Movement toward Regenerative Grazing Practices (2021) 

President Biden’s executive order on January 27, 2021 regarding climate change policies and commitments could result in broader, swifter, and more significant impacts than many expected just a few years ago.  The actual details of this executive order and its various initiatives can be accessed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Will spending or investments in carbon capturing approaches deliver the environmental benefits, many green jobs, and economy boost that proponents have long asserted?   These ideals and proposals will soon be tested over the rough road of our nation’s political processes.   

One environmental issue that has drawn substantial media interest in the last year or so has been environmental and commercial advantages for regenerative agriculture and grazing.  Movement toward more sustainable environmental practices in the USA are much more likely to occur when those directly involved view these practices as having some direct personal or commercial advantages.   These perceived benefits are leading an increasing number of livestock ranchers and dairy farmers to practice regenerative grazing.   

I certainly don’t claim much livestock grazing knowledge or experience, probably like about 95% of PWJ readers.  It’s difficult to ignore, though, the enthusiasm shown recently by many in the agriculture community concerning regenerative grazing practices.  I’ll try to summarize some of the basic trends and pros and cons that have been reported.    

Among those advocating and educating others on regenerative grazing approaches has been Dr. Allen Williams, a sixth-generation rancher in Mississippi.  He formerly taught at Louisiana Tech and Mississippi State Universities.  Williams emphasizes adaptive grazing approaches that promote healthier soil biology below the ground, healthier forage above the ground, and more productive and profitable livestock operations.  One specific approach for regenerative grazing advocated by Williams is known as Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing.  AMP grazing is a form of rotational grazing in which one area or paddock is grazed for a short period while other paddocks are allowed to recover.  In this approach, livestock grazing numbers are adjusted to match available forage as conditions change. The Pasture Project is a recent national initiative that Williams and colleagues have started to help inform and educate livestock and dairy producers about regenerative and AMP grazing.  

The Pasture Project’s website details the organization’s mission and concerns.  It defines regenerative grazing as an agricultural approach for building soil health by managing livestock on perennial and annual forages in such a way to support human and ecosystem health, farm profitability, and community and food system resilience. Regenerative grazing seeks to rejuvenate agricultural landscapes and communities, not degrade or just sustain these lands.  It relies on careful observation and adaptive management of the inputs, processes and outcomes associated with livestock grazing.  It is typically characterized by high stock densities in a few paddocks, frequent rotation and long recovery periods for grazed paddocks, low to no synthetic chemical inputs or tillage, increased diversity of plant, animal, and microbial life, and generation of sufficient returns for farm/ranch owners and laborers.  Regenerative grazing and agriculture practices have been credited with removing large amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide and putting these gases back into the soil to help restore higher quality ecosystems.  

Some of the pioneering ranchers and farmers involved now with regenerative grazing were pushed into alternatives to conventional grazing approaches due to various threats to their financial solvency.  Their experiences with these contrasting grazing practices seemed to be producing improved soil quality, better forage, and healthier livestock, while reducing feeding and inorganic fertilizer costs.  Traditional livestock and grazing practices, based largely on an industrial or factory model of commodity production, were being challenged by this different mindset concerning livestock and dairy ranching.  

On a state level, the Louisiana Grazing Land Conservative Initiative has assumed a leadership role.  Its aim is to educate and assist livestock and dairy producers in adopting practices and technologies that enhance soil health on grazing lands while improving their own bottom lines. LAGLCI raises funds for its educational mission and offers pasture walks and field days, as well as provides agriculture class presentations at our state universities.   

Ted Miller, a northeast Louisiana dairy farmer and LAGLCI member, stated to me that the increased forage potential as well as soil health improvements through the sequestration of atmospheric carbon into organic soil matter were incentives for some producers.  Miller declared that it has been a considerable paradigm shift for many producers to divide their pastures into multiple paddocks and move their livestock on a frequent and regular basis, especially for those who had little seen or heard of these practices before.  Displaying the beneficial outcomes from these regenerative practices first-hand to producers seemed important for them to consider implementing these alternatives on their own farms and ranches. 

Regenerative agricultural practices, including adaptive multi-paddock grazing, have been ranked by Project Drawdown as number 9 of 80 effective approaches to counteract greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon.  Grant support coming from many corporations and private foundations has funded regenerative grazing research at major universities, such as Arizona State University, my doctoral alma mater.     

There are at least some critics, though, of the very positive environmental claims associated with regenerative grazing.  They stress that most of these climate-friendly assertions come from proponents who are within this agricultural sector and tend to be largely PR efforts in response to many previous criticisms of the sector’s poor environmental record.  Critics have also stated that certain green-advocacy reports, such as Project Drawdown, overstate the short-term and longer-range carbon sequestration advantages of regenerative grazing and agriculture approaches.   Another criticism is that damaging greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide that have been strongly associated with livestock and dairy operations are not reduced.  Other criticisms have been aired, all the way to those who even call for less reliance on meat versus plant-based responses to the world’s growing need for dietary protein.   

Accurately and fairly describing the many recent positive environmental claims, as well as the reservations, concerning regenerative grazing seems a complex, book-length project.  An overall evaluation or conclusion now regarding regenerative grazing practices appears to be that these are promising reforms that are already having some largely positive environmental impacts.  Current regenerative grazing practices, or even all regenerative agriculture approaches, can hardly be expected to be “the silver bullet” or answer to many of our climate change challenges.  These regenerative approaches can make a significant contribution, though, to certain environmental challenges.  For challenges such as methane, other greenhouse gases, and other environmental threats, we will need to continue searching for answers within the agricultural sector and from other private and public sectors.