[samatman]

This is the wrong way to look at it.

Atmospheric forcing doesn't distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" causes. Let's grant that methanogenesis from ruminant bellies has been a constant throughout history (unlikely, but as we'll see, irrelevant): that methane contributes a certain amount to the greenhouse effect.

That amount is non-trivial, because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and there are a lot of cattle out there. It does break down, but more is constantly being emitted: all of this is factored in to calculations giving cattle's contribution to warming.

A cheap mitigation which eliminates this source of methane is great news, because it reduces the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere: which is the only thing we care about, certainly not whether that gas is au naturale.

[8note]

Being steady state is what matters about the boivne methane production, rather than if it's natural.

Our problem isn't the steady state processes, it's the growth ones, and we won't be able to solve our growth problems by reducing the steady state ones.

[samatman]

No this is wrong.

It's a simple "shut up and calculate" situation, any reduction of greenhouse gasses is equally to be esteemed in proportion to the amount of forcing effect it eliminates from the atmosphere.

It's true that removing all "natural" emissions is both impractical and insufficient (I don't intend to stop exhaling!), but reduction is reduction, full stop.

Besides which, what you said is wrong on the face of it: turning the year-over-year growth in carbon emissions into a plateau is woefully insufficient to mitigate warming. Besides, we're well on track to achieve it, though some of that is due to the pandemic. We have to reduce emissions substantially below current levels, and find a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere faster than natural processes will do it for us.

In no conceivable way is drastically reducing bovine methane anything but assistance in that goal.