"There is resistance among farmers not only because the seeds are expensive, but also because the species used so far, especially Stylosanthes, do not persist when associated with Brachiaria grasses", Boddey explains. After some time in the field the leguminous plant wanes or dies, and it is necessary to renew the pasture, which entails further costs and work."
So the farmers did the math and the money doesn't work.
Scientists in this article seem very focused on the climate aspect of it while the farmers themselves are going to be focused on the bottom line. Farmers are not going to entail extra costs if they don't have to much the same as any other business owner.
That sentence is about other legumes.
In the very next paragraph:
"The Embrapa researcher states that this does not occur with desmodium, and it is possible have the legume in the pasture for over nine years."
You might underestimate the ability to market lower-carbon beef though. Where you see a disincentive, others may see the next "organic."
I certainly don't speak for everyone but I don't see that catching on at the individual level. People eat the organic because its objectively healthier. I don't think most people that eat beef would care if its low carbon. I eat a good deal of beef, probably 3 steaks a week personally and another 3 in total for my wife and kids. I'm not going to pay x% more for low carbon. With that said I could absolutely see Europe mandating this and forcing everyone to just pay more for beef. So you're right, if they can target this at governments then they could force it to catch on.
> People eat the organic because its objectively healthier
What makes you say it is objectively healthier?
Its a fair question, not sure why you are being downvoted. I don't buy organic. The primary reason for me to consider it healthier is just that the animals are fed (supposedly) on pesticide free feed. My opinion rests on that. If you are speaking from a pure nutrition perspective I would say nothing.
There are others that I am sure would argue for other reasons such as the reduction of drug resistant bacteria for the good of all but I'm not sure that really plays out. It only works if the amount of organic sold far outstrips non organic. It also means intentionally paying more for the good of the commons while the majority don't.
> The primary reason for me to consider it healthier is just that the animals are fed (supposedly) on pesticide free feed.
Pesticides are permissible to use in organic agriculture, though there are restrictions. See: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...
FWIW, “organic” is commonly used to do price segmentation in the retail food market. They often don’t produce different types of food, it may all be technically organic but they can selectively target people willing to pay a premium for that label. It nets out positive in terms of profit/revenue over the entire lot versus selling it all at the same price.
Many examples of food products being artificially binned to create “premium” products that are identical to nominally lower tier products. Once you’ve seen it from the inside you can’t unsee it. It is so pervasive that I default to the cheapest product unless I have specific contrary knowledge regarding quality.