by Jude Capper
There is an immediate need for all the UK livestock sectors to demonstrate their ambition to reduce negative environmental impacts. They must do so in an evidence-based manner that both allows progress to be benchmarked and to be better communicated to stakeholders. The choice of measurement system(s) must ensure transparency and allow comparison with other sectors and markets.
However, only using GHG emissions to differentiate between livestock systems or products ignores other important factors in the provision of sustainable food. These include, for example, consumer preferences, land use and feed sourcing. Over-simplification may also ignore important differences in the relative nutritional content of foods (e.g. meat vs. salad) or the ‘opportunity cost’ of producing different foods from specific resources.
Despite the Committee on Climate Change (2019) report advocating a series of changes to UK milk, meat and egg production and consumption, it is crucial to acknowledge the multiple benefits of livestock farming, including food and fibre production, soil health, biodiversity and landscape maintenance.
Livestock farming provides a range of benefits over and above food production. These include by-products (e.g. leather or pharmaceuticals), ecosystem enhancement and wider landscape management. The livestock sector forms an essential part of the circular economy in terms of converting human-inedible forages and feeds into high- quality protein (milk, meat and eggs).
Cutting direct UK emissions from food supply by eliminating livestock production or importing milk, meat and eggs from overseas is possible but is inherently unsustainable, threatening both national food security and farm economic stability, and encouraging ‘emissions transfer’. It is therefore essential to identify practices and tools which will enable UK producers to mitigate emissions.
A considerable amount of media coverage is dedicated to vegetarianism and veganism, with concurrent social pressure on consumers in the Western world to reduce their consumption of animal products, despite increasing demand in low- and middle-income countries.
The increasing popularity of ‘flexitarianism’ (i.e. making a conscious decision to reduce meat consumption) may be a challenge to the sector, yet it may also offer opportunities if it leads to an increase in local (national) ‘quality meat’ consumption relative to imported products, for which the environmental or animal welfare credentials may be less transparent.
Precision livestock farming systems can help to curb inefficiencies and waste. Better data collection and its use will facilitate assessment of variations related to operations, species or breeds. Environmental monitoring and sensors can improve livestock health management, particularly in intensively stocked environments, reducing the use of antibiotics that have equivalents in human medicine.
While there is a need to curb emissions from grazed livestock, this also applies to more or less intensive monogastric livestock (pigs and poultry), including the design of feed rations, use of methane-curbing additives/ techniques and installation of covered slurry stores sized for reduced spreading windows.
Improved livestock management and efficient manure/fertiliser use is key to decarbonisation. Development of on-farm bioenergy generation potential from bio-wastes (e.g. slurries) must therefore be a priority. This will reduce environmental impacts whilst providing a sustainable on-farm source of power and fuel. The failure of UK bioenergy policy to boost farm energy supply from crop and manure residues represents a major failure that needs urgent attention.
Although marginal gains can and should be achieved in terms of transport, processing, retail and consumption, the greatest opportunities for livestock sector decarbonisation occur at the farm through better husbandry and management, with underlying recognition that significant GHG mitigation is essential and achievable at all points in the production and supply chain.
Key points
Improving KPIs to mitigate GHG emissions can be adopted across the pig, poultry and intensive beef sectors, providing the mechanisms employed balance environmental responsibility, economic viability and social acceptability, thus achieving a triple-win for sustainability.
The global livestock sector needs internationally agreed tools for GHG quantification and benchmarking. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) model takes account of the contribution of grazing animals to sequestering carbon into soils. The GWP* metric accounts for variation in how short and long-lived emissions warm the atmosphere.
UK livestock farmers and trade bodies need to develop ways of benchmarking GHG emissions, carbon capture and other environmental metrics (e.g. biodiversity, water use). A key and urgent issue will be choice of a standard measurement system to ensure transparency and allow comparison with other operations, sectors or markets.
Many intensive livestock operations (e.g. pigs and poultry) lack a land base on which to spread their slurries and manures. With the requirement for transition to use of covered storage, the sector can better valorise manures as bioenergy (i.e. through anaerobic digestion) to minimise environmental impact and make better use of those nutrients.
Improving livestock health is essential, with healthy animals performing better and having lower environmental impacts. Reducing GHG emissions based on productivity and health should not be prescriptive in terms of systems, methods or technologies.
The industry must respond to consumer trends and stakeholder demands (including critics challenging meat production). Decarbonisation strategies can address the rhetoric around GHG emissions and improve consumer confidence in sustainability.
The development of a clear vision and strategy for a decarbonised meat industry must be shared with policymakers, media and consumers to successfully change the rhetoric around GHG emissions and improve consumer confidence in UK agriculture.
Sheep and beef
There is a need to curb emissions from all grazed livestock, and not just those farmed under more intensive conditions. This includes from hill farms that are a vital part of the management of remote and upland areas. In addition to climate, commodity market prices and farm income pressures, family hill farmers are subject to a range of other challenges. These include keeping younger workers on the farm and addressing the increasing demands of countryside users wanting to access, protect and enhance upland habitats across the UK.
More than 60% of UK land is grassland, best suited to intensive and extensive livestock grazing and the supply of high-grade protein. Grazing livestock need to remain part of UK agricultural production.
Hill farming in particular needs ongoing support not only to become more profitable and resilient but also to protect biodiversity. A high percentage of a hill farm’s income derives from subsidy support – and this must be at the forefront when determining the level of subsidy being planned under ELMS in England and other support schemes being developed in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Subsidy support needs to include attention to livestock numbers as well as costs. Buying in external feed inputs increases costs, while limiting stocking densities can have environmental benefits, for example, boosting soil health to lock in carbon and enhancing the ability of upland to absorb heavy rain thereby reducing flooding risk lower in the catchment by holding back floodwaters.
Increased collaboration in areas like catchment management, where farmers work in groups with external support from specialist advisers, has been shown to curb pollution and enhance water course protection. This could lead to additional cooperation aimed at lowering fixed costs through sharing machinery, collaboration on sales and sharing resources with neighbour farms. This will bring opportunities to boost margins for meat produced by adding value locally.
Upland livestock farmers (lamb and beef) will be expected and encouraged to put environmental protection and landscape enhancement at the centre of their farm management systems. This will require a combination of reward through the market (i.e. by adding value to increase meat prices), and successful applications for Government payments focused on the delivery of ‘public goods’. The latter will include public access and the provision of countryside interpretation services for recreational users.
Importantly, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) model related to ruminant emissions should take account of the value that grazing animals can sequester carbon into soils. Livestock farmers and trade bodies need to develop ways of measuring and benchmarking emissions and carbon capture.
Case study
Hill farming in the Yorkshire Dales
Increased collaboration in areas like catchment management134, where farmers work in groups with external support from specialist advisers, has been shown to curb pollution and enhance water course protection. This could lead to additional cooperation aimed at lowering fixed costs through sharing machinery, collaboration on sales and sharing resources with neighbour farms. This will bring opportunities to boost margins for meat
produced by adding value locally.
Upland livestock farmers (lamb and beef) will be expected and encouraged to put environmental protection and landscape enhancement at the centre of their farm management systems. This will require a combination of reward through the market (i.e. by adding value to increase meat prices), and successful applications for Government payments focused on the delivery of ‘public goods’. The latter will include public access
and the provision of countryside interpretation services for recreational users.
Importantly, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) model related to ruminant emissions should take account of the value that grazing animals can sequester carbon into soils. Livestock farmers and trade bodies need to develop ways of measuring and benchmarking emissions and carbon capture.