I’d like to add that much of the feed is grown using fertilizer, which is often/typically produced via fossil-fuel consuming processes (see Fischer Tropsch).
Where carbon is stored in the system is another major consideration.
Great post!
I'll add some additional caveats myself. In certain areas of the world (South America comes to mind) cattle production is driving deforestation.
Food transportation and farming equipment generally consumes fossil fuels.
I'm sure we can think of more!
Three-quarters [of global deforestation] is driven by agriculture. Beef production is responsible for 41% of deforestation [...]
It's true, not all cattle production can be held accountable for deforestation. For example, here in the UK, it's supposed to be a less carbon-intensive industry than in South America, because the grasslands on which cattle graze are good for little else - they are not really suited for crops. I agree on that point.
However (and from this point, it's speculation from my part), I am very skeptical about that grassland being grassland before agriculture arrived. Eg. was it part of the ancient forest that largely covered Britain? If so, it was indeed deforestation, only it was around 500-1000 years ago.
And this gives a whole other dimension to the discussion - we are OK with our deforestation here in Europe, because it happened a long time ago, but we are not OK with deforestation in Indonesia to produce palm oil (which WE consume) because it's happening now. Strangely, we are not that keen on re-forestation and we just want to push the burden to developing nations (a form of de-humanizing the poor, in my opinion).
I don't have any argument here, I just thought I would share my thoughts.
Forests are largely steady state. They're carbon sinks when you go from no forest to forest, but not just keeping the forest around