There are several dangers facing British agriculture. Too little rain and too much sun. escalating fertilizer and gasoline prices devastating labor shortages And astonishingly low profit margins, which have forced farmers into a survival struggle or forced them to sell everything.
Therefore, adding self-inflicted injuries is a severe concern.
I’m specifically referring to the push for Net Zero, as least as it relates to agriculture. By 2050, the goal is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to Net Zero. In reality, however, this means that farmers have been instructed to stop using the tried-and-true tools for food production, like as pesticides and artificial fertilizers, which have significantly contributed to the nation’s ability to feed itself since the war.
Additionally, farmers have been pushed to stop raising conventional livestock in order to reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Who is pressing for these adjustments? Bureaucrats, of course, namely the Department for Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs and the lingering effects of EU directives.
I’ve been farming food for 40 years, and I now manage a mixed farm in Aberdeenshire that produces wheat for chicken feed, barley for Scotch whiskey production, and grass-fed beef cattle. I am aware that the proposal is thus impractical. The reduction goals for pesticides and fertilizers between 2030 and 2050 are not so much unachievable as they are ambitious.
That is, if we want to keep feeding the nation, it is impossible.
I am aware that there is a large following for green virtue-signaling, mostly among those who have never visited a farm. But let’s be honest about producing organic food, which is what the Net Zero push demands. That is, raising animals and crops without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
The impractical “farm-to-fork” plan, which calls for a 30% increase in such food by 2030, has been promoted by EU authorities. We seem to be doing this despite Brexit.
I think the organic trend is just a passing fad. For a nation of 67 million people, it is definitely not a national food strategy.
Organic farming is only appropriate for home gardens, allotments, and the wealthy who are willing to pay a lot more money. It is obvious to conventional farmers like me that organic cultivation uses a lot more area and is thus very inefficient.
Not that I’m against the environment. We implement green initiatives on our farm when they are useful and acceptable. We preserve natural corridors throughout the ground to enable small creatures escape the plough, and there is mixed forest to support biodiversity.
Anything else, however, is self-indulgent, low-yield, and unsustainable farming. For any farmer, going back to the 1940s’ ways is not an option. It would penalize the poor and make us reliant on food imports, a situation that has been brought into sharp relief by Putin’s heinous invasion of Ukraine.
This year, food costs in Britain have increased by over 12%, primarily as a result of a situation thousands of miles abroad. Because fertilizer is dependent on petrochemicals, the price has skyrocketed. It seems sense that government employees are rushing to redraft the more imaginative proposals for green compliance. To suggest that we have been exposed would be a terrible understatement.
The popular “war on meat,” which is motivated in part by the “methane fallacy,” is another issue. This is the assertion that animals like cows and sheep pollute the environment by farting and burping. Particularly cows are blamed for a significant portion of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. One cow may create up to 200 kg of methane annually, which, as Joe Biden reminded us all, is “one of the most powerful greenhouse gases” and has more than 80 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Is this a fact? According to recent study from Munich University, the contribution of cattle to methane emissions may be exaggerated by a factor of three or even four. Methane, unlike carbon dioxide, is also known to completely decompose after a few years. This conflict cannot be disregarded as a passing trend. It was even suggested in a recent editorial in The Guardian that formal limits on the quantity of meat sold should be implemented.
Ignore the overwhelming body of research demonstrating the sustainability of British beef raised on grass. Alternatively, the fields might absorb a significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Or the reality that the agricultural produce that adolescent vegans so highly value is impossible without artificial fertilizer… without the soil being enriched by animal waste.
I’ve always felt that the shameful effort to outlaw animal husbandry is motivated by a desire to produce synthetic meat and the potential for financial gain it offers. Who would really want to consume fake meat?
Sadly, extremists blinded by self-important activity have misled the public, leaving it as confused as it is uninformed. It is not just a British issue. In Germany, 50% of people believe that farming in line with nature can end world hunger. Not at all.
The UN and World Bank contribute to the issue. Their dominant Left-wing ideologies support anti-meat reports. They claim embracing meat substitutes results in “progressive” effects like “rewilding,” etc.
I am sure we can preserve our environment and increase the quantity and quality of food we produce for ourselves. Modern farming is sometimes criticized as being industrial or intense, yet the only way to feed the people and preserve more land for biodiversity and wildlife is to produce more food from fewer hectares.
Why not encourage more farming in urban areas where technology permits indoor crop cultivation? Or take further steps to create regulations that prevent pointless tillage and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide stored in the earth?
We will always need both old agricultural techniques and contemporary ones because of how diverse the world’s crops, landscapes, and weather patterns are. Because of this, it’s imperative that British agriculture figure out a way to support agricultural practices that boost output and biodiversity.
Fertilizer-free food and rewilding are whimsical ideas that will ease the wealthy’s consciences. But if millions of people go hungry, what good is that?