Also, a lot of forest destruction is associated with beef production (often via soya) so again it's something we could get a short-term gain from and longer-term we need to reduce CO2 and forests are the only proven technology for doing that.
It looks like some fertilisers do contain carbon - but not all. Eg ammonium nitrate doesn't, urea does. The ammonia tends to be produced using methane - so right now the fertiliser production process does produce vast amounts of CO2 (but that isn't carbon which goes anywhere near the cow).
The CO2 from ammonia production seems solvable (assuming an abundant supply of non-fossil fuel energy) through the electrolysed hydrogen -> ammonia route. Would that be enough, or is the carbon locked up in minerals used in phosphate production also a major source of CO2?
https://www.fertilizerseurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01...
Also you need to transport the fertiliser from the factory to the fields (diesel trucks) and spread it on the fields (diesel tractors)
The carbon in that methane and CO2 comes from plants, which extracted it from the atmosphere. If those plants were instead eaten by a different animal, or burned, or decomposed, that carbon would also be released. It's a closed cycle.
Methane currently takes about 9 years to break down into CO2 and H2O. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2829/greenhouse-gas-detergent-...
All this is a distraction from the real problem - the systematic extraction of sequestered carbon from deep underground. That's the only thing that matters. We need to deal with it by radically limiting hydrocarbon extraction.