Thank you for responding so calmly.
On fertility and manure: livestock manure currently plays a major role in nutrient cycling, especially in mixed farming systems. In a mostly or fully plant-based system, fertility would likely need to come from a combination of green manures, crop rotations, composted food waste, nitrogen-fixing crops, anaerobic digestion, and yes, probably some synthetic fertilisers too at least for the foreseeable future. I don’t think anyone serious believes modern agriculture suddenly becomes input-free. The challenge would be reducing dependency, not magically eliminating it overnight.
On synthetic fertilisers: they absolutely have environmental costs, particularly fossil-fuel-derived nitrogen fertilisers. But livestock systems also rely heavily on imported fertilisers and feed in many cases, so it’s not a clean divide between “natural” livestock farming and “industrial” crop farming. Both systems currently depend on industrial inputs to varying degrees.
On what happens to livestock: realistically, nobody is suggesting releasing millions of domestic animals into the wild. In practice, numbers would probably decline gradually over decades as demand changed. Some breeds would likely disappear or become rare conservation breeds. but they only exist because humans selectively bred them for agriculture in the first place.
On marginal land unsuitable for crops: this is probably one of the strongest arguments for some continued grazing systems in countries like the UK. Not all land can or should become arable. Some land might be rewilded, some managed for forestry or carbon storage, and some might still support lower-intensity grazing systems. I don’t think a realistic future is “every sheep removed from every hillside”.
On imports and food security: I agree this matters a lot. Replacing UK production with imported foods from fragile global supply chains would create its own ethical and environmental problems. Ideally, any shift towards plant-based diets would involve increasing UK-grown legumes, oats and horticulture rather than simply importing ever more processed products. Otherwise we’re just outsourcing impacts.
On water use: I think context matters. Rain-fed pasture in Wales or Cumbria is obviously different from irrigated almond production in drought-prone California. Water footprint statistics can sometimes flatten very different kinds of water use into one number. That said, livestock still tends to require more total land and resources overall, particularly beef production globally.
On labour concerns: this is a valid criticism of parts of the global plant-food supply chain. Cheap labour exploitation exists in many agricultural sectors, including fruit, vegetables and commodity crops. But to be fair, poor labour conditions also exist within meat processing and parts of livestock agriculture. Mental health issues, alcoholism and domestic abuse are all higher in communities where employment is clustered at slaughterhouses. Again, it’s probably more accurate to say the global food system as a whole has labour issues.
On biodiversity and landscapes: grazing absolutely can maintain habitats, especially traditional low-intensity grazing systems. Some of the UK’s species-rich grasslands exist because of centuries of grazing management. Removing all livestock from all landscapes would change ecosystems significantly. Whether that would improve or reduce biodiversity depends heavily on the specific landscape and what replaced it.
On industrial vs pasture-based systems: yes, I think there’s a meaningful distinction. Industrial feedlots and highly intensive livestock systems raise very different ethical and environmental questions from small-scale pasture-based farms. But the average consumer doesn’t differentiate (even if they say they do).
On jobs and rural communities: any major dietary or agricultural transition affects livelihoods. Farmers, vets, hauliers, shearers, feed suppliers, processors and rural communities are all connected to livestock agriculture. A rapid transition without support would be economically devastating in some areas. Realistically, any change would have to happen gradually and alongside alternative rural investment.
On pets: yes, you’re right. Technically, ‘owning’ an animal isn’t vegan. Cats are obligate carnivores biologically. Dogs are more flexible, but still traditionally omnivorous.
There are genuine trade-offs whichever direction society moves in. There will be winners and losers for sure. Just because something doesn’t look perfect doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
when slavery was abolished lots of people were concerned about losing their livelihoods. But it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been done. Slavery still exists in some places but just because something is seemingly impossible to eradicate is not a reason to allow it to be mainstream.
you will know as a sheep farmer that demand for lamb is falling - for many reasons - one of which being people concerned over animal cruelty. I am sure you probably take great care of the animals in your care, but ultimately they meet a grisly unnecessary end. Genuinely, how do you reconcile that?
I appreciate having the discussion.