April 23 2019

Cows and Carbon for Dummies

Sustainable Living


It is popular to claim that cattle are bad for the environment, and the best thing we can do for the planet is to eat a plant-based diet.

So let’s look at the carbon cycle, specifically as it applies to grazing cattle, and try to see how cows can be a net GHG emitter. I’m not going to throw out statistics and numbers (which can easily be manipulated), but instead apply a little basic science and a big slice of good ol’ common sense.

How does carbon move in the cow’s lifecycle? Here are the main transactions.

  • Grass takes carbon dioxide from the air (and a little carbon from the soil)
  • Cows eat the grass
  • Cows release carbon back onto the pasture through manure (and a bit through urine)
  • Cows inhale air and combine some of the oxygen with carbon to create CO2, which is then exhaled
  • Microbial activity in the cow’s digestive system creates CO2 and methane, most of which is burped out (some exhaled and farted)
  • Carbon may be harvested by calves, humans, or other animals in the form of milk and/or meat.

Level 1: Practically All Carbon Comes from the Air

The first, and most important, thing to notice is that the way the vast majority of carbon enters this cycle is through photosynthesis. Grasses draw carbon out of the air to build the above-ground edible grass and the matching root system below ground. The same is true if cattle are fed on tree forage or crop residues. (They may draw a little carbon from stuff going on in the soil, but hey, that carbon originally came from the air too.)

So any carbon that is emitted back into the air from the cow originally came from the air. That fact alone almost closes the case. If all the carbon in the cycle comes from the air, and some of that carbon goes back into the land, then – if we’re measuring carbon atoms alone – grazing cattle must be net storers of carbon, not emitters.

ALL the carbon came out of the atmosphere originally, so it’s impossible to add more than was taken out.

In fact, it’s obvious that cattle must remove more carbon from the air than they put back because they can also provide poop, milk, and meat (in fact, every part of the animal).

So… if grazing cattle actually remove carbon from the atmosphere and help build soil, how can we best accelerate that process?

Level 2: Accelerating Carbon Removal

Perennial grasses can have massive root systems

When grass grows, it creates a root network in the soil that is approximately the same depth as the height of the grass above ground. (It is a waste of energy to build more roots than the growing plant needs.)

So when the grass is grazed, the plant actually sloughs off some of its root system, which remains underground and decomposes, adding carbon to the soil.

Plants also engage in a complex series of trades with other organisms to get the nutrients and minerals they need. Key to this are mycorrhizal fungi, specialised fungi that have adapted to exist symbiotically with plants, and also with bacteria that coat the mycorrhizal strands.

The plants “pay” the mycorrhizae by exuding organic sugars (which contain carbon), for which the fungi trade nutrients from the soil. In turn, the strands themselves also exude glomalin, a sticky glycoprotein, which helps to glue soil particles together, giving soil its structure and facilitating air and water to circulate through the soil. Glomalin also contains a substantial amount of carbon.

Now, grass left alone without grazing will reach its full height, and then basically stop growing until it dies or is destroyed, at which point it will be broken down and reabsorbed into the soil and air. Full-grown grass doesn’t need to photosynthesise as much, so doesn’t cycle as much carbon as it was in its busy growth phase.

But what happens when grass that is eaten? Provided it is not grazed right down to the ground, which slows down growth dramatically, grasses will put a lot of energy into regrowing rapidly. That means they’ll initially release unneeded root mass, and then rebuild root mass and above-ground leaves. The middle half of a grass’s growth curve (between 25% and 75% fully grown) is the most active. The more active the grass, the more CO2 it’s sucking out of the air and storing both below- and above-ground.

So letting cattle graze (but not over-graze or under-graze) actually accelerates CO2 storage (known as “sequestration”) in the soil.

The most effective grasses are the perennial grass species, which have much deeper, more massive, root systems than annual grasses that may be used in a short-term rotation. So permanent pasture is much more effective at storing carbon than the shorter, annual grasses.

The frequency of grazing is also a critical factor. Ranchers really want their cattle to arrive on grass that is approaching its full height (so it is still growing, and not going woody or going to seed), but they don’t want the cattle to graze the grass right down to the ground. In other words, they want the cattle to have one or two bites and then to move on.

The way to do this is by rotating the cattle frequently, moving them from plot to plot on a regular basis (the frequency depends on a wide range of factors).

Summary: The way grazing is managed can make a huge impact on the amount of carbon drawn down from the atmosphere and stored in the soil.

“Ah, but what about Methane?”

Some will argue, “Okay, so cattle can’t actually add more carbon into the air, but if they change its form into methane (which everybody knows is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) that could be worse.”

It’s a fair argument. Methane is approximately 30 times more potent at driving atmospheric warming than CO2.

I think the easiest way to address the methane argument is by using good old-fashioned common sense again.

Before we came along and took over management, this planet must logically have supported more large grazing animals than it does now. Why? Because that’s the way nature works. Every ecosystem would have supported as many grazers as it could, based on available resources. And, before man started farming, all viable grazing land would of course have been grazed.

So, if large ruminants like cattle, sheep, deer, and goats were net polluters in greenhouse gas terms, the world would have choked on methane long ago. It didn’t, therefore ruminants must not be the problem.

We can see this by looking at historical atmospheric methane levels, thanks to https://www.methanelevels.org/. Below are the records from the last millennium.

Previously, the levels over the past 800,000 years seem to have fluctuated regularly between 400-800 PPB (parts per billion). Click on the top-left icon to see the levels going further back.

Clearly, methane levels (which we can measure pretty accurately by analysing ice cores) were historically more or less stable up until the mid-18th Century, and have since skyrocketed to near 2000 PPB.

Why? Clearly it isn’t because we have more grazing animals, because we don’t. It is most likely due to human activity, primarily fossil fuel extraction.

So I would conclude that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that grazing cows cannot be destroying the environment!

That is not to say that the clearing and burning of rainforests and the growing of huge areas of crops to transport to feedlots for cattle are not disastrous. They surely are both damaging and unethical.

But that is a problem of mismanagement, trying to find ways to slash costs and maximise profits, which inevitably leads to mining our world’s natural resources, instead of looking for sustainable or regenerative methods of feeding ourselves.


“It’s not the cow, it’s the how.”

About the author 

Ben Hunt

My job is to look at the world and wonder... "How should we live?"

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

  1. This is a very misleading article and in my view should have no place on the Rewilding Scotland website – or anywhere else for that matter.
    1. The first clue comes from the author eschewing “statistics and numbers” – in other words facts, and instead relying on “common sense” – in other words, gut feelings usually based upon what you want to be true, rather than what is actually true. The author fools himself, but hopefully not too many of his readers.
    2. Cattle farming relies on a great deal more than just the carbon cycle of the cows alone: there is machinery, transport, fertilisers etc, all of which have their own impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. The full equation then should compare the greenhouse gas emissions (and other environmental impacts) of cattle farming with the production of food calories by other means.
    3. The claim that “grazing cattle actually remove carbon from the atmosphere” is false. This is particularly obvious when the comparison is with what the land supported before cattle dominated, which in the case of vast areas of South America was old growth forest, which stored vastly more carbon than the grassland + cows that replaced it. The same can be said of the N American prairies, where deep rooted grasses grazed by buffalo were replaced by cattle. In Europe the destruction of the woodlands to provide pasture happened centuries ago, but the same argument applies.
    4. Cattle grazing may accelerate carbon uptake in grasslands compared with ungrazed grasslands. It also accelerates carbon loss. But it is not the rate of uptake or loss that determines the amount of carbon sequestration: the amount of carbon is determined by the amount of organic matter in the soil and above the ground. The situation is analogous to your bank balance: you may have a lucrative job that pays in a lot of money to your account, but if you also spend a lot, then the amount of money in your account may not be great – and it is the balance in your account that is important. An undisturbed woodland may not (or may) absorb carbon as rapidly as grazed grass, but it has a vastly greater store of carbon within it than the grazed grassland.
    5. Methane: the author appeals to “good old-fashioned common sense again” – in other words, wishful thinking, and his subsequent argument is predictably ludicrous. The numbers of grazers would have been much smaller under natural systems, particularly where the natural systems were woodland, and their diets were less likely to cause methane production. Besides, the reason that methane is becoming a problem is because its effect is in addition to an already dangerous CO2 increase. The amount of methane in the atmosphere at present would not be a problem if we hadn’t already increased CO2 from 277ppmv in 1750 to over 410ppmv now.

    1. Hi Roy. Thanks for taking time to share your own opinions.

      1. Statistics are not the same as facts. Statistics can be selected to indicate pretty much anything you want. So, thank you, but I’ll stick with logic, not gut feelings.

      2. Sure, meat needs to be moved and processed and distributed. But so does all food. I advocate eating locally-sourced food. For example, we got some bacon last week that had travelled at most fifteen miles from field to my pan, and it was wonderful. I’ll take that over avocados flown in from Mexico or strawberries shipped from Egypt in the wintertime. I’m not really talking about the whole food system, just keeping it simple and focusing on the question of whether cattle themselves are net emitters or removers of GHGs.

      3. You say “grazing cattle actually remove carbon from the atmosphere” is false. So tell me where my equation is faulty. All the carbon initially comes from the atmosphere, and not all of it goes back into the atmosphere. That’s the only way it can work, unless cattle destroy soil and release stored carbon back into the air. Which of course they don’t. Oh wait, there is something that does that… what is it again? Oh yes, arable agriculture. Perhaps you’re getting confused.

      4. “Cattle grazing… accelerates carbon loss” Oh, wow, really? Not according to my research, but I’ll be happy to see any research you can share. Again, taking humans out of the equation, stepping back and really using our grey matter, let’s ask: where does our soil come from? There’s a natural default succession from bare dirt to weedy grass to perennial grass and forbs to woodland to forest. In order for a wood or forest to emerge, there much already be topsoil, so where does that come from? Plants decomposing? We know that only works (and relatively slowly) in moist environments. Allan Savory has shown that grazing animals are absolutely essential for building soil in arid (brittle) environments. Are you familiar with his work?

      Are you arguing, like George Monbiot, that trees are the ideal way of storing carbon? It’s possible that they can store a greater amount per unit of land, if you’re taking a snapshot, but I’m not sure they can capture and store it as rapidly as perennial grassland. Anyway, cattle, pigs, and poultry love to graze in wooded areas too, so I’m by no means saying we need fewer trees, quite the contrary.

      5. Methane… You want to spin my logic as “wishful thinking”, which I think is disingenuous. You think there were fewer grazers before man than now. I can’t see how that will have been the case before manmade desertification. There are approximately 94 million head of cattle in the US at this time. 350 years ago it is estimated that there were between 30 and 60 million bison, and that’s not counting wild horses, sheep, goats, moose, caribou, etc. It is not unreasonable to assume there were more grazers historically at all, but maybe again you have alternative research data.

      You’re saying that methane wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for all the other additional GHGs. So is methane a problem, or isn’t it? Also, you know that rice paddies and fossil fuel extraction also contribute a heap of CH4 into the atmosphere. Also, natural pasture seems to mitigate methane, by encouraging methanotrophic microbes, although the science on this is fairly fresh.

      Here’s a comprehensive paper (constantly work in progress) that looks in great depth at the cattle/methane question: https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/ruminations-methane-math-and-context/

  2. Great Article.
    I have a question regarding grain finished cows. A lot grain is grown with synthetic fertilizer derived from petroleum products, right? And I heard that grain finished cows release more methane. Is it possible that moving from more grass fed cows to grain fed could contribute to more methane and CO2 being released?

    1. Hi Elbow. I don’t know if grain-feeding produces more methane, but I do know that healthy pasture is supposed to absorb some methane. Ultimately, methane emissions from pastured animals cannot logically be a serious issue.

    1. All cattle are grass fed. Grain-fed refers to cattle FINISHED on grain. If cattle were fed gain their entire lives, they would sicken and die well before going to market.

  3. Excelente artículo!!!
    Hay que recordar a Lavoisier, nada se crea, nada se destruye, todo se transforma!!
    Muy difícil competir con un rumiante que crea proteínas a partir del CO2 atmosférico y la energía solar como casi único sustrato.
    Los pastizales seguiran existiendo sin la presencia de rumiantes, que opciones más ecológicas habría para que toda la campiña europea y del mundo no se transforme en una selva impenetrable!
    Felicitaciones por su brillante artículo.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Why not sign up to my newsletter to get updates.