They eat grass, distress the soil and leave their fertilizer behind. The grass regrows, which captures carbon via photosynthesis.
Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I don't know if the methane produced by cattle has a bigger impact. But it definitely seems better than both grain fed meat and monocrops, in terms of energy input and environmental/ecosystem impact.
The major energy input in the system is the sun, not fossil fuels for fertilizer/pesticide production and farm equipment to plant and harvest crops.
Yeah I've never heard of carbon neutral cows. If you're saying that the grassland would be replaced with concrete, then there would be a reduction in carbon sequestration.
But still, I don't think it's close. Cows produce a lot of methane:
> Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.
> In New Zealand, where cattle and sheep farming are major industries, 34 percent of greenhouse gases come from livestock.
> Initially, grazing areas were filled with a variety of grasses and flowers that grew naturally, offering a diverse diet for cows and other ruminants. However, in order to improve the efficiency of feeding livestock, many of these pastures became reseeded with perennial ryegrass. With the aid of artificial fertilizers, perennial ryegrass grows quickly and in huge quantities. The downside is that it lacks the nutritious content of other grasses and prevents more nutritious plants from growing. One commentator called it the "fast food" of grasses.
> Believers in naturally grown, mixed-species pastures say that the use of them will reduce greenhouse gases, improve animal health and meat quality and reduce the use of artificial fertilizers.
Sounds like it's still a carbon emitter, but if you're going to do it try to find cows that are eating on native, organic grass.
> They eat grass, distress the soil and leave their fertilizer behind. The grass regrows, which captures carbon via photosynthesis.
I think the equation is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, did you know that the vast majority of weight that your body regularly sheds is due to the carbon you breathe out? The average human breathes out around 2.3 lbs of C02 per day. That increases a lot when you're engaging in physical exertion.
I'm guessing that the same holds true for cows, but the poundage is going to be a lot higher because their body mass is a lot larger. Cows (and people) have to eat as much they shed in order to avoid wasting away, and most of that is carbon.
I would expect that a fully grown cow is essentially carbon neutral, not carbon-absorbing, if you're just looking at the dietary cycle.
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.
