In his Guardian column this week, George Monbiot raised a number of criticisms of our recently published Grazing Livestock report. Here, we respond briefly to some of them.
Dartmoor
Monbiot states: “Sheep, cattle and ponies … selectively browse out tree seedlings, preventing the return of temperate rainforest, which is extremely difficult to burn. In dry weather, the moor grass, bracken and heather covering the deforested landscape are tinder.”
Our response: Overgrazing has undoubtedly contributed to an increased risk of wildfire on moorlands, including through a rise in the dominance of Molinia – a flammable grass that now blankets large areas. But that doesn’t mean that moorland grazing is inherently bad. There is good evidence, including from SW England, to show that well-managed grazing can help reverse the dominance of Molinia, bringing benefits for wildfire risk and biodiversity. Grazing animals play a crucial role in supporting upland biodiversity more generally, with many protected habitats and species benefitting or even relying upon low intensity grazing. That’s not to say, of course, that all of our uplands need to be farmed with grazing livestock – we clearly need to make more space for trees, for example. Still, grazing animals have an important part to play in the more sustainable management of our uplands – a role that is under threat from the ongoing loss of livestock in certain areas.
Greenwashing
Monbiot states: “Celebrities, politicians, billionaires and far-right podcasts, seek to persuade us that cattle and sheep are good for the atmosphere and the living planet.”
Our response: Monbiot is right to highlight the risk of those with ulterior motives hijacking messaging from the regenerative or agroecological movements. But that doesn’t mean that influencers are always wrong on the question of livestock! Livestock can absolutely play a central role in a food system that is good for people and the planet, but we would agree with George that their intensive counterparts are causing a great deal of harm. So, the critical point is to differentiate between the livestock systems that are part of the problem and those which are part of the solution – which is what our report is all about.
We also believe it is a good thing that some of the major food companies and retailers have become interested in moving towards regenerative practices. Our job is to scrutinise any claims they make, and ensure they are not mis-representing the science to greenwash their actions.
Beef, lamb and their land use and greenhouse gas footprints
Monbiot says: “Beef and lamb are the most land-hungry and climate-damaging of all farm products. Their climate impacts range from the methane and nitrous oxide the animals produce to the huge areas they need for grazing, which could otherwise support wild ecosystems far richer in carbon, such as forests and wetlands.”
Our response: Are beef and lamb land hungry? It’s true that they require a lot of land to produce a given quantity of food. But this very narrow focus on land use footprint overlooks the crucial point, which is that grazing livestock can play a key role in a food system that makes a much more efficient use of agricultural land than today. To achieve this, we need to move from diets heavy in grain-fed livestock products, and instead base our consumption of meat and dairy off the output of animals reared largely or solely on pasture. By doing so, we could free up a lot of arable land currently used for growing feed crops (including for soya overseas), and instead use it to grow more fruit, vegetables and pulses – and, in a more sustainable manner than today. Such a scenario would involve an overall reduction in the amount of livestock products we consume, but it would still allow for a significant supply of nutrient-dense meat and dairy, produced from the 70% of the UK’s agricultural area only suited for growing grass, as well as from the fertility-building temporary pastures that would form a central part of biologically-based crop rotations.
What about the claim they are climate-damaging? Well, it’s true that beef and lamb have high emissions footprints, when measured in the conventional way (CO2-equivalent emissions per kg of food). Again, though, it is a massive oversimplification to claim on this basis that all beef and lamb is inherently climate-damaging. If we adopt a more holistic approach to measuring climate impact – one that accounts for emissions, carbon sequestration and a wide range of other key indicators of sustainability – it is clear that grazing livestock can play a central role in a food system that works for the climate, nature and human health. To realise this, though, we need a transformation in farming practice and diets – and that is what our report calls for.
Arable land use
Monbiot says: “[The Grazing Livestock report] urges us to stop eating pigs and chickens and eat cattle and sheep instead, while consuming far fewer arable crops, as its proposals would, it admits, greatly reduce output.”
Our response: Our report did not set out to model a prescribed pattern of production or a specific diet, and it certainly does not claim what is quoted above. What we actually say (mostly in our previously published Feeding Britain from the Ground Up report), is that in a sustainably farmed UK, we could produce a greater diversity of plant foods, including more pulses, fruit and vegetables, but that production of pork and poultry (which relies heavily on arable feeds) would reduce dramatically. This is due, in large part, to a 50% reduction in grain output – linked to a move away from chemical production to fertility building crop rotations. As a consequence, both chicken and pork would become more expensive and consumption would have to be reduced. On the other hand, beef, lamb and dairy would see less significant falls in production, and would continue to form an important part of the national diet. This, as mentioned above, is because of the importance of grasslands in a biologically-based farming system.
Monbiot says: “How much land would be needed under this system to produce the crops we eat? Would we become even more dependent on imports, taking grain from hungrier people overseas or commissioning the destruction of forests, savannahs and wetlands?
Our response: Once again, we covered these issues in our Feeding Britain from the Ground Up report, which concluded that if we reduce food waste by 50% and ate differently, as described above, we could maintain our current levels of national self-sufficiency in staple foods. Other studies which have modelled a large-scale transition to a more biologically-based approach to farming have come up with similar findings.
Monbiot says: “Given that cattle and sheep in almost all systems require supplementary feeding, and are far less efficient converters than chickens and pigs, would this proposal really ensure that less grain was needed?”
Our response: It’s true that at present, many sheep and beef systems do include supplementary feeding, but there are a growing number of farmers who are committed to finishing animals exclusively on grass and pasture, now represented by the Pasture Fed Livestock association and their certification scheme. There is, then, no fundamental reason why the majority of beef and lamb could not be finished exclusively on grass. While there is a stronger case for supplementation with dairy cows, which we factor into our Feeding Britain report, we can and should, still move towards systems of dairy production that use much less in the way of arable feeds than today.
Affordability / “The price of food would soar”
Monbiot says: “When I spoke to Holden, he admitted that the price of food would soar.”
Our response: We acknowledge that the sort of the transition outlined in our report could come with challenges around food prices. However, as our report The Hidden Cost of UK Food demonstrated, the prices we currently pay for food are misleading and do not reflect the environmental and health costs of our existing food system. ‘Cheap food’ is in actual fact not all that cheap. In addition, it’s worth remembering that the UK has some of the cheapest food in the developed world, relatively speaking – and yet we still have a quarter of all households struggling in food poverty. Price, then, is far from the only issue at play here.
Still, ensuring everyone has access to healthy, sustainable produce, is of course a major challenge, particularly when it comes to meat and dairy. Rather than simply replacing chicken and pork with beef and lamb in the diet (as George describes) our report emphasises the need to reduce overall meat consumption, especially industrial livestock products. This reduction can help ‘make space’ for pasture-based meat, without increasing overall costs, including, for example, in the public sector. By connecting pasture-based livestock farmers with the public through short supply chains and local food initiatives, progress can be made to ensure these products are not limited to a privileged few.
Featured image courtesy of Christian Kay.
