5 Ways Animal Agriculture and Factory Farming Are Fueling Climate Change in Minnesota

By Jay Eidsness, MCEA Supervising Attorney

Of all the strides Minnesota has made to try to reduce climate pollution, one major sector has lagged behind: large-scale animal agriculture and factory farming. This sector’s climate impact - especially from methane and nitrous oxide emissions - is significant and growing. That has to change if our state is serious about meeting our climate goals and doing our part to curb the climate crisis. That’s why this month MCEA seized two public engagement opportunities to urge state regulators to start doing more to address this growing issue. 

At MCEA, we are always thinking about how to use our existing laws to push for creative, common-sense solutions to stubborn environmental challenges. We are doing the same on this one because we all pay a price if Minnesota continues to put off wrestling with the climate costs of animal agriculture. Stay tuned for more on how we are urging our state to have this critical conversation, and how you can engage. 

But first let's talk about why agriculture is one of the largest barriers to Minnesota achieving net-zero emissions by 2050,and what changes can be made to get Minnesota back on track. 

Here are 5 things you should know about how animal agriculture and factory farming are impacting our climate.

(1) The agriculture sector is one of the main reasons why Minnesota is falling short on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the state. Agriculture is responsible for approximately 25% of Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions, and this sector is the second largest emitter across Minnesota’s economy. Today, agriculture emits more greenhouse gas emissions than the electricity generation sector. Emissions from agriculture are trending upwards; between 2005 and 2022, emissions in this sector increased by 1%.

(2) Animal agriculture is responsible for the most methane emissions in Minnesota, and a significant portion of nitrous oxide emissions stem from manure management and growing feed for livestock. These climate super-pollutants present a much more acute problem for climate change than carbon dioxide. Methane is estimated to contribute about 80 times more warming that carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, while nitrous oxide likely causes about 275 times more warming than carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe. 

(3) There is compelling evidence that the emissions from agriculture are actually much greater than publicly reported. Emissions in this sector are calculated using self-reported data collected every five years under the U.S. Department of Agriculture census. But, as observed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office: “No federal agency collects accurate and consistent data on the number, size, and location” of large animal agricultural facilities. New tools using machine learning have revealed that the number and size of industrial animal agriculture facilities are underreported, indicating the potential that emissions from agriculture are much higher than we realize.

(4) Contrary to the type of reporting mandated in almost every other sector, once a feedlot is operating, Minnesota regulators do not require animal agriculture operators to track, report, or take any steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The only reference to emissions in Minnesota’s feedlot rules – the rules that govern feedlots of all sizes, from small family farms to massive Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs) – and feedlot permits relates to hydrogen sulfide and odor. This “hands-off” approach has, unsurprisingly, not caused emissions from this sector to decrease in the past 17 years. If Minnesota is serious about meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, feedlot operators must take meaningful steps towards reducing this sector’s emissions.

(5) We know how to reduce climate pollution from the agricultural sector. Best available management approaches and technologies can be deployed today to reduce emissions from feedlots. Changes to animal feed can reduce methane emissions from cattle, sheep, and goats, while transitioning from long-term liquid manure storage systems to dry or composting systems can significantly reduce methane emissions. These approaches are not new. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s earliest assessment explains that “[o]pportunities exist to reduce methane from enteric fermentation and animal waste storage, for example, by modifying feeding practices, using productivity enhancing practices and agency, and modifying waste management practices.” This report was published in 1990. 

Climate change solutions must include bold action to reduce emissions from animal agriculture and factory farming. If Minnesota wants to meet its climate goals, we must adopt science-based policies to cut agricultural greenhouse gases. More to come on how MCEA and others are thinking about how to make climate-smart agriculture the norm–not the exception. 

Sign up for our emails to stay up-to-date on our work