Top science journal!
Why excluding regenerative grazing skews beef’s carbonprofile
Nataliya Apanovicha,1 and Deseret Weeksb
Dear Jonas Jagermeyr,
Eshel et al.’s (1) decision to exclude grazing on high carbon-sequestration lands rests on the assumption that all such
land is better used for crops—but this is not universally supported by on-ground data. Not all carbon-rich grasslands are
readily convertible to cropland, and some are already dedicated pasture where integrating rotational grazing can build
soil carbon without displacing food production. In fact, while managed grazing of beef cattle may increase carbon sequestration potential of grasslands significantly, rotational grazing on marginal or degraded lands can substantially increase soil organic carbon, approaching levels seen in ungrazed ecosystems ( 2 , 3 ). By omitting these positive-carbon scenarios, Eshel et al. (1) likely overstate grass-fed beef’s net emissions. Even the authors themselves concede that the most carbon-friendly grazing systems—those on fertile lands—could
nearly neutralize beef’s emissions. Dismissing such cases as “misleading” overlooks a key insight: With appropriate land
management or strategic use of certain lands, grass-fed beef production can sequester more soil organic carbon than
continuous grazing and, as a component of regenerative agriculture, can contribute to climate change mitigation and
a variety of ecosystem services production (4– 6).
In short, while typical US rangeland beef is indeed emissions-intensive, the blanket assertion that all grass-fed
beef is irrevocably high-carbon fails to account for the significant variability in outcomes driven by land choice and
management.
1. G. Eshel, A. I. Flamholz, A. A. Shepon, R. Milo, US grass-fed beef is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and ≈10-fold more intensive than common protein-dense alternatives. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122,
e2404329122 (2025).
2. Y. Rui et al., Persistent soil carbon enhanced in Mollisols by well-managed grasslands but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, e2118931119 (2022).
3. Y. Bai, M. F. Cotrufo, Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 377, 603–608 (2022).
4. P. L. Stanley, J. E. Rowntree, D. K. Beede, M. S. DeLonge, M. W. Hamm, Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agric. Syst. 162,
249–258 (2018).
5. W. R. Teague et al., The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 156–164 (2016).
6. R. Lal, Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environ. Pollut. 116, 353–362 (2002).
Author affiliations: a School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85716; and b
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 8432
No comments:
Post a Comment