Gladly, although, with the caveat that science works in the aggregate so any individual paper should be treated with skepticism and that I have no idea what qua

Gladly, although, with the caveat that science works in the aggregate so any individual paper should be treated with skepticism and that I have no idea what quality of journals these are coming from because the open access literature is currently a royal fucking mess. But here's a paper that found that properly grazed beef could not only potentially reach net-zero emissions, but might even be a carbon sink: http://www.thefutureoffoodjournal.com/index.php/FOFJ/article/view/78 http://www.thefutureoffoodjournal.com/index.php/FOFJ/article... Here's another study that found that the soil type of the grassland and the dominant species of grass had a significant effect on whether intensively grazing it sequestered or released carbon from the soil overall: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.12144 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.12144 And that one appears to be a literature review of other studies. Related note, you have to be so careful looking through the studies, here's one that purports to compare the different systems. But when you read the abstract it uses "A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population". In other words, they aren't actually measuring anything. They just have numbers in a database for "x lb of beef requires y inputs" and "x lb of beef gives z outputs" and they're crunching those numbers under assumptions about the productivity of each approach. Naturally, they find that conventional feedlots are the most environmentally friendly. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127 Note that one's also in an MDPI journal, which MDPI has begun to get a reputation as a pay to play paper mill.