A free science curriculum used by about 1.2 million US students removed a lesson on cattle's role in methane emissions after online criticism from some ranchers, showing the beef industry's decades-long effort to shape what US children learn about cows and climate.
The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) and its Food and Agriculture Center for Science Education produce a science curriculum used by about 1.2 million students across more than 100 school districts. Late last year, the foundation announced a new lesson exploring "how cattle produce methane and its role within the broader environmental and biological systems".
Within months it was removed after online criticism from some ranchers. Brett Kenzy, a South Dakota farmer who chairs a committee of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CAL USA), told a trade paper it was unfair to claim cows harm the environment; he also called the lesson a “slap in the face”. “We did take it down,” Rick Henningfeld, the AFBFA education director, told an audience at CattleCon, the beef industry's annual convention, in February. “We heard the feedback, and we are editing it, and our hope is to get it back up quickly,” according to a recording of the event shared with the Guardian. It has not yet returned.
A new lesson on cattle digestion, published in July, makes no mention of methane or climate. The foundation said the July lesson was "not a replacement" and that it is working on a longer version reviewing research "related to the biogenic cycle" with help from unnamed researchers and university experts. A foundation spokesperson said the topic "cannot be a 45-minute lesson".
The backlash began when Jim Mundorf, a rancher and longtime critic of the beef checkoff, a mandatory levy on cattle sales that funds the curriculum, wrote on his blog that the methane lesson was "one of the most infuriating things I have laid eyes on" and described it as condescending to farmers. "Blaming cattle for climate change is no different than blaming volcanos, or the oceans, or lightning strikes that cause wildfires," he wrote. The post was republished by the ranchers coalition of CPAC and amplified across the farming community.
At CattleCon, Henningfeld said the lesson was removed after "feedback from some farm bureau members and some producers" and that the foundation would develop a new producer review of everything published by the program. The foundation said its review process "invites a group of producers to suggest topics and review draft materials". But Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, was sceptical: "What happens when those goals conflict? The censorship in the recent episode suggests that the needs of the producers prevail."
The removed lesson, titled "Methane & Cattle: A Climate Connection", used figures from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it has a short atmospheric life. The lesson contained an error: it stated livestock accounts for about 2% of human-caused methane emissions, when the true figure is a little over 30%, according to Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University who chaired the UN's 2021 Global Methane Assessment. Shindell said it was "a shame the ranchers would block students from learning about the world they will inherit".
The episode follows a pattern of the beef industry working to shape what children learn about its products since the 1990s. Officials behind the curriculum now say it “eliminate[s] negative perceptions” of the industry for “future consumers”. A study published in October by Jennifer Jacquet and Loredana Loy of the University of Miami found that in the 1990s, NCA pressure led Random House to end reprints of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles children's book that linked cattle to global warming. “Influencing K-12 education has been part of the National Cattlemen's strategy for decades,” Jacquet said. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association declined to comment.
In September, the US Department of Agriculture, which oversees checkoff programs, ordered them to end support for environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives as well as net-zero and climate-neutrality targets. The USDA said it had no role in the decision to remove the methane lesson.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Over 1.2 million US students use the curriculum, which was designed to teach science on a contested environmental issue; its removal may leave students without accurate information on cattle's climate impact.
- The incident shows how producer feedback can override scientific content in industry-funded education, raising questions about the integrity of such programs.
- Methane emissions from cattle contribute significantly to global warming, and the lesson's removal could affect public understanding of climate science.
Background
The beef checkoff is a mandatory levy on cattle sales that funds the curriculum produced by the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture. Since the 1990s, the beef industry has sought to influence what children learn about its products, including past efforts to suppress a children's book linking cattle to global warming. The US Department of Agriculture oversees checkoff programs and recently ordered them to stop supporting ESG and climate targets.
Key Perspectives
American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture: says the lesson was removed after "feedback from some farm bureau members and some producers" and that a longer, revised version is being developed; the July lesson on cattle digestion is "not a replacement."
Ranchers (Brett Kenzy, Jim Mundorf): argue the lesson was unfair, with Mundorf calling it "one of the most infuriating things I have laid eyes on" and saying blaming cattle for climate change is like blaming volcanoes.
Drew Shindell (climate scientist, Duke University): says the lesson's error (2% instead of over 30%) is a shame, and blocking students from learning about methane's role is regrettable since the science is settled.
Glenn Branch (National Center for Science Education): suggests the episode shows producer needs prevail over science in the curriculum review process.
Jennifer Jacquet (University of Miami researcher): says the livestock industry is now "winning with the Trump administration and does not even need to fake that it cares."
What to Watch
- Whether the foundation releases the promised revised lesson on methane and climate, and what changes it includes.
- How the USDA's September order to stop ESG and net-zero targets affects other beef-checkoff-funded educational materials.
- Any further pressure tactics from the beef industry on climate-related content in schools, as documented historically.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe beef industry-backed curriculum removed a lesson on cattle methane after rancher backlash.World news | The Guardian: “A beef industry-funded effort to teach teenagers about cattle’s climate impact was quietly scrapped following backlash from some ranchers”
- SupportedThe lesson was taken down after online criticism from ranchers who disputed that cows contribute to global heating.World news | The Guardian: “following online criticism from ranchers, who disputed the premise that cows contribute to global heating.”
- SupportedThe free curriculum is used by about 1.2 million students across more than 100 school districts.World news | The Guardian: “The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) and its Food and Agriculture Center for Science Education produce a free science curriculum used by around 1.2m students across more than 100 school districts nationwide.”
- SupportedThe episode illustrates the beef industry’s decades-long effort to shape what US children learn about cows and climate.World news | The Guardian: “The episode is the latest example of the livestock industry’s decades-long battle to determine what US children learn about cows and the climate.”
- SupportedKenzy said it was unfair to claim cows harm the environment and called the lesson a “slap in the face”.World news | The Guardian: ““it’s not fair claiming that cows are harming the environment because they’re not”. Kenzy, who chairs a committee of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CAL USA), called the lesson a “slap in the face”.”
- SupportedHenningfeld said, “We did take it down,” and that the foundation was editing the lesson and hoped to restore it quickly.World news | The Guardian: ““We did take it down,” Rick Henningfeld, the AFBFA education director, told an audience at CattleCon, the beef industry’s annual convention, in February. “We heard the feedback, and we are editing it, and our hope is to get it back up quickly,””
- SupportedThe replacement lesson on cattle digestion, published in July, does not mention methane or climate.World news | The Guardian: “A new lesson on cattle digestion, published in July, makes no mention of methane or climate.”
- SupportedMundorf described the methane lesson as “one of the most infuriating things I have laid eyes on”.World news | The Guardian: “Mundorf wrote an analysis on his blog, Lonesome Lands, describing the methane lesson as “one of the most infuriating things I have laid eyes on””
- SupportedBranch said, “The censorship in the recent episode suggests that the needs of the producers prevail.”World news | The Guardian: ““The censorship in the recent episode suggests that the needs of the producers prevail.””
- SupportedShindell said it was “a shame the ranchers would block students from learning about the world they will inherit”.World news | The Guardian: “Shindell, who chaired the UN’s 2021 Global Methane Assessment, said it was “a shame the ranchers would block students from learning about the world they will inherit”.”
- SupportedThe removed lesson said livestock accounts for about 2% of human-caused methane emissions, while the true figure is a little over 30%.World news | The Guardian: “The lesson also contained an error, stating livestock accounts for about 2% of human-caused methane emissions, when the true figure is a little over 30%, said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University.”
- SupportedA study found that in 1991 NCA pressure led Random House to end reprints of a children’s book linking cattle to global warming.World news | The Guardian: “In 1991, the study found, NCA pressure led Random House to end reprints of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles children’s book that linked cattle to global warming.”