We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Industry hits back over call to eat less meat to save planet
FURIOUS livestock farmers have hit back at one of Britain’s leading authorities on climate change after he called on the public to eat less meat to save the planet.
Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said eating meat would soon become ‘socially unacceptable’ due to its carbon footprint.
He said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
UN figures suggest meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global greenhouse gasses through methane emissions, the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds.
Lord Stern told The Times newspaper eating meat could soon become as taboo as drink driving when the public discovered the damage it caused.
“I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food,” he said.
Contribution
But critics rounded on Lord Stern for missing the important contribution British livestock farmers make to fight against global warming.
In a show of solidarity the English Beef and Lamb Executive, Meat Promotion Wales, National Sheep Association, National Beef Association, Quality Meat Scotland and the NFU issued a joint statement to rebuff Lord Stern’s assertions.
“High quality research has led to great strides in the improvement of productivity of farmed livestock,” read the industry statement. They added methane emissions from agriculture had fallen by 17 per cent since 1990.
Dr David Garwes, an independent livestock scientist, recently published a report, ‘Reducing Emissions from Livestock’, in which he said livestock actually helped to limit carbon emissions.
“More than 60 per cent of British agricultural land is grassland and much of it, particularly the hills and uplands, is unsuitable for other crops.
“Semi-permanent rough grazing and improved grasslands play a vital role in locking up carbon dioxide and regulating the flow of rain into water courses.
“Without livestock farming, those natural resources would be abandoned,” he said.
Imports
Critics added a reduction in UK livestock production, as envisaged by Lord Stern, would open the market to foreign imports with a worse carbon footprint than the domestic product.
Kim Haywood, from the National Beef Association, claimed beef had become the sorry victim of a witch-hunt.
She said: “If consumers examined the combined impact of their expanding appetite for IT technology and gadgets, household appliances and transport, on climate change, they would realise eating grass-produced beef is not at the top of the list of urgent counter-activities they ought to undertake.”
UK agricultural emissions
- Annual agricultural emissions account for about 7 per cent of total UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
- Agriculture generates around 38 per cent of UK methane emissions
- GHG emissions from livestock production have declined by 17 per cent since 1990, because of lower livestock numbers
- Emissions from agricultural soils have also reduced following changes in agricultural practice and better use of synthetic fertiliser
- The amount of methane generated by a dairy cow producing 8,000 litres of milk per year is less than that from two cows each producing 4,000 litres
Source: Increasing efficiency in livestock production by David Garwes