Regenerative agriculture is not a sustainability solution [1]:
Written by FCRN’s Dr Tara Garnett in collaboration with Cécile
Godde of CSIRO and a team of international experts, this report
dissects claims made by different stakeholders in the debate,
and evaluates them against the best available science. This report
finds that better management of grass-fed livestock do not hold a
solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions
can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even
then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed
by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. Dr
Garnett explains the key takeaways from this report:
“This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a
climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the
climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and
consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing
damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land
use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want
to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current
consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a
solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.”
> I can buy organic, grass-fed, no-GMO, sustainably pasture-raised beef.
No, actually you probably can't [1]:
> Is there such a thing as a climatically-guilt-free steak? Are grazing livestock climate villains or climate saviours? A new report by an international research collaboration led by the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), part of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, provides an authoritative answer to these questions.
> The new report Grazed and confused? helps add clarity to the debate around livestock farming and meat and dairy consumption.
> 14.5% of all human made greenhouse gas emissions come from the livestock sector as a whole. There is however some confusion and disagreement in the debate about the climate impacts of grazing livestock (and particularly grass-fed beef).
> Some commentators have argued that well-managed grazing can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in soils, and that these removals can substantially compensate for, or even exceed, all other emissions from the livestock that are doing the grazing. In this way, grass-fed beef has been offered by some as a climate solution, rather than a problem.
> Written by FCRN’s Dr Tara Garnett in collaboration with Cécile Godde of CSIRO and a team of international experts, this report dissects claims made by different stakeholders in the debate, and evaluates them against the best available science. This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock do not hold a solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. Dr Garnett explains the key takeaways from this report:
> “This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.”
‘It’s Pseudoscience’: George Monbiot Blasts Regenerative Grazing In Heated Debate
“So any story that says it’s good to be farming these livestock, it’s good to be eating these livestock, is a story which justifies among the most devastating processes on Earth,” he said. “It is climate science denial.”
Monbiot linked this denial to the interests of major corporations like McDonald’s, General Mills, JBS, and the Murdoch Network, who he says have “backed and weaponized” the idea that grazing cattle is environmentally beneficial. “The story is false,” he said. “When you make a grand claim such as this one, that livestock can mitigate climate change, either you produce the evidence for that claim or if you cannot produce the evidence you withdraw the claim. The evidence has not been produced, the claim does not stand.”
"A 2017 University of Oxford study titled Grazed and Confused accepted that managed grazing systems could sequester some carbon back into the soil. It added, however, that this was only around 20-60 percent of the emissions that the cattle produced in the first place. What’s more, after a few years soil reaches carbon equilibrium, meaning it cannot sequester any more."
"A review article published in the International Journal of Biodiversity highlighted that land left free from grazing had more biodiversity. “Published comparisons of grazed and ungrazed lands in the western US have found that rested sites have larger and more dense grasses, fewer weedy forbs and shrubs, higher biodiversity, higher productivity, less bare ground, and better water infiltration than nearby grazed sites,” it said."
"This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use.
'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
Oxford and CSIRO scientists already proved grass fed cattle is worse for greenhouse gases than CAFO beef farming. Carbon sequestration no where near makes up for the increases emissions.
Oxford and CSIRO scientists already proved grass fed cattle is worse for greenhouse gases than CAFO beef farming. Carbon sequestration no where near makes up for the increases emissions.
Agree about beef becoming an expensive luxury, but Oxford and CSIRO etc scientists have shown that pasture grown animals are worse for climate change. Sequestration doesn't cover their emissions...
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-b...
>This data is also being based on comparing conventional produce raising vice feedlot style farming
Given that 96%[5] of beef sold in the US is grain fed, it seems as if it would make sense to base the data on that.
Not only is it the norm, but it's apparently the best case scenario in terms of emissions. If you're trying to make an argument for beef being less emission intensive, you want to use CAFO numbers as grass fed numbers are worse.
According to these studies, grain fed cattle are slaughtered at 14 - 22 months of age, while grass fed cows are kept alive longer because they gain weight more slowly, leading them to be slaughtered at 20 - 26 months of age.[4]
Their extended lifespans lead to greater emissions even if they were to emit the same amount of CO2 + methane per day, but a diet of grass itself leads to higher methane emissions than grain, resulting in overall methane emissions being about 43% higher for grass-fed beef.[1]
Methane traps about 80 times more heat than CO2 over the first 20 years, before it degrades into CO2 and then overall ends up trapping about 25 times more over the first 100 years.[2]
Now, some of that may be offset by by soil carbon sequestration in the grass fed beef, but according to the Oxford study below -
“This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock, while worthwhile in and of itself, does not offer a significant solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate.”[3]
Finally, grass fed beef not only grow more slowly but they end up at a lower final weight when they’re slaughtered, ~1100 lbs vs ~1300 lbs. After they’re butchered, this leaves 638 lbs vs 832 lbs of beef per animal. This means that to meet the same amount of demand, we’d require increasing the total number of cattle raised by about 30%, further increasing emissions and overall environmental impacts.[4]
Further - “The required 30% increase in the overall cattle population must be accompanied by large increases in the productivity of existing pastures, on the order of 40%–370%, to avoid clearing additional native vegetation or competition with the human food supply.”[1]
>Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a circle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.
The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.
> Livestock agriculture is the leading driver of climate change AND biodiversity loss.
I am pretty sure that's not correct, not even close [1]. Transportation is the main driver of gas emissions (28%) followed by electricity production (27%) and industry (22%). Agriculture (livestock and crop) is <10%.
In most countries, livestock can graze in areas where cultivations cannot happen (Australia is a good example iirc) and can help with soil health.
> Additionally, if we would let nature reclaim the land that's currently used for livestock agriculture, it has the potential to capture >100% of the CO2 emissions until 2050.
Most of the food livestock consume are leftovers of human-grade crops. So we would still "need to" have that cultivations going and throw the leftovers anyways. Or most likely some company would find a way to feed humans that.
Plant based isn't always the best option for nutrition and environment. In fact with regenerative agricultural practices, holistic management and grass fed/finished cows, more carbon can be captures in solid than released.
> In fact grass is the best crop to grow for sustainable farming
Depending on your definition of "sustainable." Grass-fed beef produces substantially more greenhouse gas per human-edible Calorie, in terms of global warming potential, than growing the crops that humans eat directly. I think it will be tough to argue that meat farming is sustainable until net global greenhouse gas emissions are at a sustainable level, which is clearly not the case today.
This is discussed in the article:
"Some scientists have suggested that grass-finished beef, if managed properly, can be a more sustainable option: As the cattle graze, they stimulate grass to grow deep roots and pull more carbon into the soil, helping to offset the cows’ climate impact. But, on the flip side, grass-finished cattle also take longer to reach slaughter weight, which means they spend more time burping up methane into the atmosphere. Because of this, some studies have suggested that grass-fed beef can actually be worse for the climate over all, though the debate about this continues to rage.
For now, it’s hard to say with confidence that grass-fed beef is consistently more climate-friendly than conventional beef."
That article says the study found that grazed beef release more carbon than the carbon offset by soil sequestration. It doesn't say it releases more carbon then grain-fed, and actually, while I haven't read the source study, the general implication in the article seems to lean toward grazed beef releasing less than grain-fed (just not, according to the researchers, enough less to be carbon-neutral).
And you don't think the FAO reports that are most often quoted (Livestock's long shadow, and Tackling climate change through livestock) didn't take the biogenic carbon cycle into account?
I agree that carbon footprint should be something that people keep in mind when they're eating. What's worth noting though is that regenerative agriculture (where the goal is to be sustainable and can be carbon net negative) requires ruminant grazing as part of the integrative crop production cycle.
This seems to jibe well with the research coming out of the Rodale Institute and peer review (I've written previously about this so instead of rewriting, I'll just link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20652657).
WOP sells 1 lb of their ground beef for $10/lb (either a 90/10 or 80/20 blend), so it's about twice as expensive as conventional beef: https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/averageretailf... (you could probably match the price if you are able to buy and store in bulk from a local regenerative-practice farm), but I think for most people reading this comment, the price difference is still de minimis compared to their overall daily cost/expenditure.
Another thing to keep in mind is the latest and most detailed FAO put full LCA (this includes supply chain, etc) of CO2e of global livestock production at 14.5%: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
IMO the anti-beef climate story seems to be very overblown/disproportionate compared to its relative GHG impact (lets not distracted, switching off of fossil fuels is by far the priority).
> plus, if your beef is grass fed for its whole life like ours, it's carbon neutral, as all the carbon that goes into the animal came from the atmosphere
This totally ignores the land use issue. Cattle absolutely decimate natural areas. e.g. significant areas of the midwest/great plain that were prairie with deep roots to store carbon are now pasture. Pasture grass has comparatively shallow roots and limited ability to store carbon.
Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a cycle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
Not to take away from your primary point, though. I'd much rather have meat be valued as a high quality nutrient source rather than something cheap you can take for granted.
“So any story that says it’s good to be farming these livestock, it’s good to be eating these livestock, is a story which justifies among the most devastating processes on Earth,” he said. “It is climate science denial.”
Monbiot linked this denial to the interests of major corporations like McDonald’s, General Mills, JBS, and the Murdoch Network, who he says have “backed and weaponized” the idea that grazing cattle is environmentally beneficial. “The story is false,” he said. “When you make a grand claim such as this one, that livestock can mitigate climate change, either you produce the evidence for that claim or if you cannot produce the evidence you withdraw the claim. The evidence has not been produced, the claim does not stand.”
reply