is the single largest human use of land on Earth, covering approximately 4.8 billion hectares—about 37% of all ice-free land, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2023). This staggering footprint includes both permanent pasture and cropland dedicated to growing animal feed. Yet, that vast area provides only 18% of global calories and 37% of protein, as highlighted by a 2021 study in Nature Food. The imbalance lies at the heart of why land use for animal agriculture is a critical environmental issue.

This page unpacks the numbers, the breakdown between pasture and feed crops, and the regional variations that shape land use. It also explains the cost and trade-offs of reducing that footprint, addresses common objections, and offers practical steps you can take. Whether you're a curious consumer, a student, or a concerned citizen, you'll leave with a clear understanding of how our food choices affect the land beneath our feet.

Why land use for animal agriculture matters

Land use for animal agriculture is a central lever in the climate and biodiversity crises because it occupies the vast majority of the world's agricultural land while producing a minority of its calories and protein. According to a 2021 study in Nature Food, livestock accounts for 77% of global agricultural land but only 18% of global calories and 37% of protein. This imbalance drives deforestation, habitat loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. The way we allocate land to feed animals instead of people directly affects food security, water cycles, and the survival of wild species. Understanding the numbers helps clarify why shifting diets and farming practices is one of the most effective individual and policy actions available.

The core question: How much land is used for animal agriculture?

Roughly 4.8 billion hectares of land—about 37% of Earth's ice-free land surface—are dedicated to animal agriculture, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2023). This includes permanent pasture and cropland used to grow animal feed. In contrast, crops grown directly for human consumption occupy only about 1 billion hectares. The scale of this land use is staggering: it is an area larger than the combined territory of North America and South America. This figure includes both grazing land and the arable land used to produce feed crops like soy and maize, which are often grown in monocultures that degrade soil and biodiversity.

The global scale of land use

Animal agriculture is the single largest human use of land on Earth, far exceeding any other sector. According to the FAO (2023), permanent meadows and pastures cover approximately 3.4 billion hectares, while feed crops occupy another 0.4–0.5 billion hectares. When combined, this represents about 83% of all agricultural land globally. In contrast, all cropland for direct human food is only about 1 billion hectares, and urban areas take up less than 3% of land. This means that for every person on Earth, about 0.6 hectares are used for animal agriculture—the size of roughly 80 football fields. Such scale has profound implications for land competition, especially in regions where food insecurity persists.

📊 Land use breakdown: Animal agriculture vs. other uses

The following table summarizes the global land use distribution (FAO, 2023; Poore & Nemecek, 2018):

Key stat: > Livestock uses 83% of global agricultural land but provides only 18% of global calories (FAO, 2021).

How animal agriculture's land use breaks down: pasture vs. feed crops

Pasture and feed crops are the two dominant components, but they differ vastly in efficiency. Pasture covers the largest share, but much of it is marginal land that cannot grow crops, so its opportunity cost is lower than that of feed crops. However, feed crops like soy and maize occupy prime arable land that could otherwise feed people directly. For example, about 80% of global soy production is fed to livestock, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF, 2022). This competition is critical because it links meat consumption to deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado. Shifting away from feed crops could free up land for human food or reforestation.

The land use footprint per product

Different animal products have vastly different land footprints per kilogram of protein. Beef and lamb are the most land-intensive, requiring up to 100–200 square meters per kilogram of protein, while chicken and pork use about 20–60 square meters, and plant-based protein like lentils uses less than 10 square meters. A 2018 study in Science by Poore & Nemecek found that beef production uses 28 times more land than roots and tubers per calorie. This variance means that dietary choices have outsized effects on land demand. Replacing a portion of beef with plant-based alternatives can reduce personal land use by 60-80%.

🗺️ Regional variations in land use

Land use for animal agriculture is not evenly distributed; regions with large cattle industries—like Brazil, the US, and Australia—have the highest land footprints. Brazil alone has around 200 million hectares of pasture for cattle, much of which was cleared from the Amazon, according to the Brazilian Space Agency (INPE, 2022). In contrast, Western Europe uses a higher proportion of feed crops, while parts of Africa and Asia rely more on mixed systems with lower yields. These regional differences shape conservation priorities: in the Amazon, land use change is the main driver of deforestation; in the US, feed crop production drives soil erosion in the Corn Belt. Understanding local context is vital for effective land-policy interventions.

How land use is measured: methods and caveats

Land use is typically measured in hectares, and it includes both direct and indirect land use. Direct land use refers to the area occupied by pastures and feed crops, while indirect land use accounts for land displaced by feed production elsewhere, such as when soy for animal feed replaces forests. Studies often use life-cycle assessment (LCA) to tally these footprints, but results vary depending on system boundaries and allocation methods. For instance, the FAO's estimates differ from those of academic studies because of different data sources and assumptions about grazing intensity. Nonetheless, the consensus is that animal agriculture is the dominant land user, regardless of methodology.

🌱 Land sparing and shifting diets

Shifting diets toward plant-based foods could spare huge swathes of land, potentially freeing up to 75% of current agricultural land, according to a 2021 Nature Food study. This land could be rewilded or used for reforestation, which would sequester carbon and restore biodiversity. Even modest dietary changes—like replacing beef with chicken or pork—can reduce land use by 30-50% per person. The concept of 'land sparing' argues that efficient food production on less land leaves more room for nature. However, critics argue that 'land sharing'—integrating agriculture with conservation—may be more socially equitable in some regions.

Costs and trade-offs: Economic and social implications

Reducing animal agriculture's land use carries significant economic and social costs, especially for communities dependent on livestock production. Livestock provides livelihoods for over 1.3 billion people globally, according to the FAO (2023), many in developing countries where alternatives are scarce. Shifting away from animal agriculture could disrupt rural economies, food traditions, and cultural identities. Additionally, pasture land that is not suitable for cropping cannot always be repurposed for human food production, so it may become abandoned. These trade-offs require just-transition policies that support affected workers and invest in alternative livelihoods.

Common objections and rebuttals

1. 'Grazing land can't be used for anything else'—True for marginal land, but feed crops occupy fertile arable land that could grow human food. Even pasture-only systems may be less productive than mixed farming with agroforestry.
2. 'Animal agriculture is necessary for food security'—While livestock can enhance nutrition in some regions, much of the world's animal feed is grown on land that could feed people directly. Reducing feed crops could improve global food availability without compromising total food output.
3. 'Lab-grown meat is not scalable'—Current plant-based alternatives already have a much smaller land footprint and are available today; the potential of cultured meat is still being researched.

Bottom line: The evidence is clear that animal agriculture occupies an outsized share of land, but the solution is not a blanket elimination—rather, it is a smarter allocation of land and a shift toward more efficient food production.

Policy and corporate action

Governments and corporations can drive land-use change through policies like the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, which incentivizes sustainable farming, or through corporate commitments to zero-deforestation supply chains. For instance, the Amazon Soy Moratorium has reduced deforestation linked to soy production by 20-30%, as reported by Trase (2021). Land-use planning, agroecological zoning, and payment for ecosystem services can also help. Companies like Unilever have pledged to use only sustainable soy, but certification alone is insufficient without robust enforcement.

What you can do next

• Shift your diet: Replace beef with plant-based proteins like lentils or beans—this can cut your personal land footprint by up to 60%, according to Science (2018).
• Choose eco-certified products: Look for labels like 'Zero-deforestation' or 'Organic' that often indicate lower land impacts.
• Support land-restoration initiatives: Donate or volunteer for reforestation projects, which can help reclaim land from past agricultural use.
• Advocate for policy change: Use your voice to push for national land-use policies that protect forests and soil.
• Educate others: Share these numbers with friends and family to raise awareness about the land footprint of animal agriculture.

📈 The future outlook

As global demand for animal protein rises—especially in emerging economies—land use for animal agriculture could grow unless efficiency gains are made. The FAO projects that meat demand will increase by 50% by 2050, which would require additional land if current practices continue. However, lower-impact diets and agroecological farming could offset this trend. With sustainable intensification, it is possible to produce enough food on less land, feeding a growing population while preserving natural habitats. The future hinges on collective choices made today.

Conclusion

Animal agriculture claims a disproportionate share of Earth's land, yet its contribution to global nutrition is surprisingly low. Reducing this footprint requires a multi-pronged approach, from individual dietary shifts to systemic policy changes. While there are real costs and trade-offs, the potential benefits—biodiversity recovery, carbon sequestration, and food security—are too significant to ignore. As KindEco advocates, every small change counts, but systemic change is imperative for a sustainable future.

Key References

• FAO (2023). 'Global land use in agriculture.'
• Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). 'Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.' Science.
• Nature Food (2021). 'Land use and food systems.'

This page is part of KindEco's ongoing series on the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.

Trade-offs: Land sparing, land sharing, and rebound effects

Land-use debates are not simply about freeing land; they involve complex trade-offs between efficiency, biodiversity, and social outcomes. The "land sparing" approach concentrates animal production on intensive, high-yield systems to leave more land for nature, while "land sharing" integrates lower-intensity farming with wildlife-friendly habitats. A 2019 study in Science found that land sparing generally benefits biodiversity more per unit of food produced, but it often requires high inputs and can worsen pollution if not managed well. Additionally, rebound effects can erase gains: as land becomes cheaper or food prices drop, consumers may increase consumption, offsetting the land saved. These trade-offs mean that reducing land use is not a silver bullet—it must be paired with demand-side changes and strong environmental regulations.

The efficiency paradox of intensive farming

Intensive animal agriculture uses less land per kilogram of meat than extensive grazing, but it can increase other environmental pressures. For example, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the US produce more meat on less land but create manure runoff that pollutes waterways, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2020). Similarly, feed crop expansion for intensive livestock often displaces forests, as seen in the Cerrado region of Brazil, where soy for chicken and pork has driven deforestation. This paradox means that land use alone is an incomplete metric; it must be assessed alongside water use, emissions, and biodiversity loss. A systems approach that optimizes across all impacts, not just land area, is essential for sustainability.

"Key stat:" Intensive beef systems use up to 50% less land than extensive systems, but can emit more greenhouse gases per kilogram when land-use change is accounted for (FAO, 2023).

The role of marginal land and opportunity costs

Not all land used for animal agriculture is equal; much pasture is marginal, meaning it cannot grow crops productively, so its opportunity cost is lower. In drylands and mountainous regions, grazing is often the only viable food production, and removing livestock could reduce food security and cultural livelihoods. However, even on marginal land, overgrazing can degrade soil and reduce carbon storage, as documented in a 2021 Nature Sustainability study. The real opportunity cost is higher on prime agricultural land used for feed crops—land that could support direct human food or reforestation. Therefore, land-use policies should prioritize freeing up arable land from feed production and focus grazing on truly marginal areas with sustainable herd sizes.

Common objections to reducing animal agriculture land use

Critics often argue that eliminating or reducing animal agriculture would harm economies, reduce food security, or ignore cultural traditions, but these objections merit careful examination. A common claim is that livestock are essential for feeding a growing population because they convert inedible plant matter into protein; however, this overlooks the fact that most feed crops are edible for humans, as FAO data show that over 70% of global soy and 40% of grain are fed to animals. Another objection is that pasture lands are unsuitable for cropping, so they are "wasted" if not grazed; while true for marginal lands, a significant portion of pasture is converted from former forests, and restoring it could sequester carbon and support biodiversity. These objections often rely on static views of food systems; integrating plant-based diets and agroecological practices can address many of the concerns while reducing land pressure.

The protein quality argument

Advocates for animal agriculture often highlight the higher biological value of animal protein, but this advantage diminishes in well-balanced plant-based diets. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2021) notes that plant proteins can meet all essential amino acid needs when consumed in variety, and food combining is not required for most adults. Furthermore, the land used to produce animal protein yields far less usable protein per hectare; for example, pea protein requires 90% less land than beef per gram of protein, according to Poore & Nemecek (2018). Thus, the protein quality argument does not justify the disproportionate land footprint. Instead, a mix of legumes, grains, and nuts can provide complete nutrition with a fraction of the land.

The livelihood and economic dependency objection

Livestock farming supports millions of livelihoods, especially in low-income countries, and removing it without alternatives would be socially disruptive. However, just transition frameworks can provide support for farmers to shift to plant-based agriculture or agroecology, as seen in Europe's Common Agricultural Policy reforms. A 2022 report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) suggests that reorienting subsidies from livestock to plant-based value chains could create more jobs per hectare, countering the notion that livestock is economically irreplaceable. The key is to tailor policies to local contexts, offering training and market access for diversified production. Ignoring the social dimension of land change would be unethical; addressing it is a prerequisite for sustainable transitions.

The regional angle for English-speaking readers

Land-use patterns for animal agriculture vary significantly across the United States, UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, shaping how readers in these countries can act. In the US, the Corn Belt is nearly dedicated to feed production, with over 90 million acres of corn and soy, most of which is fed to livestock, according to the USDA (2022). Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have vast grazing systems; for example, Australia has about 300 million hectares of pasture, much of it in arid regions with low productivity. Ireland and the UK have a mix of pasture and imported feed, with Ireland's grass-fed dairy being a major export. These regional differences mean that the most effective actions vary: in feed-crop-heavy regions, reducing beef and pork consumption has the biggest land impact, while in grazing regions, supporting regenerative grazing practices can help maintain ecosystem health.

United States: Feed crop dominance and land competition

US animal agriculture is characterized by intense feed crop cultivation, with feed occupying about 40% of total cropland, as reported by the USDA. This feed production is a major driver of habitat loss in the Prairie Pothole Region and soil erosion in the Corn Belt. American readers can reduce their land footprint by choosing chicken over beef, but even better, adopting plant-based diets can cut land use by up to 76%, per a 2018 Science study. Policy-wise, the Farm Bill could prioritize crop diversification and incentives for regenerative soil practices, which also store carbon. Individual choices, such as reducing portion sizes and choosing plant-based products, directly reduce demand for feed land.

Australia and New Zealand: Grazing and export pressures

Australia and New Zealand's pastoral systems are vast, but they face unique challenges of soil compaction, water use, and methane emissions from ruminants. New Zealand's agricultural sector is dominated by dairy, with about 2.5 million cows and a high export share, leading to freshwater pollution and pressure on native forests (Ministry for the Environment, 2021). Australian cattle grazing in the rangelands often occurs on land with low productivity, but it can still cause overgrazing and loss of native species, as noted by the Australian Conservation Foundation. In these regions, shifting to plant-based agriculture would require careful adaptation, but reducing beef and dairy consumption in export markets is crucial. Consumers in these countries can support regenerative grazing certification and lower meat consumption, while farmers can explore agroforestry and silvopasture systems.

UK and Ireland: Grass-fed production and imported feed

In the UK and Ireland, livestock often graze on pasture but also rely on imported soy for concentrates, creating a land footprint that extends across the Atlantic. The UK imports about 3.4 million tonnes of soy per year, mostly for livestock, according to the Soil Association (2023). Irish grass-fed beef has a lower carbon footprint than some intensive systems, but it still uses 6 hectares of land per tonne of beef, which is high compared to plant proteins. British and Irish readers can reduce imported land use by choosing grass-fed but lower-frequency meat or by opting for legumes and locally grown grains. The upcoming agricultural policy reforms in the UK (Environmental Land Management schemes) offer an opportunity to reward farmers for biodiversity and carbon sequestration, not just production.

Comparison table: Land footprints and trade-offs across regions and products

Bottom line: The most land-efficient animal products are chicken and pork, but plant proteins use 5–20 times less land per protein unit, making them the clear winner for land conservation (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

What you can do next: A practical checklist for reducing land-use impact

Individual actions, when aggregated, can shift market demand and policy, but they must be informed and context-specific. The following checklist offers concrete steps for English-speaking readers to reduce their land-use footprint, from diet to advocacy. Each step is ranked by impact, with the highest-impact actions at the top.

• ✅ Adopt a plant-forward diet: Aim to replace beef and lamb with plant proteins at least 3–4 times per week. This alone can reduce your food-related land footprint by over 60%, according to a 2019 Nature study.
• 🌱 Choose plant milk over dairy: Swapping to oat or soy milk for one year saves about 7,000 m² of land, compared to cow's milk, per a life-cycle assessment by Poore & Nemecek.
• ♻️ Check labels for sustainable sourcing: Look for certified soy and palm oil that are deforestation-free, and prefer grass-fed or pasture-raised animal products if you do eat meat.
• 📉 Reduce food waste: Globally, about 30% of food is wasted, and that wasted land is huge; by losing less food, you avoid unnecessary land use.
• 🗺️ Support policy change: Vote for and advocate for policies that shift subsidies from livestock to plant-based agriculture, such as the US Farm Bill or the UK's Environmental Land Management schemes.
• 📚 Educate yourself and others: Use tools like the Global Footprint Network's Ecological Footprint Calculator to visualize your land impact and share findings with your community.
• 🌲 Support rewilding and reforestation: Donate to or volunteer with organizations that restore degraded pastureland to native forests, such as in the Atlantic Forest or the Loess Plateau.

"Key stat:" A 2018 Science study found that that if the world adopted a plant-based diet, agricultural land use could shrink by 3.1 billion hectares—the size of Africa—while still feeding everyone.

The hidden cost: Land use beyond the farm gate

Animal agriculture's land use extends beyond pastures and feed crops to include land for processing facilities, packaging, and waste disposal, which are often overlooked. For example, the construction of slaughterhouses and feedlots occupies urban land, and the production of chemical fertilizers for feed crops requires mining and land for factories. A 2020 study in Global Environmental Change estimated that these indirect land uses add roughly 10–15% to the total footprint of livestock. Additionally, land lost to soil degradation from overgrazing or monoculture represents a hidden and often irreversible cost. Recognizing these hidden costs is important for full-cost accounting in food pricing, which could make plant-based foods relatively cheaper. Policy instruments like carbon and land taxes on animal products could reflect these broader impacts.

Land use and water: The interlinkage

Land use for animal agriculture is intimately linked to water use, and ignoring this connection can lead to misguided land policies. Livestock feed production, especially for irrigated crops like alfalfa and corn, consumes vast amounts of water; for example, growing feed for beef uses about 15,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef, while pulses use only 4,000 liters (Water Footprint Network, 2022). This water demand puts pressure on aquifers and rivers, particularly in arid regions like the US Southwest and Australia. Reducing feed crop land can therefore yield co-benefits for water conservation. Conversely, some marginal grazing lands are too dry for crops, so livestock can be part of a integrated water-land strategy—but only with sustainable stocking rates. Thus, land-use decisions should account for water scarcity, especially in regions where both are limited.

The future of land use in animal agriculture

Technology and innovation are reshaping potential land-use pathways, but they are not silver bullets. Cellular agriculture—lab-grown meat—could dramatically reduce land needs, with early life-cycle assessments showing a 90% reduction in land use compared to conventional beef, according to a 2021 study in Nature Food. However, this technology is still in its infancy, and its energy demands are high, which could shift environmental burdens rather than eliminate them. Agroecological approaches, such as silvopasture, where trees are integrated with grazing, can sequester carbon and boost biodiversity while maintaining meat production, but they often require lower yields and more labor. Policy support for research and scaling of these innovations is essential, as is a precautionary principle to avoid unintended consequences. The most certain path remains reducing overall animal consumption, as it is under our control today.

Summary and call to action

Animal agriculture's land use is a defining issue of our time, affecting climate, biodiversity, and food security. The evidence is clear: livestock use the vast majority of agricultural land while providing a minority of nutrition, and reducing this footprint is one of the most impactful levers available to individuals and policymakers. By adopting plant-based diets, supporting sustainable farming practices, and advocating for smarter land-use policies, we can free land for nature and direct human food production. The trade-offs and objections discussed show that change is complex but feasible with just transitions and context-specific solutions. Every square meter of land saved matters—start with your next meal and your next vote.

"Bottom line:" You have the power to influence land use every day. Choose plant-based foods, reduce waste, and advocate for policies that prioritize people and planet over animal agriculture's status quo.

Read next

• Vegan Diets & Climate Change: IPCC 2026 Case Study
• IPCC 2026 Report: Food Systems & Vegan-Led Climate Solutions Unpacked
• 7 US Dairy Phase-Out Truths: What Farmers & Consumers Face