Carbon Neutral Beef Part III: What’s in it for the Food system?
In the final part of Mathew Phan’s investigation into carbon neutral beef, he looks beyond the level of a single farm to address important questions we still have about the wider system. Can the entire food system be regenerative? What would that mean for food supply as a whole?
At a time when methane emissions are front and centre of the fight around the actions needed to be taken to address the climate emergency, one strong thread of debate targets the role of agriculture in GHG emissions, with a particular focus on cattle farming. For good reason. Cows are major emitters of methane. But our previous forays into carbon neutral beef (Part 1 and Part 11) found that cow manure plays an important role in soil health on organic farms that are not using petroleum-based fertilisers. So is there a systemic view we need to take about the role of cattle farming, keeping in mind its cliamte downside and its soil health upside?
Our previous blog ended with the questions:
Will a transition at scale to a regenerative or agroecological approach to farming reduce our food supply – will we be able to feed everyone? Further, given organic price premiums, will we be able to feed everyone at affordable rates?
Will the transition displace farmers for whom working the land is a core part of identity? Conversely, will it mean everyone has to become a farmer?
Three studies by independent think tank The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) address these questions.
The first, An Agroecological Europe in 2050 presents findings from an exercise that models how a transition in the European agricultural system to one entirely based on regenerative principles by 2050 might look. The salient takeaways are:
From the consumer’s viewpoint, there is a small -6% reduction in average calorie intake, but this still exceeds nutritional benchmarks from the WHO and other health organisations. The reduction includes a significant reduction in sugar, a small reduction in protein – with the bulk of this coming unsurprisingly from a reduction in animal protein and red meat – a comparable intake of fats, and an increase in intake of fibres, fruit and vegetables.
What is surprising is that the decline in number of and calories from livestock comes not from cattle or sheep but rather than from pigs and chickens. The reason is cows and sheep are ruminants, which can transition to a pure pasture-fed approach, substituting all locally grown or imported animal feed. Pigs and chickens, as monogastrics, are fed cereals and protein crops which compete with human food production. In a regenerative system, these have a much smaller place, being fed instead on the side outputs of human crop and ruminant production, rather than fed animal feed that is deliberately grown.
In an agroecological system, the largest falls in meat consumption come from declines in the consumption of pork and poultry, not beef or lamb.
Source: An Agroecological Europe in 2050, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations
Such a change in the pattern of meat consumption is better for system-wide biodiversity and GHG emissions (reduced 40%), with a higher proportion of animal protein from cattle fed on natural grassland, rather than pigs and chickens fed on commercially grown animal feed.
Another finding is that within crop production, the main changes are within the use of arable land, with a shift from growing cereals and crops for animal feed (which is almost eliminated), toward protein crops for human consumption and fodder legumes for grazing and replenishing soil nitrogen. There is some, but not a significant, increase in land used for permanent crops and grassland. Land used for ‘agro-ecological infrastructure’ – hedges, trees, ponds, other habitats for insects – doubles from a low base of 5%, to 10% of cultivated land.
A third finding is that Europe goes from being a net food importer to a net food exporter. Given agricultural output is modelled to fall 30% (in terms of calories), how does this happen? Two-thirds of European agricultural imports are cereals for animal feed (the other one-third is oilseeds for biofuel). These are eliminated as a ‘zero inputs’ approach means livestock is entirely fed on grass or side outputs. The reduction in cereal demand means Europe could export wheat, will generate 20% more dairy products, and can continue to export high-value items such as wine. Granted, the IDDRI modelling had not taken into account recent events such as the war in Ukraine.
Another fascinating point that emerges from an accompanying Policy Brief is that Europe’s transition does not depend on the rest of world making a similar transition. If America and Asia do not transition, Europe will just become less dependent on imports of soya and oilseeds, and export more animal products. If the rest of the world also transitions its consumption and production, it will purchase (and Europe will export) more grains, pulses and vegetables. The impact on European land use and trade balance is comparable.
TYFA is short-hand for Ten Years For Agroecology, a report from IDDRI. Here we reproduce a table from that report showing how a TYFA diet would compare to 2010 food consumption.
Source: An Agroecological Europe in 2050, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations
National issues
A UK-specific version of the report, Modelling an agroecological UK by 2050, published November 2021, addresses the ‘land sparing’ vs ‘land sharing’ debate, with an emphasis on the impact on biodiversity. Land-sparing calls for more intensive chemical farming on farmed land while carving out more land for pure environmental use. Land-sharing, the agroecological approach, calls for minimal synthetic inputs on all farms, so that farmed land is more biodiversity friendly. In favour of the latter is that an irreplaceable share of biodiversity stands inside agricultural land and can indeed by considered a ‘production factor’ in itself, required to maintain yields in the long run.
The UK study, being focused on a specific region, is also able to go deeper into questions of land and weather constraints, as well as traditional uses of land, on food production and how this changes results. For example, the UK is over-represented in sheep and under-represented in cattle, and would continue to be a fruit importer even under an agro-ecological scenario. It also goes deeper into the types of farming best suited to particular land types and studies shifts in optimal land-use within regions – broadly, the fertile temperate plain with deep soil in east UK and much of England), the grass hills of southwest UK and Northern Ireland, and the highlands of Scotland and northern England).
Meanwhile, the IDDRI’s study on France, from March 2021, Towards a Just Transition of Food Systems, addresses the social dimension of food systems change, in particular the number and quality of jobs. It compares two scenarios through to 2030.
o The first is a “Recompositions” scenario, under which policy-makers tackle climate, biodiversity and health as equally important and connected issues. Mid-sized farms are encouraged, which produce local and organic produce but at controlled production costs. The majority of farmers diversify their production and use organic, labelling products as such and selling at higher prices to customers close by. Productivity is not considered in volume terms but in value, and eco-system services around carbon storage and biodiversity also generate income. The rationale behind farming systems evolves toward maximising the impact of ecological processes.
o The second is an “as is” or “Dual France” scenario, under which climate tops the policy agenda over biodiversity and health outcomes, resulting in narrow focus on carbon efficiency indicators. The social dynamics and polarisation of dietary practices of the last two decades continue. The upper-middle classes pay more for nice supplies of fresh, local produce. The less affluent eat an increasing amount of processed food, though the proportion of animal protein does fall. Farms seek economies of scale by reducing labor costs, and large distributors emerge that secure organic produce from small, dispersed local farms.
In both French scenarios, there is a reduction in the number of farms and farming jobs through to 2030. However, under the Recompositions scenario, about 28,000 farms and 20,000 more jobs are maintained vs current trends, while the Dual France scenario results in the loss of 9,500 more farms and 16,500 more jobs vs current trends. The difference between the two scenarios is nearly 30,000 farms, and 36,500 jobs. Also note:
o The share of farm income distributed to labour rises ten percentage points in the Recompositions scenario, allowing for a 28% increase in wages (or hiring an extra 24,000 workers at constant wages). In the Dual France scenario, the share of farm income distributed to labour falls. Dairy farms have to find an extra EUR 0.54 bn to finance capital investment, requiring either a 6% increase in milk prices or a 25% increase in subsidies.
o The study acknowledges the Recompositions scenario assumes the consumer food basket evolves toward less processed food, with better nutrition, but also higher prices. The impact needs to be studied, but there is potential to mitigate higher prices with a changing mix of consumption toward less meat and more vegetables, as well as higher incomes.
Change in job numbers in farming systems in 2030 in the Recompositions and Dual France scenarios.
Source: Towards a Just Transition of Food Systems, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations
The above studies are specific to Europe and may not be completely extensible to other countries, whether for different socio-economic or weather and land conditions. The difficulty of extracting practical lessons may be even higher for the developing world.
Nonetheless, they represent a unique attempt to bring together systemic issues in food production and provide some good initial answers to our starting questions. Yes, it could be possible to feed everyone with a fully regenerative food system, though the diet mix will have to shift a little, and yes, while prices might rise, we are getting better nutrition and overall, it sounds like this could be done affordably. And no, it will not necessarily displace more farming jobs – conversely, it could protect more jobs than otherwise, while maintaining a high enough level of productivity that not all of us have to farm. On top of this, a regenerative food system could harken to carbon, biodiversity and nutritional concerns, as well as – not unimportant in the current environment – greater food security.
