Climate Change and the Farming Industry - At Least They're Saying Something

At last! A glimmer of response from the farming industry to accusations that livestock farming is destroying the environment and the glib message that the answer is to eat less meat and dairy products. Following an article by George Monbiot in the Guardian, both the Soil Association and the NFU got their pens out, and started putting some balance into the debate. (Guardian 17th April)


The Soil Association made the point that grass fed livestock are a good thing because grass traps carbon, so if you plough up grass to plant crops of whatever kind then that benefit is lost. Unfortunately their argument then got a bit complicated when they said that bacteria in the soil of unfertilised grassland breaks down methane without explaining in easy words how, and why this is good.

The NFU wrote that if less meat and dairy is eaten then farmers will turn the land to crops, or just let it go wild with bad environmental effects. Unfortunately they did not explain what these bad effects would be. They also spoiled the clarity, and possibly challenged consumer sympathy, by saying that the problem has arisen in the first place because agriculture has been underfunded for 30 years.

A couple of independent contributors, one in the Telegraph from an organic farmer, have made additional points, namely that most UK beef, and all UK lamb, is grass fed; and that the manure produced by livestock is a natural fertiliser so there is no need to buy in processed product.

The messages from the farming industry are still far too numerous and complicated to influence consumers compared with the crystal simplicity of "livestock bad, so eat less". We know from the free range chicken experience (see blog of April 15th) that to alter opinion the message has to be clear, simple and delivered from a trustworthy source. Nevertheless, within the tentative responses so far lie the beginnings of a sensible debate. The points about grass feeding, and the detrimental impact on our landscape should there be no livestock are powerful, but they need to be honed and simplified. If, as the NFU suggests, investment is an answer then details of investment in what, and why will it work ethically and environmentally must be communicated.


The need for a considered and united agri view is urgent. All sorts of figures and claims are being bandied about, witness the debate on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show today following Sir Paul McCartney's interview with PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) where he advocated vegetarianism as the answer to climate change.


And once farming leaders know what they want to say about climate change, could they please tell the rest of us, so that we who care deeply about a healthy, environmentally friendly and ethical farming industry can respond well when challenged.