Grass fed beef is not better for the environment

Why eating grass-fed beef isn't going to help fight climate change

Grass fed is worse than grain fed

Most studies conclude that if you look at the amount of land used and greenhouse gas emissions produced per kilogram of meat, pasture-based cattle actually have a greater climate impact than animals fed grains and soy. This is because commercial feeds tend to be less fibrous than grass, and so cows that eat them produce less methane (through belching and flatulence), which is a potent greenhouse gas. Animals in more intensive, grain-fed systems systems also reach slaughter weight faster than grass-fed animals do, so emissions over the animal’s entire lifetime are lower.

One 2023 study found that grass fed beef has 20% higher emissions than grain fed.

livestock raised on pasture can contribute positively to ecosystems (e.g. Manzano & White, 2019). Indeed, while grass fed cattle contribute more methane due to older age at slaughter and diets that produce more methane per cow per day, Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems - ScienceDirect increases in soil carbon sequestration may offset these increases.

A transition to grassfed is infeasible

Unfortunately, most cattle in the US are not grass fed, and This study suggests that a transition to grassfed is largely infeasible. It would require an increase of 30% in the cattle population. The study above also found that grass fed required 50% more land!
It's also worth noting that grass fed beef is significantly more expensive, so a move to grass fed beef would likely result in significantly decreased beef consumptions for economic reasons.

In other words, grazing livestock – even in a best-case scenario – are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Good grazing management cannot offset its own emissions, let alone those arising from other systems of animal production.

Grass fed beef is still worse than plant based food (Poore and Nemecek 2018)
This gets worse when we consider that grassland is unlikely to be able to sequester carbon indefinitely and at the scale we are talking about. Soils being farmed using a new system of management, such as grazing, reach carbon equilibrium, where the carbon that flows into soils equal carbon flows out, within a few decades. This means that any benefits from grass-fed cows are time-limited, while the problems of methane and other gases continue for as long as the livestock remain on the land.
well-managed grazing in some contexts – the climate, soils and management regime all have to be right – can cause some carbon to be sequestered in soils. But, the maximum global potential (using generous assumptions) would offset only 20%-60% of emissions from grazing cattle, 4%-11% of total livestock emissions, and 0.6%-1.6% of total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

The soil can only capture a finite amount of carbon, meaning this is only sustainable for a certain period of time — usually between 30 and 70 years

This method requires far more land, up to 2.5 times more, according to industry-funded research,
When you use land for grazing, you incur an opportunity cost from not allowing it to be wild, so it can more effectively store carbon
Research shows that any benefits from soil sequestration in the soil cannot offset ruminant emissions — in fact, soil carbon sequestration would need to improve by 25 to 2,000 percent for any offsetting to be worthwhile. Empirical evidence suggests that rewilding land is far more beneficial than any form of grazing, holistic or otherwise.