Across the board, Spanish environmental groups have drawn attention to macro farms and intensive industrial livestock facilities that confine thousands of cattle in tight spaces. The broad impact on the environment is clear: contributions to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, groundwater and aquifer contamination, deforestation pressures, and significant concerns about animal welfare raised by conservationists.
A royal decree was issued to curb these practices by setting caps on livestock numbers: roughly 725 dairy cows or 850 cattle units. The document earned cautious applause within environmental circles, greeted as a meaningful step for ecosystems, waterways, regions, and the animals themselves. Yet some observers called the measure insufficient.
The new standard targets the macro farm model that Valle de Odieta operates in Noviercas, Soria, proposing to exploit 23,520 cows. If implemented, it would become Europe’s largest such facility and rank among the world’s top five.
Additionally, the legislation blocks expansions of existing farms, which would negate proposals like Kaparoso in Navarre, where an expansion would reach nearly twelve times the new cap.
Despite the decree, Greenpeace contends that the cap of 850 cattle remains too high and that the environmental footprint remains substantial. The NGO has announced plans to challenge the measure before the Supreme Court, arguing for a tighter cap of 180 heads. Valle de Odieta has signaled that it will appeal the royal decree through formal channels.
Goal is to reduce the cattle herd by 50%
The environmental group argues that a 50% reduction by 2030 is essential. Only then can the regions address climate change, water quality, emissions, and animal welfare more effectively. Greenpeace notes that several European neighbors have adopted stronger policies.
Holland serves as an example, having approved a law that created a Nature and Nitrogen Ministry in 2022 and set a goal to cut emissions by up to 70%. In that scenario, about one in three farms could be forced to close, according to Greenpeace.
Germany is cited as another benchmark. As Europe’s largest pork exporter, it plans to withdraw veterinary certificates for transporting live animals outside the EU this summer, a move aimed at shrinking both the number and the size of farms.
Belgian regional authorities in Flanders have chosen a different tack by offering compensation to pig producers who reduce capacity or close farms. Greenpeace has tallied more than 500,000 signatures opposing macro farms.
Greenpeace maintains that it is essential to look to these countries as models for action. The macro farm model emphasizes rapid animal growth and high throughput to maximize profits. For instance, piglets are fattened to about 120 kilograms within six months.
In Greenpeace’s view, this growth-centric model has never come without consequences. Since the 1960s, the number of cows in Spain has doubled while pig numbers have quintupled, amplifying environmental pressures. The organization stresses that the planet bears a price for such expansion, noting that 40% of groundwater is in poor condition due to overuse and manure-derived nitrates from industrial livestock and agriculture.
Fields turned to waste issues
Macro farms convert fields into sites of waste production. The sheer volume of feces can become a local pollution problem, and even if waste streams are managed, the scale can overwhelm ecosystems. Greenpeace describes agriculture as a major driver of climate change in Spain, with livestock accounting for a large share of emissions.
The organization argues that macro farms rely on fossil fuels to fertilize, harvest, and transport inputs, generating substantial waste that soils and aquifers cannot readily assimilate. In some cases, the operation requires deforesting land to grow feed crops such as soybeans, contributing to broader environmental trade-offs.
Experts such as David González, founder of the Sustraiak Habitat Design cooperative and a specialist in regenerative agriculture, distinguish between systems. Intensive livestock farming emphasizes high profitability per kilogram of meat produced via industrial processes. Comprehensive livestock relies more on grazing and regional resources, with occasional mixed feeding aligned to seasonal needs. Regenerative livestock focuses on 100% grass-fed practices aimed at soil restoration through grazing. Migration-based systems lean on local grazing sources year-round.
Greenpeace advocates for a shift away from macro farming, arguing that the livestock sector remains a central driver of emissions. The NGO highlights the need for reforms that support sustainable food production, protect water resources, and promote animal welfare without compromising food security.
Notes on actions from various environmental groups are cited as activist efforts to change policy and practice, with ongoing debates about how best to balance agricultural livelihoods with environmental integrity.
All discussions underline a shared concern: the long-term health of water tables, soils, and ecosystems alongside humane treatment of animals in modern farming. The dialogue continues as regions consider reforms that align production with ecological sustainability and public health.
— The Greenpeace coalition and allied environmental organizations continue to document impacts and advocate for policy changes that reduce dependency on intensive macro farming models. In the conversation, the emphasis remains on transparency, accountability, and practical steps toward a more sustainable agricultural system.