Phase Out All Livestock - Is this a Joke?

Recent research by Stanford University proposes the Phasing Out of All Livestock as a climate change mitigation strategy. The research was conceived and co-authored by Patrick Benson, a Stanford professor emeritus, who is also founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, a manufacturer of plant-based meat alternatives (more on this conflict later).

I have experience in this type of research. I was once an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the University of Texas department responsible for commercializing the university's R&D. I read the Stanford paper thoroughly, and as you would expect, the content is scientifically sound, and as someone who is batshit-crazy passionate about climate change mitigation, I appreciate the intent of the research.

However, I take issue with several of its premises - or put another way: "Hey fellas, I think you're wrong, and you know . . . in a very important way".

First, because the stated goal is to reduce emissions, a more practical approach would be to transition to Regenerative Farming (of soybeans). This technique sequesters a multiple of the carbon footprint of current soybean farming in the soil, and does so for (potentially) decades. When the longevity carbon capture is considered, it is likely growing soybeans in this way would be have a greater climate change mitigation than eliminating the total of livestock emissions.

Similarly, recent research by White Oak Farms demonstrated that taking a Regenerative Grazing (i.e. ranching) approach to producing animal proteins has the potential to be carbon negative, even without considering the longevity of soil carbon capture. One tradeoff is that it requires more land to ranch this way, which has land use emission implications, but these are also likely to be offset by capture duration. I don't have the time or expertise to do the research to be certain, but the hypothesis is more than sound.

Both of my arguments are strengthened by the notion of Longevity or permanence of soil carbon capture. Longevity is mostly what it sounds like, but it's complicated by assumptions of land use practices. This means that the farmer/rancher has must be committed. Longevity of a minimum of 25 years is typically required for voluntary carbon markets, and 100 years for formal carbon credit markets. My gut tells me ranching is more conducive to Longevity (I'm an Austin urbanite now, but I grew up in Wyoming where ranching is a way of life). Simply put, modern agricultural practices make it more difficult for farmers to adopt, whereas ranchers are less restricted. The point is; killing off the sector that is more likely to adopt the practice is counterintuitive.

This brings me to my last comment about the premises of the Stanford research. We don't need to choose between livestock and soybeans, or even an amazing gourmet burger and an Impossible Foods burger (though I can make a convincing argument that the meat version is much healthier - which I'll leave for a future post). If we have the political will and incentives to produce both in an environmentally responsible way, there is room for both.

Finally, I promised to discuss Patrick Benson's conflict of interest. The 'phasing out' of the main competitor to Impossible Foods would undoubtedly benefit Benson financially. To be clear, it is not a requirement that it be disclosed in the published paper (or even a question of professional integrity), although Stanford and all major research universities require that the conflicts be disclosed by the researcher to the university, and the university consider whether it compromises the research in any way (my words). I am 100% confident that Benson disclosed it, and Stanford considered it, however IMHO, I believe it should have been voluntarily disclosed given the considerable economic conflict of interest. The casual reader would otherwise be unaware of the conflict.

I have sponsored (i.e. conceived and paid for) research while I was at UT that would benefit me financially. If it were me, I would have disclosed it voluntarily in the published paper. With that in mind, I want you to know the following:

I work for a carbon sequestration supply chain company that authenticates regenerative farming and grazing soil carbon capture. I have a financial interest in promoting regenerative practices and attracting new users of our software. Oh, I also have an interest in the future of our planet, and my grandchildren's quality of life. I thought you would like to know.

P.S. I don't have a stake in White Oak Farms or the Food Revolution organization, but I hope you check them both out.