Being from a farming family I was really excited when I first heard the idea of carbon sequestration through regenerative grazing. However sadly the concept doesn't add up in the face of peer-reviewed research.
When scientists take into account the full inputs & outputs of livestock production, there is sadly no way of raising animals that is carbon negative. Claims about carbon storage in pasture have been hugely exaggerated, and numerous large-scale grazing studies have shown that at absolute best pasture can absorb no more than 60% of the greenhouse gases that livestock produce - And only when animal numbers are extremely low per acre. It's much better to switch to a wholly plant-based food system which would reduce the amount of land we require for farming by 76% & then allow that land to be rewilded; naturally storing huge amounts of carbon.
" without meat we’d need more crops " How so ? In the UK the raising of animals and growing their feed accounts for 85% of agricultural land use . Around 75% less agricultural land would be required globally if animal agriculture were to be eliminated . Maybe you made a typo - less meat production equates to less necessary crop production which means that no additional native habitat destruction would be necessary, indeed this would allow for habitat restoration at scale.
No not a typo. The statement without meat we'd need more crops - here I am thinking of the UK, and how we would manage the shift from meat protein to plant-based protein, so we would have to grow more cereals and legumes especially. I dont recognise your figure of 85%. The latest Govt figures: utilised agricultural area (UAA) is 16.8 million hectares in 2024 and accounts for 69% of the total area of the UK of which 15% permanent grassland, 7% temp grassland, 7% rough grazing, 6% woodland, 19% cereals, 2% oilseed rape, 4% other crops, 1% horticulture and 2% uncropped arable land . Re land grown for animal feed (ruminant and non ruminant) - its estimated at around 2 million hectares (from National Farmers Union) . Plus you have to consider that there is a lot of grass-fed beef and sheep that never touch grain and graze land that could never be used for crops. Just under 90% of the UK beef herd (9.6 million) is produced using predominantly forage-based diet which would be 70% grass, and the rest silage and grains (incl those from waste streams such as brewers yeast) and the figure for sheep is probably higher. We have too many pigs and poultry raised intensively and being fed high protein diets using imported soya and the resulting meat is too cheap.
I would far rather we supported and encouraged grass-fed regimes rather than simply reduce our national herd size - the meat demand would continue but it would be outsourced to countries which were climate-wise less suited to raising beef on grass. We may hate our wet weather but we are very good at growing grass. The ideal option is that we eat less meat but better.
But the simple fact is that there isn't enough land on the planet to roll out regenerative animal agriculture at any kind of sustainable level - sorry to repeat myself, but you seem to be ignoring hard facts. I'm genuinely sorry, I appreciate that trying to fit in with those around you whilst contemplating significant lifestyle changes is v difficult.
I think that you mentioned else where that you live adjacent to a flood plane, well just today on the BBC news site there's a story about the future risk of flooding occurring due to climate change in low lying areas being upgraded by the government - further reason to be climate conscious in your everyday decision making .
You finished the above reply by stating that ''the ideal option is to eat less meat but better'' thus indicating that animal agriculture is some kind of problem, otherwise why reduce it ? So logic would suggest that the best approach to an ideal option would be to take that a step further and to eliminate animal agriculture entirely. After all if you smoke, a Dr never advises that you reduce the amount of cigarettes that you consume, but advises that you quit, full stop.
Ohh, and all that grass that you mentioned ,I think that Ecotricity have a new system in place that uses grass to create clean gas that is supplied to the national grid -surely you support that initiative ?
"And when looking at the whole picture, it’s important to offset any methane production with carbon sequestering gains; a well-managed, rotationally-grazed permanent pasture will sequester carbon, so helping to offset methane production by the animals. " A couple of points in response. Our planet only has the space for a v small percentage of meat to be raised in 'well managed systems' and so it doesn't offer up any sustainability solution in this sector. Additionally if live stock were to be removed from said land , the land could still perform carbon sequestration benefits without having to level up the negative outputs of grazed stock and in turn it could be a huge benefit to wildlife .
Yes - we would gain the sequestration benefits, but if the shift meant growing more crops that relied on inorganic fertiliser we would be no better off
.......the majority of land freed up from abandoning animal agriculture can be set aside for rewilding thus negating the need to use any fertility inputs. This approach can deliver greater climate resiliency by drawing down more carbon, gives more opportunities for biodiversity recovery, aids rainfall absorption - thus lessening the risk of flooding in built areas, enhances biophilic opportunities for all - given the mental health epidemic this is very much needed. But, I said something similar above and you chose to ignore it......
"There is no easy answer to the livestock question. I don’t think anybody wants a shift to highly intensive systems "- erm I think that we are already at that point aren't we ? A quick internet search indicates that factory farming globally accounts for around 90% of meat production
Very informative, thank you. I also wonder who bears the financial cost of paying for Bovaer. I'm going to guess it's the farmers contracted to factory farm corporations and not the corporations.
A wonderfully complete and authoritative discussion of a difficult topic. I'll be recommending it. Thank you!
Great article, thank you. Please could you send me the pdf? millsfamily100@gmail.com. thanks
Emailed
Thank you Sally
Thank you Susan - years of listening to organic and regen farmers helped a lot.
Being from a farming family I was really excited when I first heard the idea of carbon sequestration through regenerative grazing. However sadly the concept doesn't add up in the face of peer-reviewed research.
When scientists take into account the full inputs & outputs of livestock production, there is sadly no way of raising animals that is carbon negative. Claims about carbon storage in pasture have been hugely exaggerated, and numerous large-scale grazing studies have shown that at absolute best pasture can absorb no more than 60% of the greenhouse gases that livestock produce - And only when animal numbers are extremely low per acre. It's much better to switch to a wholly plant-based food system which would reduce the amount of land we require for farming by 76% & then allow that land to be rewilded; naturally storing huge amounts of carbon.
" without meat we’d need more crops " How so ? In the UK the raising of animals and growing their feed accounts for 85% of agricultural land use . Around 75% less agricultural land would be required globally if animal agriculture were to be eliminated . Maybe you made a typo - less meat production equates to less necessary crop production which means that no additional native habitat destruction would be necessary, indeed this would allow for habitat restoration at scale.
No not a typo. The statement without meat we'd need more crops - here I am thinking of the UK, and how we would manage the shift from meat protein to plant-based protein, so we would have to grow more cereals and legumes especially. I dont recognise your figure of 85%. The latest Govt figures: utilised agricultural area (UAA) is 16.8 million hectares in 2024 and accounts for 69% of the total area of the UK of which 15% permanent grassland, 7% temp grassland, 7% rough grazing, 6% woodland, 19% cereals, 2% oilseed rape, 4% other crops, 1% horticulture and 2% uncropped arable land . Re land grown for animal feed (ruminant and non ruminant) - its estimated at around 2 million hectares (from National Farmers Union) . Plus you have to consider that there is a lot of grass-fed beef and sheep that never touch grain and graze land that could never be used for crops. Just under 90% of the UK beef herd (9.6 million) is produced using predominantly forage-based diet which would be 70% grass, and the rest silage and grains (incl those from waste streams such as brewers yeast) and the figure for sheep is probably higher. We have too many pigs and poultry raised intensively and being fed high protein diets using imported soya and the resulting meat is too cheap.
I would far rather we supported and encouraged grass-fed regimes rather than simply reduce our national herd size - the meat demand would continue but it would be outsourced to countries which were climate-wise less suited to raising beef on grass. We may hate our wet weather but we are very good at growing grass. The ideal option is that we eat less meat but better.
But the simple fact is that there isn't enough land on the planet to roll out regenerative animal agriculture at any kind of sustainable level - sorry to repeat myself, but you seem to be ignoring hard facts. I'm genuinely sorry, I appreciate that trying to fit in with those around you whilst contemplating significant lifestyle changes is v difficult.
I think that you mentioned else where that you live adjacent to a flood plane, well just today on the BBC news site there's a story about the future risk of flooding occurring due to climate change in low lying areas being upgraded by the government - further reason to be climate conscious in your everyday decision making .
You finished the above reply by stating that ''the ideal option is to eat less meat but better'' thus indicating that animal agriculture is some kind of problem, otherwise why reduce it ? So logic would suggest that the best approach to an ideal option would be to take that a step further and to eliminate animal agriculture entirely. After all if you smoke, a Dr never advises that you reduce the amount of cigarettes that you consume, but advises that you quit, full stop.
Ohh, and all that grass that you mentioned ,I think that Ecotricity have a new system in place that uses grass to create clean gas that is supplied to the national grid -surely you support that initiative ?
"And when looking at the whole picture, it’s important to offset any methane production with carbon sequestering gains; a well-managed, rotationally-grazed permanent pasture will sequester carbon, so helping to offset methane production by the animals. " A couple of points in response. Our planet only has the space for a v small percentage of meat to be raised in 'well managed systems' and so it doesn't offer up any sustainability solution in this sector. Additionally if live stock were to be removed from said land , the land could still perform carbon sequestration benefits without having to level up the negative outputs of grazed stock and in turn it could be a huge benefit to wildlife .
Yes - we would gain the sequestration benefits, but if the shift meant growing more crops that relied on inorganic fertiliser we would be no better off
.......the majority of land freed up from abandoning animal agriculture can be set aside for rewilding thus negating the need to use any fertility inputs. This approach can deliver greater climate resiliency by drawing down more carbon, gives more opportunities for biodiversity recovery, aids rainfall absorption - thus lessening the risk of flooding in built areas, enhances biophilic opportunities for all - given the mental health epidemic this is very much needed. But, I said something similar above and you chose to ignore it......
"There is no easy answer to the livestock question. I don’t think anybody wants a shift to highly intensive systems "- erm I think that we are already at that point aren't we ? A quick internet search indicates that factory farming globally accounts for around 90% of meat production
Very informative, thank you. I also wonder who bears the financial cost of paying for Bovaer. I'm going to guess it's the farmers contracted to factory farm corporations and not the corporations.
Always the farmers .....