Livestock numbers are declining in large parts of the world.

• Livestock numbers have declined, but not everywhere.
• Reduction of reserves as a global trend.
• Landscapes that change rapidly.
• New risks, real opportunities.
• Climate , biodiversity, fires, water.
• Fine-tuning, not one-size-fits-all solutions.

Livestock numbers are declining across large parts of the planet.

For decades, a clear viewpoint prevailed in terrestrial ecology: too many animals, too much pressure on grazing lands. Cows, sheep, goats, and buffalo were considered the main culprits behind soil degradation and biodiversity loss in grasslands and savannas around the world.

Advertising

This diagnosis remains accurate in many regions. But it no longer explains the entire system. Recent research conducted by Arizona State University shows that in large swaths of the world, the problem is not an overabundance of livestock. Quite the opposite: animal numbers are declining. This phenomenon is called herd decline.

The nuances are important. After all, herbivores don't just produce food: they shape the landscape, regulate vegetation, influence the carbon cycle, water dynamics, and the balance between species. Knowing where livestock is disappearing and where their numbers are increasing allows for more informed land use decisions.

What does livestock reduction really mean for the land?

Reducing livestock numbers does not automatically lead to ecosystem restoration. The study clearly shows one thing: reducing livestock numbers is not a guaranteed solution.

Without livestock grazing, some ecosystems rapidly change. Vegetation can grow unchecked, accumulating dry biomass and increasing the risk of wildfires, especially in regions with increasingly extreme summer temperatures. In other cases, certain dominant plant species spread and outcompete more vulnerable ones.

Biodiversity responds differently everywhere. Some ecosystems are enriched by the cessation of grazing. Others, surprisingly, are depleted.

As Osvaldo Sala, one of the study's authors, notes, almost half of global livestock production currently occurs in regions where livestock numbers have declined over the past 25 years. This is not a marginal phenomenon.

The key to success is management. Don't give up or accelerate without a plan. Maintain processes.

Where the number of animals decreases and where it increases.

The analysis is based on FAO data for the period 1999 to 2023 and focuses on cattle, sheep, goats and buffalo.

Advertising

The results refute the notion of a single global trend. Regions that accounted for 42% of the world's livestock population saw an approximate 12% decline over 25 years.

The decline is particularly noticeable in Eastern Europe, where it is around 37%, but it is also observed across large areas of Western Europe, North America, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia.

Meanwhile, other regions are seeing the opposite trend. Central Africa, Central Asia, and South America have recorded growth of nearly 40% since the late 1990s. Two opposing trends coexist on the same planet.

Advertising

What factors explain these changes?

To understand the pattern, the team collaborated with José Anadón, a researcher at the Iberian Institute of Ecology. The analysis ruled out simple explanations.

Neither international trade nor rising temperatures are consistent with the spatial distribution of livestock declines. Climate certainly plays a role, but it doesn't explain why some regions are declining livestock numbers while others are increasing them.

Economic and technological factors are decisive. In wealthier regions, MEAT production has become more intensive and efficient. This includes indoor housing systems, feed rations, selective breeding, and automation. The result: up to 72% more meat per animal than in regions with traditional extensive livestock farming models.

In less developed regions, livestock farming remains a means of subsistence. More people mean more animals, not more efficiency.

How does depletion of reserves affect the planet?

Livestock grazing occupies almost a quarter of the Earth's surface. No other human activity has such a large spatial impact. Any change to this system has global consequences.

Removing livestock can promote carbon sequestration by enhancing plant growth. This offers real potential for climate change mitigation, especially on well-managed pastures.

Advertising

However, risks also arise: more intense fires, loss of habitat mosaics, and changes in water infiltration and runoff. Reducing grazing does not guarantee increased water availability downstream. Everything depends on location, soil, climate, and vegetation.

The core message is uncomfortable but necessary: ​​there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

Possible ways of managing the territory

In some landscapes, rewilding—restoring natural processes—may work. In other cases, introducing other herbivores, such as bison or goats, allows for the restoration of ecological functions without returning to intensive livestock farming.

Advertising

Science still lacks data, long-term experiments, and follow-up studies. But one thing is clear: focusing solely on overgrazing limits progress. Reducing livestock numbers opens up new opportunities for conservation, climate change mitigation, and rural economic development.

What impact might this have on the environment?

Well-planned livestock reduction can reduce pressure on fragile soils, improve soil structure, increase carbon sequestration, and promote landscapes that are more resilient to drought and heat waves.

If mismanaged, this could lead to the opposite effect: more destructive fires, loss of functional diversity, and depopulation of rural areas. The impact depends not on the number of animals, but on how their absence is integrated into the system.