Horned villain or farting saviour?
Whether in popular discussions or in a scientific context, the verdict on the cow is almost always categorical: the cow is a climate killer. You see, during digestion it burps methane every minute, and methane contributes to global warming 25 times more than CO2. That is why cattle, be it in the US, Australia or Europe, is often compared to automobiles in terms of environmental damage. The premise: 250 km down the highway with a small car or 1 kg of beef at the supermarket, it doesn't matter - they both damage the climate in the same way. If we follow that logic, we should be treating cows not too differently from a CO2-vomiting car, and strive to "withdraw the horned villain from the general traffic", so to speak.
And this is exactly what a number of leading experts from FAO, the world organisation on food, are urging for. It seems most relevant scientists and the media have already done their calculation: you see, in order to provide 1 kg of beef, a cow has to eat 8 kg of grain - which is much more than omnivorous animals such as pigs and chickens have to eat to bring the same result. So, should we be eating more chicken legs and pork cutlets rather than beef steaks?
Well, the answer might turn out to be a bit more complicated than initially thought. As someone who prefers to eat as little meat as possible (and never heavy meat such as pork or beef), I admit I might not be your most reliable arbiter on the question - but still, I would say we should eat less meat in general, but more importantly, the "right" meat. Because whoever is trying to compare pork to chicken to beef is comparing apples to oranges to melons, instead of viewing the issue as a competent choice between two agrarian systems: the resource-saving "mixed" system on one side, and the intensive, expansionist, energy-consuming, highly industrialised one on the other. It is our way of using the system that turns animals into "climate killers", not the physiological specifics of the animals themselves.
First of all, when people talk about cows and their impact on the environment, they often ignore the fact that ruminant animals do not need grain fodder at all in the first place. They could produce meat and milk only through grazing on grass and hay.
Now, of course the market logic is of a different opinion. The market logic screams: This is not efficient! The market demands that a calf should grow as fast as possible, and be slaughtered as soon as possible. This has determined the way cattle is being fed. The intensive approach does consume a lot of energy and protein-rich fodder. For decades the tropical rainforest and natural pastures have been giving way to crop fields (which then emit enormous amounts of CO2), in order to produce highly energetic foods for chickens, pigs, turkeys, cows, etc. More than one third of the world's grain foods actually end up in the rack in the livestock farms. And in the US, nearly half of the water goes for raising animals for food. And meanwhile, hunger reigns supreme across vast territories on the planet, and regional conflicts are being fought for control over water resources.
What about the bad evil methane, then? Millions upon millions of aurochses, yaks, wildebeest, zebus, sheep, gnus, zebras and all other sorts of ruminant animals have been farting that gas for hundreds of thousands of years, and yet they haven't destroyed the climate yet. Whoever only takes methane in consideration in this equation, inevitably would reach the wrong and incomplete conclusions, because this approach underestimates the overall "contribution" of industrial agriculture to the problem.
For example, laughing gas (N2O) is a dozen times more potent than methane, and 300 more than CO2. And the main anthropogenic source of N2O are synthetic nitric fertilisers, whose use has increased manifold since the 60s, mainly through monocropping. 100 t of fertilisers emit 2-5 t of N2O in the atmosphere. And 1 t of ammonia (used for producing nitric fertilisers) emits 5 t of CO2.
Similarly, the latest non-scientific debates regularly ignore the positive effects of pasture stock-breeding. They underestimate its potential for positively contributing to both climate conservation and tackling the food problems around the world. By using natural pastures, cattle and other ruminant animals establish a symbiotic relationship with millions of microorganisms that dwell in their stomachs, they transform grass and herbs (which we humans could have otherwise used) into quality food products.
Turns out, cows actually do more good than harm to the climate - if they are looked after in the proper way. Take the soil balance for example. In most cases, ruminant animals use those soils which are either too steep, or thin, or rocky, or too moist and generally useless for agriculture. Few people know that almost 40% of the land in the world is covered with grass. Under the grass, gigantic amounts of CO2 are trapped. Regular grazing of these areas is essential for the rooted green carpet and protects Alpine pastures, steppes and savannas from erosion, and prevents the trapped CO2 from being unleashed into the atmosphere.
Therefore it is no surprise that today the major granaries of the world, the American Midwest, Ukraine, etc, are predominantly located in the areas previously occupied with steppe soils. The reason for their fertility is in the land itself: after the latest ice age, grasses have accumulated huge amounts of biomass in the soil through their roots. Indeed, the assumption that grass would grow just as well even without the touch of animals remains prevalent, and is erroneous. In fact reality is different: the grass is only able to maintain that equilibrium thanks to grazing, because it is the trigger that releases a growth impulse in the ecosystem. Forming an extensive root network directly depends on the grazing rhythm. During the periods of pause, the excrement-rich soil is able to recover for the next cycle. Grasses then grow and form new roots - which is tomorrow's humus.
This transformation can only be effectively done in a "living" land, i.e. a non-stagnant ecosystem. And animal presence plays a significant role in that. Soil organisms like earth-worms and bacteria digest dead grass roots along with other plant remains, and create humus, which is the guarantor for the long-term fertility of soils, which in turn is ultimately the foundation of a future stable food supply for humanity. This way the richest soils owe their fertility to thousands of years of regular grazing, and ultimately, the shared evolution between plants and various ruminant animals. The sudden unplugging of this natural relationship from the ecosystem, and its invasive substitution with the mass introduction of monocropping has taken its toll: the North American soils have already lost more than a quarter of their original humus layer, which in some cases used to have metres upon metres of thickness.
Every additional ton of humus could remove a burden of 1.8 t of CO2 from the atmosphere, thanks to its high content of carbon. But without grazing, and through over-exploitation, pastures would inevitably be permanently covered with bushes, so the fodder base and their climate-conserving potential would drastically deteriorate. This is why animals should not be kept away from the pastures for too long. The solution is in the balanced ratio between grazing and pause periods.
Yes, cows do release methane. However, they are of a crucial importance for feeding the world - and as it turns out, in more than one way. So we shouldn't just restore their place in the system, but we should look more globally on their place in the global ecological balance. And it could look completely different, depending on whether we are talking of a sustainable, modernised, pasture-orientated cattle-breeding, or one that is based on an intensive, unnatural, short-gain-orientated feeding process that is completely unplugged from any ecosystem. Ultimately, it is the system that determines what role the cow would have. It is not the "waste gas" that the cow "farts" that is the problem; it is an agricultural system that turns cows into a direct food competitor to humans. The growing meat consumption and the monocropping that has been introduced for the sake of addressing it, cannot be a long-term solution of the world hunger problem, let alone a tool for mitigating climate change.
But despite its enormous potential, the question about pastures still remains almost completely absent from any serious debate on the future of the planet. Grazing, and ruminant livestock in general, are being almost entirely overlooked and underestimated. And this has to change soon. The decision whether we would use cows as a "climate-killing" weapon or one out of a palette of useful climate-conserving medicines, is entirely ours.
And this is exactly what a number of leading experts from FAO, the world organisation on food, are urging for. It seems most relevant scientists and the media have already done their calculation: you see, in order to provide 1 kg of beef, a cow has to eat 8 kg of grain - which is much more than omnivorous animals such as pigs and chickens have to eat to bring the same result. So, should we be eating more chicken legs and pork cutlets rather than beef steaks?
Well, the answer might turn out to be a bit more complicated than initially thought. As someone who prefers to eat as little meat as possible (and never heavy meat such as pork or beef), I admit I might not be your most reliable arbiter on the question - but still, I would say we should eat less meat in general, but more importantly, the "right" meat. Because whoever is trying to compare pork to chicken to beef is comparing apples to oranges to melons, instead of viewing the issue as a competent choice between two agrarian systems: the resource-saving "mixed" system on one side, and the intensive, expansionist, energy-consuming, highly industrialised one on the other. It is our way of using the system that turns animals into "climate killers", not the physiological specifics of the animals themselves.
First of all, when people talk about cows and their impact on the environment, they often ignore the fact that ruminant animals do not need grain fodder at all in the first place. They could produce meat and milk only through grazing on grass and hay.
Now, of course the market logic is of a different opinion. The market logic screams: This is not efficient! The market demands that a calf should grow as fast as possible, and be slaughtered as soon as possible. This has determined the way cattle is being fed. The intensive approach does consume a lot of energy and protein-rich fodder. For decades the tropical rainforest and natural pastures have been giving way to crop fields (which then emit enormous amounts of CO2), in order to produce highly energetic foods for chickens, pigs, turkeys, cows, etc. More than one third of the world's grain foods actually end up in the rack in the livestock farms. And in the US, nearly half of the water goes for raising animals for food. And meanwhile, hunger reigns supreme across vast territories on the planet, and regional conflicts are being fought for control over water resources.
What about the bad evil methane, then? Millions upon millions of aurochses, yaks, wildebeest, zebus, sheep, gnus, zebras and all other sorts of ruminant animals have been farting that gas for hundreds of thousands of years, and yet they haven't destroyed the climate yet. Whoever only takes methane in consideration in this equation, inevitably would reach the wrong and incomplete conclusions, because this approach underestimates the overall "contribution" of industrial agriculture to the problem.
For example, laughing gas (N2O) is a dozen times more potent than methane, and 300 more than CO2. And the main anthropogenic source of N2O are synthetic nitric fertilisers, whose use has increased manifold since the 60s, mainly through monocropping. 100 t of fertilisers emit 2-5 t of N2O in the atmosphere. And 1 t of ammonia (used for producing nitric fertilisers) emits 5 t of CO2.
Similarly, the latest non-scientific debates regularly ignore the positive effects of pasture stock-breeding. They underestimate its potential for positively contributing to both climate conservation and tackling the food problems around the world. By using natural pastures, cattle and other ruminant animals establish a symbiotic relationship with millions of microorganisms that dwell in their stomachs, they transform grass and herbs (which we humans could have otherwise used) into quality food products.
Turns out, cows actually do more good than harm to the climate - if they are looked after in the proper way. Take the soil balance for example. In most cases, ruminant animals use those soils which are either too steep, or thin, or rocky, or too moist and generally useless for agriculture. Few people know that almost 40% of the land in the world is covered with grass. Under the grass, gigantic amounts of CO2 are trapped. Regular grazing of these areas is essential for the rooted green carpet and protects Alpine pastures, steppes and savannas from erosion, and prevents the trapped CO2 from being unleashed into the atmosphere.
Therefore it is no surprise that today the major granaries of the world, the American Midwest, Ukraine, etc, are predominantly located in the areas previously occupied with steppe soils. The reason for their fertility is in the land itself: after the latest ice age, grasses have accumulated huge amounts of biomass in the soil through their roots. Indeed, the assumption that grass would grow just as well even without the touch of animals remains prevalent, and is erroneous. In fact reality is different: the grass is only able to maintain that equilibrium thanks to grazing, because it is the trigger that releases a growth impulse in the ecosystem. Forming an extensive root network directly depends on the grazing rhythm. During the periods of pause, the excrement-rich soil is able to recover for the next cycle. Grasses then grow and form new roots - which is tomorrow's humus.
This transformation can only be effectively done in a "living" land, i.e. a non-stagnant ecosystem. And animal presence plays a significant role in that. Soil organisms like earth-worms and bacteria digest dead grass roots along with other plant remains, and create humus, which is the guarantor for the long-term fertility of soils, which in turn is ultimately the foundation of a future stable food supply for humanity. This way the richest soils owe their fertility to thousands of years of regular grazing, and ultimately, the shared evolution between plants and various ruminant animals. The sudden unplugging of this natural relationship from the ecosystem, and its invasive substitution with the mass introduction of monocropping has taken its toll: the North American soils have already lost more than a quarter of their original humus layer, which in some cases used to have metres upon metres of thickness.
Every additional ton of humus could remove a burden of 1.8 t of CO2 from the atmosphere, thanks to its high content of carbon. But without grazing, and through over-exploitation, pastures would inevitably be permanently covered with bushes, so the fodder base and their climate-conserving potential would drastically deteriorate. This is why animals should not be kept away from the pastures for too long. The solution is in the balanced ratio between grazing and pause periods.
Yes, cows do release methane. However, they are of a crucial importance for feeding the world - and as it turns out, in more than one way. So we shouldn't just restore their place in the system, but we should look more globally on their place in the global ecological balance. And it could look completely different, depending on whether we are talking of a sustainable, modernised, pasture-orientated cattle-breeding, or one that is based on an intensive, unnatural, short-gain-orientated feeding process that is completely unplugged from any ecosystem. Ultimately, it is the system that determines what role the cow would have. It is not the "waste gas" that the cow "farts" that is the problem; it is an agricultural system that turns cows into a direct food competitor to humans. The growing meat consumption and the monocropping that has been introduced for the sake of addressing it, cannot be a long-term solution of the world hunger problem, let alone a tool for mitigating climate change.
But despite its enormous potential, the question about pastures still remains almost completely absent from any serious debate on the future of the planet. Grazing, and ruminant livestock in general, are being almost entirely overlooked and underestimated. And this has to change soon. The decision whether we would use cows as a "climate-killing" weapon or one out of a palette of useful climate-conserving medicines, is entirely ours.