Pete Smith

---

UK Land will be transformed by measures to combat Climate Change , the government, the former head of the environmental scientist.

Professor Sir Ian Boyd said climate policy after Brexit change the landscape More Than Most People expect.

There are a lot more trees and hedges, But far less grazing animals, when people eat less Red Meat , he said.

farmers' union, NFU, rejected his analysis and prognosis, That it may be more grazing animals, not less.

He said the UK's well-watered pastures are ideal for the production of low-carbon cattle breeding and the Export to the places, where the growing conditions are less favorable.

This is The First public eruption of a long-running conflict between Professor Boyd, the former adviser to The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and The Body , represented in the UK by the farmers.

Sir Ian thinks That the NFU has swung much to much influence on departmental policy. The NFU believes That he is out of touch with the reality of agriculture.

antipathy reflects deeper technical, ethical and political debates about The Future of the production and consumption of animals for food supply.

Sheep exportsSir Ian says, the UK needs to be produced in order to reduce the amount of Red Meat , and eats, if it is to meet, by 2050.

He told Bbc News : "What I see is a farming system is very inefficient and in need of very significant transformation.

"I see That a significant part comes from the way we farm and consume livestock.

"move If we want to be in the direction of the net-Zero in the UK, to change our approach to consumption of Red Meat is an essential part of. "

He pointed out That the international treaties, and measured the emissions of greenhouse gases in the country in which they are created.

this means That China is to blame for the CO2 it generates during the making were exported to the UK.

By the same token, the UK is responsible for emissions from the belching of the Sheep - whether you ate in the UK or Brazil.

Sir Ian says, to change this system of carbon accounting is unlikely.

Various approachesSir Ian says, it is actually more carbon-efficient to raise Sheep and cattle on the intensive, high-tech farms than on traditional extensive grazing.

This is because, although the intensive farming of animals fed on grain and soy creates more CO2 emissions, less Methane emissions.

he says That since intensively raised animals grow and Mature faster, they are slaughtered, the disciples -so That they burp less Methane in their shorter life.

Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse Gas than CO2, in The Medium term, That is intensively bred animals are less bad for the climate.

Sir Ian said: "All The Evidence tells us That the intensive agriculture done well, is much more climate-friendly than extensive agriculture.

", can apply to the intensification of agriculture, much more modern technology. And changes (agriculture) leads managed to a significant reduction in the amount of land directly for food. "

What is the farmers point of view? The NFU is exactly The Opposite attitude.

Beaten Its President Minette, says the carbon accounting system for measuring CO2 and Methane is too narrowly focused.

she claims That intensive agriculture take full responsibility for its environmental impact.

These are in drought-prone regions such as California or the Brazilian rain forest to feed cows.

Ms says Treated, should The World stand in line to buy Red Meat on the sodden fields of great Britain, Ireland, and New Zealand .

she told Bbc News : "If anything, I think The Number of Sheep and cows to rise in the UK - making us less dependent on chemical fertilizers (which produces greenhouse gases). "

you also predicted That the British Sheep and cows are bred and reared to reach slaughter much faster, less Methane burps.

"The argument about Methane is badly flawed. We can click "finish" an animal just as fast (intensive agriculture)... after 15 months with The Right genetics and The Right race. "

And as the representative cross-section of British farmers - including those in the livestock, you can not accept, it is inevitable That people in Britain eat less meat, either.

their union is now its own ambitious plan for net-Zero emissions in the agricultural sector until 2040, and the pasture can produce-raise meat in the center.

The Point is the attitude That the pasture can not be used for any economically viable purpose other than grazing.

So, who is right? Well, a series of studies warn That the rich Nations consume for the health of the people and of The Planet - That is, whether farmers like The Message or not.

However, Sir Ian's analysis of the environmental impacts of the livestock in question is provided by Professor Pete Smith from Aberdeen University, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .

He said to Bbc News That the cattle industry should be judged in the round - not just on Climate Change emissions.

He said: "When you see, the Problem with the climate-shy, they would flap do The Opposite of what many want to see.

"By halving the time it takes to slaughter an animal weight (by intensive agriculture) your belching and halving halve its Methane emissions.

"But the system is probably much worse for animal welfare, landscape, water use, and food imports. "

- He comes to the conclusion: "It is better to produce for Many Reasons , beef cattle in grazing system in the UK than it is in an area in need of water, and caused the destruction of the country (like in Brazil or the USA). "

British agriculture eh? Prof Smith carries unwelcome news for British farmers, though.

He warns: "the Current ruminants (Sheep and cattle) in the UK is economically. Many farmers cannot survive without subsidies.

", What is more, the emissions of these animals occur within our national borders. So we don't have a Herd of UK emissions of hitting targets without a reduction in the size of the livestock. "

what is The Future of animal husbandry in the UK is So? Farmers financial aid pays according to the amount of land That you own.

The government plans to shift agricultural subsidies to what it calls "public money for public goods".

This includes things That the General public do not get benefit, But , on the market.

So, public goods includes the improvement of the landscape, helps the drainage and storage of carbon in The Soil , in trees and in pastures, But not the production of food, because the paid for the market.

Ms Batters said dung of herbivorous animals can often be exhausted of the amount of carbon trapped in The Soil will increase due to intensive agriculture.

- One system, referred to a mob grazing That includes Sheep or cattle to move from field to field, munching grass for a short period of time.

pioneer-farmers who have adopted The Practice say it is improving the carbon content of their soils.

But experts warn That pastures can be saturated with carbon dioxide, so That they no longer.

Prof Smith said: "There are some good rules for grazing, But there are others who seem to be thinking based on desire. "

What is The Vision for The Future ? Ms Batters' see if the NFU achieved the net-Zero target by 2040, the supply of the UK market and also the export of low-carbon-is-meat-in countries where animal breeding conditions are less favourable.

then, she believes to be the True Value of the animals in the extensive farm system recognized.

Prof Smith from the IPCC and Sir Ian have a very different vision.

recommend to the British climate policy could lead to the re-wilding of the unproductive hill country, so That a scattering of animals to decorate the scenery for the tourists. One could ask the question: how many Sheep is enough?

in the Meantime, cattle and Sheep production is largely restricted to more profitable non-farms lowland, where the ground wheat is rich enough to grow, But is good for the grass.

And here is a thought to the end.

At The Press conference, the latest inter-governmental Climate Change report, and I asked whether scientists could be sure, whether intensive or extensive systems are better for The Environment . The Answer : We don't know it.

I then asked whether it would be better to graze The Hills , or allow you to take on trees. The Answer : We don't know it.

According to Dr. Michelle Cain, an Oxford academic, specialising in the greenhouse Gas calculations, The Real answer is not really "we know", But "it depends".

So, when the government fears the climate can short up to a turning point, to cut the points of Methane - a short-lived greenhouse Gas - as soon as possible.

What is the meaning of the limitation of the extensive range of British-type of agriculture.

If the fears are focused on global warming in the long term, then it may make more sense, the opponents of CO2. This would mean That the limitation of intensive agriculture.

follow Roger

environment, uk economy, economic effects of brexit, agriculture, climate change

Source of news: bbc.com