vissarionovitj

First I need to apologise about not being sufficiently clear. Traditional pastures in Sweden have trees growing on them, and so is also the case in the examples used in the study. This makes up part of their calculations. I'm definitely not saying that it would be good to cut down trees to make room for pastures or anything of the kind.

However, there's a difference between how carbon is stored in trees and shrubs compared to the soil in pastures. The carbon being bound in trees only remains there during the lifetime of the tree. The carbon being bound in soil, on the other hand, remains there for much longer periods of time. (In principle until it is released by some organism capable of freeing it.) Think of how humus is formed.

Hi!

According to an extensive study ordered by the Swedish Board of Agriculture from 2011, having animals (particularly sheep) grazing and keeping the pastures from being overgrown with trees means that so much carbon is bound to the earth that it far outweighs the effects of the methane the animals produce. (Here's a link. Unfortunately the report is in Swedish.) I have no idea how these numbers translate to other parts of the world, but nevertheless: would such information potentially make you reconsider your stance on the ethical status of grass-fed lamb?