Exploring Carbon Cycles and Why Cattle DO NOT Contribute to Global Warming

In honor of #NationalAgDay let's break down carbon cycles and talk about why properly managed cattle DO NOT contribute to global warming like industrial fossil fuels.

👇 pic.twitter.com/Q0mtfpkKoy

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

The current narrative on why we need to reduce animal agriculture is this:
1. Carbon in the atmosphere is bad
2. Cows produce carbon via manure and burping
3. Thus, cows are bad

You can even add:
2b. Cows produce methane
2c. Methane is even more bad
3b. Cows especially bad

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

The issue with this is that few people are following the actual cycle of carbon.

Where does the carbon come from and where does it go?

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

In the case of industrially produced fossil fuel carbon, it works like this:
1. Dig up deposits of carbon that have been under earth's crust for millennia
2. Burn them and turn them into CO2
3. Repeat until we run out

It's a one way system, carbon doesn't cycle: it accumulates.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Cow C cycles work like this:
1. Carbon stored in grass is eaten by cattle
2. Cattle ferment grass, produce methane
3. Methane is broken down to CO2 + H2O
4. Grasslands breathe in CO2 to grow (& deposit extra into the soil)
5. Repeat until the sun burns out
Pic:@SustainableDish pic.twitter.com/6ZKaGsUVcw

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Not only does this not lead to accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere, it leads to sequestration of carbon in the soil.

This means when we have well managed cattle contributing to the carbon cycle, they are putting MORE carbon back into the soil than the atmosphere.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

In a regenerative system, each pound of nutrient dense meat that is produced leads to 3.5 pounds of carbon pulled INTO the soil.

See this summary from a 3rd party assessment of @whiteoakpasture multi species rotational grazing farm in Georgia. pic.twitter.com/6i5cN0FiQ9

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

To recap: carbon is extracted via fossil fuels, and is cycled with cattle.

Industry 📈 carbon = fossils ➡️ burn ➡️ more net C in atmosphere

Cattle 📉carbon = soil ➡️ grass ➡️ cattle ➡️ C temporarily in atmosphere ➡️ more carbon in soil ➡️ better soil ➡️ more grass

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

It's important to note that all of this assumes that viewing ecosystems and assessing our planetary health as the reduction to "carbon in vs carbon out" is the best way.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

We also don't account for all of the follow on effects from supporting these systems. There are many positive/negative externalities that we can pull apart.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Fossil fuel externalities:
- mining equipment that itself needs to be mined and created
- displacement of natural habitat
- displacement of native people
- more machines and vehicles
- increased air pollution
- increased water pollution
- dependence on corporations
and more...

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Cattle externalities:
- most nutrient dense food source on the planet
- improved soil carbon
- improved ecosystem resiliency
- increased biodiversity
- improved water holding capacity
- resilient local economies
and more...

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

We're preoccupied with "carbon in vs carbon out" because it's simple to quantify. A complex system like an ecosystem or planetary resiliency are far more than one reductive measure.

The same can be said about the body. It's not just a big "calories in, calories out" machine.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

We can't even agree on what it takes to create a healthy and resilient human. We're becoming fat, sick, and depressed at an alarming rate even though we have more quantifiable metrics to track our "health" by the day.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

If we can't even manage our own bodies and our own health, how are we going to act like we know the first thing about managing the entire planet's ecosystem or health by any metric?

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

The transition from knowledge to language leaves out what can’t be articulated. Language to math leaves out what can’t be quantified. What are we left with? Reductionism that ignores the whole. Everything that can’t be quantified in complex systems is the most important stuff.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Carbon isn’t the currency of ecosystem health more than calories are the currency of human health.

Diversity, resilience, sustainability, water.

Why should we not seek to understand the world in terms of a model that takes into account these and many more relevant factors?

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

You know health when you see it. You don't need to articulate it or measure it.

Don't believe me?

Go observe an oil refinery plant, then go observe a regenerative multi-species farm.

Tell me what you think is a healthier system.

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023

Yes, we can measure carbon, and articulate the cycle in cattle to know that they are not ruining the planet based upon carbon. But we don't have to.

If you want to know for yourself their impact on an ecosystem, go see for yourself.

Visit your local rancher and farmer. 👨🏻‍🌾

— Anthony Gustin (@dranthonygustin) March 21, 2023