Now that it has become widely understood that we have crossed all borders with livestock farming in the Netherlands, this creates a breeding ground for solutions that opt for the radical opposite: complete abolition of livestock farming. In de Volkskrant of 23 July, ample scope will be given to that vision. In a two-page interview, Georges Monbiot broadly measures his aversion to livestock farming.
It is a well-known social phenomenon: when something is discredited, the opposite view gains popularity. That is why it is very important, especially now that livestock farming is being criticized from all sides, to also highlight the healthy side of livestock farming. Because here too, neither industrial livestock farming, as advocated by LTO and Farmers Defense Force, nor the abolition of livestock farming advocated by vegans offers any prospects for the future.
About the author
Tom Saat is a biodynamic farmer in Almere.
Awareness
Thanks to the nitrogen crisis, the dark sides of intensive livestock farming (which encompasses more than nitrogen) have penetrated society’s consciousness, creating room for a transition. For several reasons, there must and can be room in this transition for healthy livestock farming. After all, from the remains of the food industry (of vegetables, potatoes and grain) a very modest pig and poultry farming can have a healthy future. After all, it would be a shame to throw this away while it can be converted into high-quality food. But a line is crossed when products suitable for human food, such as grains and soya, are fed to livestock. It is precisely these concentrates that produce the surplus of manure and nitrogen.
There is a bright future for dairy farming. Cows (and other ruminants) produce animal protein from grass, which is after all not suitable for humans. And on large parts of the earth’s surface, not much can grow other than grassy vegetation. In those parts of the world, it is the ruminants that maintain the landscape and maintain biodiversity. Centuries-old grasslands such as in the Jura, where grazing and haymaking have always alternated, are home to the greatest biodiversity in Europe. Biodiversity has arisen precisely because the vegetation growing there and the processes in the soil reinforce each other.
In his book regenesis gives Monbiot high praise from ‘Rewilding’. This always concerns areas where agriculture has either been neglected or has been far too intensive. Rewilding can then, like any intervention, give an impulse to biodiversity. However, it can never produce the high-quality cultural landscape, which is characteristic of the above-mentioned, hedge-lined grasslands.
To support his arguments, Monbiot refers to studies that show that organic livestock farming is also polluting. The LCA method is used in these studies, such as those carried out by Wageningen University and the University of Augsburg, among others. This method comes from industry, which looks at all the input needed for a product and the output that comes from the production process. This is a method that works well in industry, and also in industrial agriculture, but which completely misses the mark in biological (dynamic) agriculture. Of course you need a lot of grass to produce one liter of milk, but what remains, the digested grass in the form of manure, is no loss, no waste. No, that manure is returned to the grass or the field.
Cycle
In a healthy agricultural system, everything functions in a cycle, in a cycle. And indeed, organic cows eat more grass and less concentrates, so you need more input for the same amount of output. Wageningen University is the architect of today’s industrial agriculture, so it is logical that it uses an industrial calculation method to prove it right. However, this does not take into account the potential that agriculture has for promoting soil fertility and biodiversity.
In a healthy agriculture, where the manure produced is mainly used for healthy arable farming, there are no nitrogen levels to worry about, but there are farmers who extract grass from nature areas, which improves quality as a result. Then agriculture and nature are no longer opposed to each other, but instead reinforce each other, because agriculture uses natural techniques to bring nature to a higher level.
To top it all off, Monbiot uses the argument that for the climate it is necessary to abolish livestock farming. An important link in this is the greenhouse gas methane, which is excreted by ruminants. For years, this argument has been supported by the IPCC (UN Climate Change Organization). Methane was rated as a 26 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. That argument has been contested by scientists for years. Last year, the IPCC finally (partly) admitted its mistake, leaving 5 of the factor 26. The potential ‘methane pollution’ by ruminants also decreases by a factor of 5. This is also illustrated by the realization that there are now about as many ruminants in Europe as there were in the early 1900s. There is no doubt that livestock farming needs to change radically. But if we really want to do something for the climate, we must abolish the use of fossil fuels and not livestock farming.
Forestry
Finally, Monbiot also uses the argument that where there is grassland now, forest can also be created. This is only partially true, as forest places much higher demands on its environment than grass. However, the argument is also flawed when it comes to carbon storage. Planting forests is an adequate measure in tropical areas. There is the above-ground sequestration of CO2 many times greater than in our temperate zones. In our climate, however, much more carbon is stored in the soil than in the vegetation on it. Permanent grassland here harbors more CO2 then a forest. And for that grassland management we need cows. Replacing livestock with trees is therefore putting the horse (and cow) behind the cart.
Tom Saat is a biodynamic farmer in Almere.