CLEAR Conversations: Beyond the Beef and Measuring What Matters
Sustainability is rarely as simple as a single number on a spreadsheet. For Dr. Sarah Klopatek, understanding the environmental impact of beef production means looking beyond greenhouse gas emissions to consider the broader agricultural system — from the health of rangelands and the availability of water to food security and the families who raise livestock.
Klopatek, a livestock scientist, consultant and adjunct professor at Colorado State University, brought that perspective to a recent episode of CLEAR Conversations, speaking with host Tracy Sellers, she discussed her research on greenhouse gas accounting, the changing conversation around beef and climate, and the importance of making scientific findings useful to the people who produce food.
Klopatek's interest in sustainability began long before the term became a central part of conversations about agriculture.
Raised by two global ecologists, she grew up spending time on rangelands and developed an early fascination with how natural systems work. At age 12, she was using scientific equipment to investigate soil carbon and examine how drought and water availability affected soil respiration. Her curiosity extended to fire ecology, wildlife and, eventually, a fundamental question: How does food get from the land to the dinner table?
That question led her to study animal science at the University of Arizona, attend a beef industry training program at Texas A&M University and pursue a doctorate at UC Davis. Along the way, she began connecting her interests in environmental health, food security and livestock production. What she now calls sustainability was initially a more practical question: How can society continue producing food while managing the land and resources needed to sustain that production?
After earning her Ph.D., Klopatek joined JBS, where she eventually served as Global Chief Livestock Scientist for four years. She now runs her own consulting business, working across the livestock sector, from producers to corporations. Her career has reinforced another lesson she shares with students and early-career scientists: Professional paths rarely follow a straight line.
“Life wasn't meant to have blinders,” Klopatek said during the conversation. “You are not a racehorse around a track. Look up.”
Understanding today's beef market
The conversation also explored a question familiar to consumers: Why are beef prices so high?
Klopatek explained that the answer involves both supply and demand. The U.S. beef cow herd has declined to historically low levels, limiting the number of calves entering the production system. Severe drought has contributed to herd reductions as producers respond to limited forage and water resources. Restrictions on cattle movements from Mexico, prompted by concerns about New World screwworm, have added another challenge for the supply chain.
At the same time, improvements in genetics, nutrition, reproductive performance and management have allowed producers to generate more beef from fewer animals than in previous decades. That distinction is important, Klopatek said. A declining cattle herd does not automatically translate into an equivalent decline in beef production.
Demand also plays a significant role. Klopatek contrasted the public conversation surrounding beef in the mid-2010s — when meatless campaigns and concerns about meat's health and environmental impacts were prominent — with today's renewed attention to protein and beef's place in the diet. She sees the shift as part of a broader evolution in how people think about food, agriculture and the environment.
Rangelands, for example, are more than places where cattle graze. They can also provide wildlife habitat, support pronghorn migration, contribute to water-related ecosystem services and preserve open landscapes. In some settings, livestock grazing is part of the management system that helps maintain these landscapes. For Klopatek, the challenge is to evaluate these benefits alongside environmental impacts rather than allowing any single measure to define the sustainability of an entire production system.
Rethinking how greenhouse gas emissions are measured
A central focus of Klopatek's work is greenhouse gas accounting — the methods organizations use to measure and report their emissions.
For many companies, these measurements influence climate targets, investment decisions and sustainability reporting. But the metrics used to calculate emissions can tell different stories, particularly when comparing gases with different atmospheric lifetimes.
The most widely used corporate accounting metric is Global Warming Potential over 100 years, or GWP100. It compares the warming impact of greenhouse gases over a 100-year period relative to carbon dioxide.
The metric provides a standardized way to compare emissions across organizations and sectors. However, it does not fully capture the differences in how individual gases behave in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide can influence the climate for centuries or longer, while methane has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 12 years. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, but its warming behavior over time differs from that of longer-lived gases.
This distinction matters for livestock production, where methane from animal digestion and manure management can account for a substantial share of total greenhouse gas emissions.
In a recent research article, Klopatek and her colleagues have explored how another metric, Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*), can complement conventional accounting methods by accounting for changes in methane emissions over time.
Unlike GWP100, which applies a consistent warming-potential factor to methane emissions, GWP* considers the rate at which methane emissions change. This allows it to better represent how rising, stable or declining methane emissions affect warming over time. In practical terms, the distinction can help organizations understand whether changes in their methane emissions are increasing or reducing their contribution to additional warming.
Klopatek emphasizes that GWP* is not intended to replace GWP100 in every application. Rather, using both metrics can provide a more complete picture of greenhouse gas emissions and their climate implications.
“It's not saying methane is not an issue,” she explained. The goal is to better understand how much methane contributes to warming at a given point in time and how that contribution changes as emissions rise or fall.
Why reporting multiple greenhouse gases matters
Klopatek also advocates for split-gas reporting, which means reporting individual greenhouse gases separately rather than relying exclusively on a single combined carbon dioxide-equivalent number. The approach can help companies identify where their emissions originate and determine which interventions are likely to have the greatest impact.
For example, a company might find that methane emissions are declining while nitrous oxide emissions remain a concern. Looking at the gases separately can help decision-makers recognize that progress in one area does not necessarily mean every part of the system is improving.
This information can guide investments in technologies, management practices and other emissions-reduction strategies. The same principle applies to livestock production. Methane reduction remains important, but it should be considered alongside other greenhouse gases and the broader environmental performance of a production system.
Using multiple metrics, Klopatek argues, helps avoid the assumption that any one number can tell the whole story.
A changing conversation about animal agriculture
Klopatek said discussions at this year’s Climate Week reflected a shift in how some organizations and stakeholders approach animal agriculture. Rather than focusing exclusively on whether beef should be produced or consumed, she observed more conversations about how production systems can improve.
That shift creates opportunities for collaboration among researchers, companies and producers. It also requires recognizing that agricultural systems vary widely and that solutions must account for local environmental conditions, management practices and production goals. There are opportunities to improve reproductive efficiency, select genetics suited to specific environments, strengthen recordkeeping and diversify forage systems. In some settings, grazing management can also be improved to address overgrazing and other land-management challenges.
Advancing that work will require time and stronger communication between companies, researchers and producers.
The human side of a carbon number
For Klopatek, perhaps the most important lesson is that environmental accounting must never lose sight of the people and places represented by the data. In large livestock operations, a single figure in a corporate report can represent millions of cattle, thousands of production decisions and the work of families across vast landscapes.
Behind those numbers are ranchers working through drought, repairing equipment, caring for animals in extreme weather and navigating changing markets. There are also millions of acres of rangeland, wildlife habitat, water resources and rural communities connected to livestock production. Agriculture, she emphasized, is not easy. Decisions made in corporate offices can have far-reaching consequences for producers, especially when those decisions are based on a narrow interpretation of environmental data.
“If we lose the soul of the number,” Klopatek said, “we will lose our purpose to keep food on the table.”
Communicating science beyond the laboratory
Klopatek's commitment to connecting research with real-world decisions also informs her advice to the next generation of scientists. Researchers must understand their science deeply, she said, but they also need to communicate their findings beyond academic journals and professional conferences.
Applied research has limited impact if the people who could benefit from it never hear about it or cannot understand how it applies to their work. That means learning to speak with different audiences, telling compelling stories and explaining not only what the numbers show but also why they matter.
Klopatek credits communications training during her time at UC Davis with helping her develop the confidence to speak to audiences around the world. Public speaking did not come naturally at first, but she learned that preparation, practice and passion for the subject can make a difference.
She encourages students to step outside their comfort zones and share the excitement behind their work. For agricultural research in particular, communicating science is an essential part of ensuring that findings reach farmers, ranchers, businesses and policymakers who can put them to use.
Looking at the whole system
Throughout the conversation, Klopatek returned to the importance of perspective. Whether discussing beef prices, methane accounting or the future of sustainable agriculture, she argued that meaningful progress depends on looking beyond isolated problems and understanding how the pieces fit together. Greenhouse gas emissions matter. So do water resources, healthy ecosystems, productive animals, viable farms and ranches, and reliable food supplies.
No single metric can capture every dimension of sustainability, but carefully chosen metrics, interpreted alongside practical knowledge and sound science, can help decision-makers make better choices. For Klopatek, the next step is to bring those perspectives together: strengthen the science, improve the way it is communicated, invest in workable solutions and make room for the experiences of the people producing our food. She is doing all of that and more with her newest venture: Klopatek Livestock Solutions, using her knowledge and communication skills to help connect the science of sustainability with the practical needs of the producers.
Because ultimately, sustainability is not just about reducing a number. It is about building agricultural systems that can continue feeding people while supporting the land, resources and communities on which food production depends.