The push towards a more plant-based food system has gained significant momentum in the UK. Research from organisations like the Food Foundation shows that livestock accounts for 65% of agricultural emissions while using 85% of our farmland, yet provides only 32% of our calories.
The environmental argument seems compelling: replacing some livestock with plant protein could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 42% and free up land for nature recovery. Many citizens are already on board, with 38% of UK adults intending to consume more plant-based food.
The intention is admirable in a time of climate change and food insecurity. As a retired farmer and trustee of both a wildlife trust and environmental conservation consultancy I get it.
However, we do not practice intensive livestock farming in the same way as the vast American feedlots. We are largely grass based and extensive, and a closer examination of the UK’s geography, soils, and agricultural systems reveals a far more complex picture. What works on paper runs into formidable barriers on the ground. Our responses must take many factors into account.
But my argument here is not for livestock or plant-based in the extreme. It is that the situation is very complex and to call for informed debate rather than kneejerk reaction.
The Soils Don’t Cooperate
The first major challenge is one of basic geography. Much of the UK’s grazing land simply cannot support arable farming. A comprehensive study by Rothamsted Research, one of the UK’s leading agricultural science institutions, concluded that converting farms from livestock to arable in regions like the southwest of England would lead to regular crop failures.
The problem lies in soil “workability” and “trafficability” – the ability to plough fields and support heavy machinery. The study simulated growing winter wheat on fields previously used for livestock across three common soil types in the southwest. Under future climate scenarios, the chances of successfully sowing winter wheat between October and December ranged from just 28% to 76%, due to increasing rainfall making field access impossible .
Even when crops could be planted, yields would plummet. While forecasts without climate change showed potential yields exceeding 14 tonnes per hectare, incorporating the near-certain impact of increased rainfall on sowing and harvest dates reduced yields to less than three tonnes per hectare in some scenarios. The climate models predict heavy rain days (over 2cm) in the southwest could increase from six to as many as 17 days per year by the end of the century.
Lead author Dr Lianhai Wu concluded that for the southwest of England and regions with similar soil types and climates, conversion to arable is a “non-starter”. Similar constraints apply across much of the west of the British Isles, where steep slopes, shallow soils, and high rainfall make livestock grazing the only viable agricultural option.
A farmer in Cumbria put it bluntly: “For eight months of the year, you can’t travel on the ground with a tractor… You can certainly forget about ideas such as commercial lettuce-growing” . Yet this same “marginal” land reliably produces meat and milk year after year, regardless of whether it’s the wettest year on record or a drought-stricken one . One beef farmer near Cirencester deliberately uses marginal, flood-prone land to produce species-rich hay for winter feed, demonstrating how these landscapes can be productive in ways that suit their natural limitations.
The Carbon Cost of Conversion
Converting grassland to arable also carries a significant carbon penalty. The Rothamsted study examined what would happen if grassland cut for silage three times a year were converted to winter wheat. While greenhouse gas emissions from the soil were lower under wheat than ryegrass, the grass stored far more carbon .
Grasses return more carbon to the soil after they die. The research found that carbon stocks declined annually after converting grassland to wheat by 165-280 kg of carbon per hectare, depending on the soil type and climate scenario. Dr Wu stated that “grassland conversion in the region would not be sustainable in terms of carbon sequestration”. Any shift away from livestock would need to carefully consider which grasslands are converted and how soil carbon losses are mitigated.
The Hedgerow Catastrophe
Perhaps the most devastating counter-argument concerns biodiversity. The intensive vegetable production that would be required to replace livestock at scale favours the kind of vast, open fields seen in East Anglia – what one naturalist described as “prairies for crops and little else”. This landscape is the antithesis of wildlife-friendly farming.
Hedgerows are the lifeblood of the UK’s farmed countryside. They provide nesting cover, foraging habitat, movement corridors, and overwintering refuges for farmland birds, small mammals, invertebrates, and plants. The loss of hedgerows through hedge removal, margin cultivation, or agrochemical drift has been one of the principal drivers of the catastrophic declines in farmland wildlife recorded since the 1970s.
The turtle dove, Britain’s most urgent conservation priority, has seen its UK breeding population decline by over 98% since 1970. East Anglia now represents its last substantial stronghold, and the species depends on dense hedgerow cover for nesting. Other species at risk include the brown hairstreak butterfly, which lays its eggs on new hedgerow growth; hazel dormice and barbastelle bats, which use hedgerows as movement corridors; and a host of pollinators including bees and moths .
Mechanised hedgerow trimming, a feature of arable farming where hedges still persist, has already had devastating impacts. Cutting hedgerows back hard to the same point annually substantially reduces the abundance of flowers and fruits produced, with consequent adverse effects on wildlife such as moths, bees, wintering birds, and small mammals. In Suffolk, one observer described watching a mechanical hedge cutter “lay waste the bountiful harvest of the nearby hedgerows” – the hawthorn berries, sloes, elderberries, rosehips, and blackberries that sustain wildlife through winter.
Could we produce vegetables and other crops for human consumption without replacing hedges. Yes, we could. But that would need to be a policy decision at national level because, if left to individuals, they will tend towards efficiency!
Hedgerows as Carbon Sinks
Beyond biodiversity, hedgerows are significant carbon stores. Research published in the journal “Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment” shows that soil under hedges stores an additional approximately 40 tonnes of carbon per hectare compared to grassland fields – a 40% increase in soil organic carbon stocks. This additional carbon comes from increased leaf and root litter inputs under woody vegetation .
Older hedges store greater additional carbon at depth than younger ones, and mature hedges sequester carbon at a rate of 1.5 tonnes per hectare per year on average. Removing hedgerows to create the vast fields favoured by intensive vegetable production would release this stored carbon, directly contradicting climate change mitigation objectives.
The government itself recognises the value of hedgerows, offering payments through the Countryside Stewardship scheme for actions like hedge laying and coppicing that rejuvenate hedgerows and improve their wildlife value. These schemes also support native breed livestock grazing on sensitive grassland habitats, acknowledging the conservation value of extensive grazing systems.
A More Nuanced Path Forward
The debate over replacing some UK livestock with vegetables is not a simple binary choice. The evidence suggests that a wholesale shift would face formidable geographical constraints, risk significant carbon release, and cause catastrophic biodiversity loss through hedgerow removal and landscape homogenisation.
This does not mean the status quo is acceptable. Livestock production still contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, and there are clear opportunities to shift dietary patterns towards more plant-based foods. However, the path forward likely involves:
1. Targeted reduction – Reducing livestock production in areas suitable for arable farming while maintaining grazing in marginal areas where arable crops cannot grow.
2. Regenerative livestock systems – Supporting pasture-fed systems that maintain hedgerows, store soil carbon, and support biodiversity. Native breeds, which are adapted to these landscapes, play a crucial role, with government schemes now recognising their value through conservation payments.
3. Protecting landscape features – Any agricultural transition must prioritise the retention and restoration of hedgerows, ensuring that efforts to reduce emissions do not inadvertently release stored carbon or destroy wildlife habitat.
There are of course many other considerations to be taken into account. A short article such as this cannot delve into the intricacies of animal welfare, livestock methane production, poultry production, imported human and animal feedstuffs and a myriad of other factors. They all need to be taken into account and just point to the complexity of a dilemma that cannot be viewed simplistically.
Stefan Drew
Tag: The Plant-Based Paradox
Related Posts:
