AIBU to think most people don’t realise reducing meat will not save the planet and may in fact cause more climate issues.

[TreeLoverr]

I’m a farmer, but before you dismiss this as bias, I don’t have any livestock so do not sell meat.

We own a purely arable based farm and pretty much exclusively grow grain and cereals.

My family had beef cattle on the farm , but they’re sold the heard years before I was born due to lack of profits.

The reason why I say this is due to a few reasons. The soils on our farm are suffering. Especially due to lack of organic content. The soil must be replaced with actual organic matter (like in a garden, it erodes over time and you have to put compost on)

When most farms operated by rotating grazing animals this happens naturally. The grass putting roots down also stops soil erosion, and the dung from the animals too. There are other things that we are just beginning to understand like the important impact of hooves trampling and the delicate micro biome that the cows eating and pooping replenishes.

Just putting dung onto the fields is not enough. Firstly the nutritional balance gets off kilter very quickly (in a way that doesn’t really happen with livestock rotation) and secondly it is difficult to get hold of when you don’t have your own animals.

The alternative to this is fertiliser. Fertilisers are made using fossil fuels. This is far worse for the environment than animals on grassland.

Many farmland is not suitable for cropping. Too hilly/steep, rocky etc. but it is suitable for raising animals, turning otherwise wasted land into human food.

When we have a bad harvest, it often means the crops are not suitable for human consumption. This is then sold for animal feed, turning this into food further down the line as we can then eat the animals. This crop would otherwise have to be destroyed or just left in the field.

But what about greenhouse gases you might be wondering? Animals are PART of the natural cycle. They are not the same as greenhouse gasses released during fossil fuels being burned. Greenhouse gasses are trapped in the soil and plants that they eat, they release and the plants absorb again. plants literally live off carbon dioxide and methane.

How we farm can absolutely negatively affect climate change, but grass fed British beef and lamb is actually important to our ecology and an important food source in order to maximise our environment without destroying it.

Hi, it wouldn’t start to cool because of the amount of CO2 in the air that is still causing heating, but it would certainly slow the rate of warming and give us more time to figure out this mess!!

Honestly I do wonder…. And it’s especially depressing that climate change is the lived experience of millions of farmers globally, and 100s of farmers in the UK who can’t get a reliable crop in because of unpredictable rains and heat. The farmers I know in East Anglia get this, they’re not burying their head in the sands imagining they’re somehow contributing positively by emitting more , but actively looking at ways to become more resilient and cut operating costs through lower carbon approaches.

Your nose is so high in the air you assume we are not also doing these things...

You kicked off the thread with - appropriately enough - total bullshit (plants feed on methane and similar ill informed drivel).

Then, you obnoxiously react (e.g. with laughing smileys) to well-informed posts.

I'd have my nose in the air around you, too.

Feel free to comment alternative solutions to each of my points :)

Why? All you do is say it isn't your lived experience.

Many have pointed out alternatives to grazing already, you just dismiss them.

Your claim that fertilizer production is worse for the environment than grazing is simpy unsure.

You think plants feed on methane - they don't.

The “bad harvests become animal feed” point overlooks that most crops used for animal feed are grown for that specific purpose, and that growing crops to feed to animals is a hugely inefficient means of yielding food from land.

You argue that land not used for food production is wasted to justify farming...you know what's good for the environment? Nature. E.g. rewilding.

Honestly, you've just posted a bunch of drivel.

Sorry you fucked up your soil. Maybe you should find a new career?

Can you not do crop rotation to include legumes etc like we were taught in geography?

And co planting? I had info from the Nature Friendly Farming Association at one point which was really interesting reading.

We already do this. ☺️

Not if the soil degrades without replenishment of nutrients, which it will (and is) from farming crops constantly.

I’m not dismissing them, either we have already implemented it, or there are reasons specific to our circumstances why we aren’t using them.

to justify farming? You and everyone on this thread needs farming.

regardless of me finding a new career or not, the problems I’ve highlighted on this thread will continue, it’s not unique to our farm.

ive said multiple times rewilding is a good thing. But obviously we still need to produce food, so we must balance food production with nature.

you can either pause and consider my points, or you can dismiss me as an ignorant farmer 🤷‍♀️

ask yourself is it me who is a shill for big ag, who is arguing for the health of the soil, who is trying to reduce herbicides and artificial fertiliser, who is trying to share with people the need to implement more regenerative farming practices to protect nature and keep food production local.

Or is it that people who advocate for increased fertiliser and spraying, people who would remove a vital food source that makes otherwise unusable land and food into food for humans, who advocate for ultra processed and packaged plant based options with big air miles. Who are so focused on one area they refuse to see the whole picture.

To "justify farming" that specific "wasted" land...

Around 40% of the UK's arable land is used to grow animal feed, and even then produces barely half of the raw materials for it that the livestock industry requires.

Rotational grazing isn't required to renutrify land - which happens naturally - but is one (of many) tools that can be used to accelerate the process.

Its precisely because of the high level of demand for meat and dairy, and the strain it places on our ecosystem, that the pressure to accelerate renutrification exists.

In the (admittedly unrealistic) world that everyone in the UK suddenly adopted a vegan diet, we could reduce our agricultural land footprint by 75%. A widespread reduction in intake is more realistic, and would be good for both food security and the environment.

Rotational grazing, used well, offsets a tiny portion of the damage of the wider meat and dairy industry - but the industry itself remains a huge net negative.

Did you listen to my point about failed crops and land that is unusable for crops?

What other methods of soil regeneration do you suggest? We have implemented all that are available to us. It. Is. Not. Enough. 🤷‍♀️

Meat and dairy are not necessary - we can all live very well without it.

I have tried to be vegetarian/vegan twice in my life. The first time I became highly vitamin D deficient and was advised by a dietician that my diet was not sustainable or suitable and to eat more red meat and fish.

Last year, I tried again but this time tried soy for just under 12 months, which I had previously shunned due to thyroid disease.

On this round, I lost a good portion of my hair and became vit B12 and iron deficient.

Again, a dietician/nutritionist told me I could supplement heavily or eat red meat and organ meats.

Two strikes and I'm sticking with grass fed beef.

I'm surprised by the advice re vit D tbh. Government guidance is that none of us get enough of this from October to April given our main source is sunlight not diet, so a supplement is recommended to all throughout these months. Red meat contains only a little vit D, though fish is a decent source.

Yep, you're correct. Vit D was recommended as a supplement with K2 by cardiovascular consultant, in line with advice from dietician, and they also stated that no supplement was as good as natural sources via foods hence why they're called "supplements" as they are not replacements.

Yes - I already responded about failed crops. While it might be true that failed crops are used in animal feed, most crops - almost half of the crops grown in the UK, are specifically grown to feed livestock, and most of the rest is imported. Failed crops make up a tiny tiny fraction, so your point isnt much of a point at all.

Yes, some land in the UK cannot be used to grow crops, but that does not mean we need to use it for raising livestock - again: if the whole country went vegan, we'd only need to use around of the quarter of the land we currently do for the sake of farming, and without the emissions footprint either.

If people don't want that, fine, but just own it, but there's no need for nonsense claims about rearing livestock being good for the environment, which couldn't be further from the truth.

There are - some - ecosystems in which tiny numbers of sheep and cows are beneficial (conservation grazing) - which would require only about 1%-5% of the current UK populations of those animals.

Genuine Q as I’m still following this thread with fascination:if your approach is the panacea you say it is, why haven’t you implemented it on your farm? You say you don’t have cattle now and just do arable - why don’t you have cattle?

I laugh when I see all the environmentists eating fruit from halfway accross the world.

You probably wouldn't if you looked up the comparative carbon impact of ie bananas and British beef (hint: bananas are still less harmful)

(And your opinion might have more weight if you could spell environmentalist)

Because the conditions to grow animal feed are easier and less specific. Not all farmland is perfect growing conditions, but good enough for poorer quality food. Where we are it is mostly grain as it grows well here, even still we know many of our harvests will not meet the conditions. We’d way rather sell food for human consumption as you get more money.

so even if the land is flat enough, the soil type and quality may not be suitable for human grade food.

they are not technically failed (probably my poor choice of wording for the sake of shorter sentences) as they are still sold for animal feed. The original purpose was human grade.

animals also consume other parts of human grade plants that are not edible ever to humans.

you and others think it’s just waste to feed the food we grow to animals, often it’s the most efficient solution.

I agree we should focus more on making things efficient, but I do not see how cutting out a large portion of our food resources would help.

If you believe that the whole world going vegan will help the planet then I suppose this conversation is pointless. You are welcome to think what you like, you will never consider my points. Plenty of others will see what I’m trying to say and that’s good enough for me.

It is you who has drunk the coolaid. How absurd. With the right conditions British beef can be carbon neutral.

It’s too expensive and doesn’t make enough profit. We may implement sheep farmers into our rotation, but we don’t have anyone who can run it right now.