Return to Answer

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so I won't repeat anything. But I will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/58/1/SS0580010175
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141311001016

This source however has a lot of research metrics that display natural grasslands as at least equal to farm pastures in many cases: PDF

Concluding that a farm, probably, does not increase the potential for carbon sequestration at an amount sufficient to counter farm's carbon emissions.

If you have more time there is an analytical source here:

Ecological complexity: intensifying land use has generally brought with it a simplification and reduction of biodiversity. Amongst the causes and disturbances are deforestation, fragmentation of ecosystems, regulation of water streams, monocultures, selective breeding, abandoning traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds, intensive application of agrochemicals, etc.

Source: PDF

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so I won't repeat anything. But I will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate:

• The Potential for Carbon Sequestration Through Reforestation of Abandoned Tropical Agricultural and Pasture Lands
• Organic Carbon Turnover in Three Tropical Soils under Pasture after Deforestation
• Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: an overview
• Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs

This source however has a lot of research metrics that display natural grasslands as at least equal to farm pastures in many cases: Soil Organic Matter Turnover in Long-term Field Experiments as Revealed by Carbon13 Natural Abundance

Concluding that a farm, probably, does not increase the potential for carbon sequestration at an amount sufficient to counter farm's carbon emissions.

If you have more time there is an analytical source here:

Ecological complexity: intensifying land use has generally brought with it a simplification and reduction of biodiversity. Amongst the causes and disturbances are deforestation, fragmentation of ecosystems, regulation of water streams, monocultures, selective breeding, abandoning traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds, intensive application of agrochemicals, etc.

Source: Soil Organic Matter Turnover in Long-term Field Experiments as Revealed by Carbon13 Natural Abundance

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so i won't repeat anything. But i will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/58/1/SS0580010175 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141311001016

This source however has a lot of research metrics that display natural grasslands as at least equal to farm pastures in many cases: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerome_Balesdent/publication/247573956_Soil_Organic_Matter_Turnover_in_Long-term_Field_Experiments_as_Revealed_by_Carbon13_Natural_Abundance/links/554a29660cf21ed213588314.pdf

Concluding that a farm, probably, does not increase the potential for carbon sequestration at an amount equal to counter farm's carbon emmisions.

If you have more time there is an analytical source here:
Ecological complexity: intensifying land use has generally brought with it a simpli-fication
and reduction of biodiversity. Amongst the causes and disturbances are deforestation,
fragmentation of ecosystems, regulation of water streams, monocultures, selective breeding,
abandoning traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds, intensive application of agrochemicals, etc.

Source:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerome_Balesdent/publication/247573956_Soil_Organic_Matter_Turnover_in_Long-term_Field_Experiments_as_Revealed_by_Carbon13_Natural_Abundance/links/554a29660cf21ed213588314.pdf

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so I won't repeat anything. But I will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate: 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x 
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/58/1/SS0580010175 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141311001016

This source however has a lot of research metrics that display natural grasslands as at least equal to farm pastures in many cases: PDF

Concluding that a farm, probably, does not increase the potential for carbon sequestration at an amount sufficient to counter farm's carbon emissions.

If you have more time there is an analytical source here:

Ecological complexity: intensifying land use has generally brought with it a simplification and reduction of biodiversity. Amongst the causes and disturbances are deforestation, fragmentation of ecosystems, regulation of water streams, monocultures, selective breeding, abandoning traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds, intensive application of agrochemicals, etc.

Source:  PDF

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so i won't repeat anything. But i will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/58/1/SS0580010175 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141311001016

The way the answer is put no, not at all.

There are lots of metrics above so i won't repeat anything. But i will state the obvious:

The pasture land will sequester carbon regardless of the operation of the farm. It is not a mandatory part of the farm cycle from this perspective.

So the farm itself has a carbon emission cost and carbon sequester from the pasture cannot be subtracted.

However it is not possible to determinate the potential for carbon sequestration compared used an unused pasture. In overall more research is needed as various sources indicate: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/58/1/SS0580010175 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141311001016

This source however has a lot of research metrics that display natural grasslands as at least equal to farm pastures in many cases: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerome_Balesdent/publication/247573956_Soil_Organic_Matter_Turnover_in_Long-term_Field_Experiments_as_Revealed_by_Carbon13_Natural_Abundance/links/554a29660cf21ed213588314.pdf

Concluding that a farm, probably, does not increase the potential for carbon sequestration at an amount equal to counter farm's carbon emmisions.

If you have more time there is an analytical source here:
Ecological complexity: intensifying land use has generally brought with it a simpli-fication
and reduction of biodiversity. Amongst the causes and disturbances are deforestation,
fragmentation of ecosystems, regulation of water streams, monocultures, selective breeding,
abandoning traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds, intensive application of agrochemicals, etc.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerome_Balesdent/publication/247573956_Soil_Organic_Matter_Turnover_in_Long-term_Field_Experiments_as_Revealed_by_Carbon13_Natural_Abundance/links/554a29660cf21ed213588314.pdf