The lie of regenerative animal agriculture
Reading
Regenerative beef takes like 2.5 times as much land so even if the benefits are as high as people claim, we just don't have the land for it
The scope of livestock production consistent with agro-ecological principles is miniscule, and cannot scale up to meet existing demand (Eshel, 2021).
Even when narrowly focusing on agro-ecological systems, in many cases they use far more land and other resources per unit of animal product compared to intensive livestock systems (Capper, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2010; Shepon et al., 2016; 2018). Therefore, agro-ecological livestock systems could only produce a small share of the quantity of animal products that we consume at scale today, particularly in high-income countries (Barbieri et al., 2021; Eshel, 2021). Moreover, there are significant opportunity costs associated with the increased land use, both in terms of carbon and biodiversity (Hayek et al., 2021; Shepon et al., 2016; 2018; Sun et al., 2022a 2022b).
Regenerative grazing
According to leading climate solutions organisation project drawdown, regenerative grazing is "overhyped". The climate benefits are often smaller than claimed and only work under limited circumstances.
remember Grass fed beef is not better for the environment
Soils have limits. While regenerative grazing may help build soil carbon, there are limits to how much it can store. We don’t know precisely how much carbon can be stored by regenerative grazing, but credible estimates range from 40–120 billion tonnes of CO2 as the upper limit. Put in perspective, that isn’t all that much. It’s only equivalent to ~1–3 years of the world’s CO2 emissions.
Soil carbon accumulation slows down. Many advocates focus on the first few years of soil carbon accumulation. But you can’t extrapolate these early results because soil carbon slows substantially over time as soils reach a balance between carbon inputs from plants and losses from decomposition and respiration. This usually takes a couple of decades. At that point, soils essentially stop accumulating carbon.
While studies have found soil sequestration may temporarily offset grazing’s methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, the effect isn’t permanent. As soil sequestration declines, regenerative grazing lands can become net sources of greenhouse gases
today’s livestock emit more methane per animal than wild animals.
Healthy grasslands don’t require cattle. Some advocates claim cattle grazing is necessary to maintain healthy grasslands. Yes, periodic disturbances – like light grazing – can help stimulate grass growth and soil development. But this can also be achieved through mowing, periodic burning, and other restoration methods – without cattle and their emissions
Cattle are not closed loop
Some folks in the livestock business suggest that methane emissions from cattle don’t matter because they come from a “closed loop of carbon” – where grasses absorb carbon dioxide, cattle eat the grass, and then the cattle belch methane, which are all built with the same carbon atoms.
But this notion is wrong and confuses atoms and molecules. Carbon dioxide absorbed by grass is a vastly different molecule than methane released by cattle. A methane molecule warms the atmosphere about 80 times more than a carbon dioxide molecule, even if it has the same carbon atom inside. It’s like saying sugar, alcohol, and caffeine are all the “same thing” since they all have carbon atoms inside, too. But they’re very different, as we all know.