[mogadsheu]

That’s a great start to understanding flows of carbon and other substances through the ecosystem!

I’d like to add that much of the feed is grown using fertilizer, which is often/typically produced via fossil-fuel consuming processes (see Fischer Tropsch).

Where carbon is stored in the system is another major consideration.

Great post!

[Doji]

I wasn't aware that fertilizers are commonly produced from fossil fuels. That's definitely a problem!

I'll add some additional caveats myself. In certain areas of the world (South America comes to mind) cattle production is driving deforestation.

Food transportation and farming equipment generally consumes fossil fuels.

I'm sure we can think of more!

[samuelbalogh]

I don't think it's fair to treat deforestation as a local issue. Cattle production drives deforestation - whether it's in Brazil or the USA or China, doesn't matter, because we share the atmosphere.

Three-quarters [of global deforestation] is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation [...]

https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation

[Doji]

I'm likewise unsure if it's fair to treat cattle production which did not engage in deforestation (perhaps located on the great plains or similar) the same as cattle production which did. However I find your argument interesting. I will spend more time brooding on it.

[samuelbalogh]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

It's true, not all cattle production can be held accountable for deforestation. For example, here in the UK, it's supposed to be a less carbon-intensive industry than in South America, because the grasslands on which cattle graze are good for little else - they are not really suited for crops. I agree on that point.

However (and from this point, it's speculation from my part), I am very skeptical about that grassland being grassland before agriculture arrived. Eg. was it part of the ancient forest that largely covered Britain? If so, it was indeed deforestation, only it was around 500-1000 years ago.

And this gives a whole other dimension to the discussion - we are OK with our deforestation here in Europe, because it happened a long time ago, but we are not OK with deforestation in Indonesia to produce palm oil (which WE consume) because it's happening now. Strangely, we are not that keen on re-forestation and we just want to push the burden to developing nations (a form of de-humanizing the poor, in my opinion).

I don't have any argument here, I just thought I would share my thoughts.

[8note]

How relevant is deforestation to our shared atmosphere though?

Forests are largely steady state. They're carbon sinks when you go from no forest to forest, but not just keeping the forest around

[samuelbalogh]

I think that in the systemic terminology, a mature forest is a carbon "stock". Deforestation means getting rid of that stock and putting all of its CO2 into the atmostphere by burning it. Unless you use all that wood for something else (buildings or whatever) which is possible but I think it's unlikely. I might be wrong though!