A new study on U.S. meat consumption suggests we’ve been missing a crucial piece of the carbon footprint puzzle: where our meat actually comes from.
Researchers found that a person’s “hoofprint,” or meat-related carbon emissions, can vary more than threefold depending on the city they live in, even though Americans eat roughly the same amount of meat nationwide. The difference, they say, lies far beyond city limits.
The work highlights the “interconnectedness between urban and rural spaces,” says Benjamin Goldstein, assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan and lead author of the new paper.
Goldstein and his team analyzed beef, pork, and chicken consumption in more than 3,500 U.S. cities and towns, tracing each supply chain back to the farms where the animals were raised. They modeled pollution impacts at every stage—from animal feed and housing to manure management, meat processing, and transportation.
The results reveal a vast, tangled web linking cities to hundreds of rural counties, each with distinct farming methods and distances that dramatically shape the carbon intensity of meat. Beef sourced from grazing systems, for instance, tended to carry higher emissions than feedlot beef because grass-fed cattle produce more methane. Meanwhile, cities sourcing beef from dairy regions—where cows are culled at the end of life—saw lower emissions, since they require fewer resources than cows that are raised purposefully for meat. Methane-capture technology on farms made a major difference, too.
While beef generally dominated emissions, in some cities pork had a higher impact—but in 386 cities, pork had a smaller footprint than even chicken. Transport distances also played a role in determining each city’s per capita hoofprint.
The range was striking. In Richmond, Missouri, residents had the largest individual meat impact, emitting 1,731 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent per person—more than three times higher than in Houghton, Michigan, which had just 500 kilograms. Goldstein notes that 50,000 Americans live in cities where their meat emissions rival those from home energy use.
New York City, however, tells a different story: despite consuming more meat overall, its per-capita footprint is lower thanks to sourcing from less carbon-intensive regions.
The takeaway, says Goldstein, is that cutting emissions isn’t just about eating less meat—it’s about knowing where it comes from. Cities could shrink their hoofprints by up to 51% through smarter sourcing, reducing food waste, and shifting from high- to lower-intensity meats.
Goldstein et. al. “The carbon hoofprint of cities is shaped by geography and production in the livestock supply chain.” Nature Climate Change. 2025.
Image: © Anthropocene Magazine
