Take the Blinkers Off
Why comparing the land used for livestock to the calories it produces is a waste of time.
By Harvey Dunn
It’s 6:30 AM and I’m standing amongst my cows, watching, silently. In the mornings, there is enough dew in the tall grass pasture to soak my boots and dampen the denim of my jeans all the way up to my knees. If you really listen, there's a symphony of birdsong soundtracking the scene as the cows graze. Grab, tear, chew, swallow. Grab, tear, chew, swallow.
It’s a spectacle I have the privilege of watching every day. I move the cows, then get to soak up what feels like the most natural scene ever: A breeding herd of large ruminant herbivores doing their job. Grazing, trampling, dunging, peeing. And that’s just what it is: A job. A role. Just like any organism on this earth, cows are playing a role in our ecosystem and it’s our job to manage them well. A bit like an HR department but for cows… CR?!
Simple Questions?
But for some reason, we’re obsessed with ignoring the role of the cow and reducing our perspective to binary questions:
How much methane did that cow just burp?! Quick, grab the methane-ometer (Is that a thing?).
How much land is that cow using? (Selfish bugger!)
Well exactly how many people will that evil creature feed if we kill it?
Let’s answer questions 2 and 3: Around 85% of agricultural land in the UK is used for livestock and their feed, whilst only around 30% of our calories come from our animal products. Keep these 85% vs 30% numbers in mind, I’m going to refer to them.
Here’s why this statistic is flawed and a useless metric:
Incorrect Assumptions
Land use is a problem and setting it aside / wilding is better. Good land management can improve ecosystem processes far faster than just walking away from it. And we can (and should) feed ourselves in the meantime.
All land is croppable. Every farmer knows this. The hills, valleys, flood meadows, rocky bits, dry bits, awkwardly shaped bits all cannot be efficiently cropped. Livestock are by far the best use of this land.
All calories are equal. Possibly the most important distinction here. Calories have very little to do with real nutrition. Livestock provide the most nutritious protein and fats for humans.
Livestock are inherently destructive. Our management is what can make livestock damaging to our environments. There are no accidents in nature.
Current practices will continue with no improvement. The way we manage farmed livestock is improving every year.
No imports or exports take place. The majority of the remaining 70% of calories from plants are imported into the UK from other countries! AND, we’re exporting millions of tonnes of animal products every year, which completely invalidates the whole argument anyway!
Here’s my absolute favorite part about this: None of the above arguments independently stand up. E.g, even if all calories were equal in nutrition, we’d still need the livestock. Even if all land was croppable, we’d still need the livestock. Even if rewilding the whole country would be ‘better’, we’d still need the livestock.
85 vs 30, Remember?
I hope I’ve given you ample permission to roll your eyes if someone mentions that livestock use too much land for the amount of calories they produce.
I’ll conclude with a proposal:
I think the vast majority of land should be managed using livestock, and the vast majority of our diet should be animal products. For the sake of our health, our land and our country.
