Properly managed regenerative grazing of beef cattle can result in more carbon stored in the soil than the cattle release into the environment, according to a Life Cycle Assessment Commissioned by General Mills and conducted by researchers at Quantis International. The study was conducted in 2017 at White Oaks Pastures in Bluffton Georgia. White Oak Pastures regeneratively grazes cattle, sheep, and poultry on three thousand acres of land in southwest Georgia. They call their methods radical traditional farming.
The White Oak study points out that conventionally raised beef justifiably has a bad reputation because of its large carbon footprint. However, the net carbon dioxide emissions at White Oak was a negative 3.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of fresh meat produced. This compares to thirty-three kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per kilogram of meat produced in conventional U.S. beef production.
White Oak Pasture’s grazing system, which integrates cattle with hogs, sheep, and poultry, is six time more carbon efficient than conventional beef systems and actually reduces overall carbon emissions, according to the Life Cycle Assessment conducted by the reports authors.
The Quantis Life Cycle Assessment took into consideration carbon emissions from the cattles digestion (known as enteric emissions), manure, and the transport and slaughter of the cattle as well is miscellaneous farm activities. Enteric and manure emissions contributed thirty-four kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of meat produced and were by far the biggest carbon culprits. However, soil carbon sequestration and carbon sequestration in vegetative matter offset that by a total of minus thirty-nine kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of meat produced. The majority of the carbon offset was in highly stable soil carbon.
The results of this study suggest that protein produced by ruminants using the regenerative grazing system employed by White Oak Pastures will have a zero to negative green house gas foot print while conventional beef, sheep, pork, poultry and even soy all have a positive green house gas foot print.
The Quantis study considers that it may be underemphasizing the role of methane in enteric emissions. It also points out that if the pastures at White Oak are tilled in the next decade the benefits of sequestering soil carbon will be largely lost. They also point out that their study may be conservative because the science to measure enteric emissions needs to be refined. If that is the case, the carbon offset could increase. The authors believe that the carbon offset may also increase as the land at White Oak Pastures continues to regenerate.
Agriculture makes up nine percent of America’s green house gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and livestock accounts for about one-third of that. If livestock producers adapted the model of regenerative grazing used by White Oak Pastures the green house gas offset could have a very positive effect on agricultures role in global climate disruption.
The study can be found at https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf
Quantis https://quantis-intl.com
White Oak Pasture https://www.whiteoakpastures.com
Tim
Central Minnesota Political
I received a number of comments via email. I include my responses to this comments below:
ReplyDeleteHi Kurt.
I received responses from you, Terry, and Sid regarding my Eat Meat to reduce carbon emissions article at Central Minnesota Political https://centralminnesotapolitical.blogspot.com
I’ll try and respond here to all responses.
1st of thanks to all of you for reading the article.
Terry suggested that I may have had my tongue in cheek when I titled the article. I didn’t. The study indicated that beef raised on that farm had a negative 3.5 kg CO2 impact on Green House Gases. Eating this beef will have a positive effect on Green House Gases. It is good for the climate.
Terry further wondered if raising chickens would be better for the climate than beef raised this way. I linked the White Oak Pastures study in my article. Conventionally raised chickens release six kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of meat raised, according to the World Food Life Cycle Analysis Database cited by the authors. Pea Protein (as in Beyond Meat burgers) has a CO2 foot print of 4 kgs and soy has about a 2.5 kg foot print. So, only beef raised this way has a positive effect on climate.
It’s hard to get a handle on, but as Greta Thunberg says, look at the science.
Kurt, you suggested that the study may only be relevant in southwest Georgia where White Oak Pastures is located. We’ve been doing this style of grazing on our farm for going on a decade. I can only speak anecdotally, but we’ve witnessed increased biological activity, increased plant life and thus increased photosynthesis, increased numbers of wildlife species, and a dramatic increase in the water holding capacity of the soil. While all of that is going on we’ve quadrupled the number of sheep on the land. As an agricultural journalist I’ve talked to farmers throughout Minnesota who have had similar experiences with this style of grazing.
Sid wondered if this style of agriculture could feed the world’s huge population. Probably not. But any body who suggests they’re going to feed the world is a megalomaniac. On our farm we intend to feed our family and, by doing so, feed some other people. In the feeding of ourselves at this place we have also nurtured this place so there is more living here than was living here thirty-five years ago when we came.
For the bear or coyote or fisher that now live here the vole and the cottontail must die. But there is a plentitude here and we are not different than the coyote. For us to live something will die - maybe just a potato but I have admiration for potatoes. But the arithmetic of these thirty-five years adds up to more not less. That is the lesson from the White Oak study. That sort of agriculture, thanks to the miracle of sunshine, creates more, not less.
Best regards
Tim
Colin responded to my response to various email messages as follows:
ReplyDeleteTo add to Tim's thoughtful replies, the science behind the White Oak Pasture report is not isolated. In fact, in 2018, Michigan State University released a study of rotational grazing in the Upper Midwest. That study concluded that well managed rotationally grazed pasture sequestered up to 3.5 tons of carbon per year, making beef raised on these pastures a net carbon sink. A similar study from UW Madison earlier in the decade looked at rotational grazing in WI, and though that study's numbers were more conservative, it was still a net carbon sink.
The MSU article is titled "Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems" by Paige L. Stanley, et al
I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in the science to look at the online science library at the Savory Institute, which has an extensive database of peer reviewed research on this issue from around the world. That database can be found at:
www.savory.global/holistic-management/science-library/
The question is not "do we eat more grains and less meat" but rather "how do we support an agricultural model that sequesters carbon." The only form of agriculture that does that is an agriculture that requires no tillage and the growth of perennial plants. There are only two forms of agriculture that require zero tillage. Permaculture (orchard or nut-mast agriculture) and Pastureculture (the raising of livestock on pasture with low to no grain used as feed).
All the best,
Colin King