Living in an area heavily deforested for cattle grazing, the cattle grazed land does not look like a healthy land. The cattle keep all plant life cut right back. Hot sun can easily access the soil drying it out, then when heavy rains come, the top soil all runs off the land.
Land that is left without cattle fares better, land that is actively reforested and trees helped to get established looks infinitely more healthy.
http://www.econtalk.org/moises-velasquez-manoff-on-cows-carb...
> Journalist and author Moises Velasquez-Manoff talks about the role of dirt in fighting climate change with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Velasquez-Manoff explains how changes in farming can allow dirt and plants to absorb carbon and potentially reduce climate change.
I'm no expert, but I would approach this with extreme caution. There are a lot of replies that he is "misleading", "wrong", "dead wrong" etc.
This is not true of North America's grasslands. Pre-contact, tens of millions of bison fed on the grasslands much like cattle do now, with certain differences. Most cattle ranching operations are small so there are a lot of fences, which leads to intense grazing in some areas and relatively little in others.
Grasslands have a symbiotic relationship with grazers. Without regular grazing and lightning-caused fires (indigenous populations also regularly burned large areas to help grazing animals), grasslands tend to progress to either bushy forests or dustbowls.
In fact, the greatest danger to the grasslands of North America is farming.