After a travel-related hiatus over the last few weeks, I’m back in the saddle with the weekly notes, and kicking off with a spotlight on regenerative ranching practices. In climate world, cows are generally viewed as one of the top bad guys, maybe somewhere just behind coal, or maybe just ahead in some quarters. Indeed, cattle’s reputation as a climate enemy has a strong basis. Livestock production (land use change, methane, supply chain) is responsible for something like 15% of GHG emissions and about a third of anthropogenic methane emissions, mostly from cattle. Nobody seriously disputes that we need to reduce meat consumption from a climate perspective. However, whilst “eat less meat” is appropriately simple for spreading awareness, slogans don’t make good policy and there should be a more nuanced conversation around the role of animals in sustainable agriculture. Part of the challenge in tackling this both from a research perspective and for spreading best practices is that sustainable husbandry involves nature and ecosystems, which are complex and messy and require highly bespoke, place-specific approaches. My jumping off point for this topic was this conversation on my friend Ida’s podcast with regenerative rancher Doniga Markegard (who also appeared in the Kiss the Ground documentary - recommended viewing).
Key takeaways: The role of animal agriculture in a sustainable food system is extremely complex. The goal of climate action is to preserve our ecosystems in a way that supports ongoing human flourishing. GHG emissions are just one (albeit extremely important) factor into ecosystem health. We need to move towards an integrated approach to land stewardship and a holistic view that incorporates biodiversity and more resilient ecosystems.
Can cows actually be part of a climate solution?
The 2017 report Grazed and Confused by researchers from Oxford, aimed to be the final word on the efficacy of regenerative ranching / grazing practices from a pure GHG emission standpoint (they explicitly carve out any discussion of biodiversity). They find that the contribution to increased soil carbon does not fully offset the increased methane emissions associated with slower growing animals. They acknowledge that estimates are few and far between, but suggest that on a global level managed grazing could offset between 20-60% of emissions from those grazing systems, but not contribute towards net sequestration.
Project Drawdown, however, suggests that managed grazing could contribute 16-26 GT of carbon sequestration globally over 30 years. Further, this study (published after the Grazed and Confused report) suggests that adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing of the type practised and advocated by Markegard serves as a net carbon sink in the near term (at least until the carbon content of the soil has topped out, and carbon neutral thereafter) as well as providing numerous co-benefits around biodiversity and water quality. Importantly, it also flagged that previous studies (i.e. those that would have been included in Grazed and Confused) only included continuous grazing systems, which are less intensively managed.
Managed grazing encourages healthy grasslands, which sequester carbon through their deep roots. Behold:
The analysis of the efficacy of regenerative ranching / conservation ranching / managed grazing on a global level is fiendishly difficult because of the hyper-local nature of the practice. Markegard discusses that even within the one ranch, different soils require different management, either more or less intense grazing depending on the soil type.
Humans don’t need to be a parasite on our land - through stewardship, we can create more abundance, productivity and biodiversity than leaving nature totally fallow. Markegard gives the example of ponds on the land that produce more life and are more vibrant once cattle have trimmed back surrounding vegetation, including populations of rare frogs.
Bird species are much more abundant on the land managed under regenerative ranching practices, as the shifting grazing creates diverse habitats for different species and mimics patterns of pre-existing ruminants (think bison). The Audubon conservation organisation award a bird-friendly land certification to certain ranches.
Scaling regeneratively produced meat is challenging in part because of market structure. The system is built around industrial production and ranchers need a buyer of premium products to create the market.
One thing which seems to be clear is that climate-smart meat can’t compete on (direct) cost with the climate-destructive variety. The cows live twice as long and the managed grazing approach is more labour intensive, although companies like Vence are trying to address that.
California is unusual in having a body that advocates for both climate and agriculture (California Climate and Agriculture Network) where as the two camps are normally separate (if not in actual conflict) with one another.