Below is the response from the BCVA to the BBC Meat program. I think it is well balanced if a little late.
Worth a read.
Worth a read.
BBC Meat program response
- Thread starter Doc
- Start date
- Location
- Shropshire
I particularly like the figures on soya use for human consumption 
Suffolk Serf
Member
- Location
- Bury/Thetford
Therefore, the BBC won't take any notice of it.
- Location
- S. Staffs
Is it going out as a press release or a letter to the BBC? It might get some attention if it went to the papers but the beeb will just ignore it I think. They never seem to admit to being in the wrong.
- Location
- sw scotland
The meat programme had the second highest number of complaints of any BBC programme so surely the company which made it should be asking themselves some questions?
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Text:
BCVA response to BBC programme ‘Meat: a Threat to our Planet?’
The BBC aired the above show on the 25th November which raised a number of important topical points. However, there are some areas of emphasis and lack of clarity which the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) believes to be misleading to the public and a misrepresentation of the farming systems and meat available in the United Kingdom.
It is absolutely essential that the public considers its intake and origin of all food sources, including meat and dairy produce, for the benefit of the environment and also for animal welfare. In this regard, highlighting the consequences of widescale deforestation of the Amazon rainforest amongst other ecologically important sites in the search of increased crop growth regions is important and devastating. However, it is worth considering that the majority of deforestation occurs for the purpose of soya growth. The UK imports 1.1 million tons of soya, of which 90% is fed to pigs and poultry. This equates to 458,000 hectares of soya beans. However, the UK imports 1.4 million tons of soya oil for human consumption equating to 2,360,000 hectares of soya beans. The animal feed portion is consequently a waste product from human consumption. This is not to say the use of soya is entirely justified, merely that the animal use in the UK is not responsible for deforestation.
Secondly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have recently released a report recategorizing methane from animal sources and downgrading the role it plays in global warming.
Methane is only stable for a short time (around 10 years) in the environment before breaking down to carbon dioxide which, although more stable, has a lower warming effect. If cattle methane production levels stay stable, methane is merely replacing the methane produced 10 years ago, which similarly replaced methane produced 10 years prior to that. Therefore, it does not contribute to further warming beyond the level of carbon dioxide produced by degradation. In reality, methane levels from cattle farming have fallen since 1996, so the effect will be to reduce global warming. This reduces the contribution of cattle farming to UK outputs by a factor of 4.
This does not mean that farming practises don’t still need to consider their effects on the environment, but the amount it needs to reduce emissions by to achieve net zero production is much smaller.
Thirdly, the farming methods demonstrated, whilst commonplace in the Americas, are worlds apart from the beef production systems in the UK. We are a temperate country with a fantastic capacity to grow grass. This grass, together with hedgerows and trees, act as carbon sinks, pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil. The main dietary emphasis of grass, either grazed or conserved, in UK beef production means the images mainly portrayed in the programme, are not comparable with those seen in the UK. The IPCC report of 2018 recognised that grass-based systems can have a positive environmental effect.
Finally, the programme gave no fair comparative approach to differing farming systems, and guidance as to which are likely to have significant planetary environmental effects. It merely presented the extremes.
So in conclusion, the BCVA thinks a number of key messages were missed for the programme to maximise UK relevance:
• UK beef production is not responsible for deforestation.
• Methane from cattle is not responsible for significant changes in global warming potential.
• UK beef has a far lower environmental effect than those practices demonstrated.
• UK meat does not contain any growth or hormone promotors and from 2014-2018, sales of veterinary antibiotics for food producing animals has decreased by a massive 53%.
So, whilst we recognise that global farming has some steps to achieve full environmental sustainability, there should be a total emphasis on purchasing British reared beef, rather than imported beef.
BCVA response to BBC programme ‘Meat: a Threat to our Planet?’
The BBC aired the above show on the 25th November which raised a number of important topical points. However, there are some areas of emphasis and lack of clarity which the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) believes to be misleading to the public and a misrepresentation of the farming systems and meat available in the United Kingdom.
It is absolutely essential that the public considers its intake and origin of all food sources, including meat and dairy produce, for the benefit of the environment and also for animal welfare. In this regard, highlighting the consequences of widescale deforestation of the Amazon rainforest amongst other ecologically important sites in the search of increased crop growth regions is important and devastating. However, it is worth considering that the majority of deforestation occurs for the purpose of soya growth. The UK imports 1.1 million tons of soya, of which 90% is fed to pigs and poultry. This equates to 458,000 hectares of soya beans. However, the UK imports 1.4 million tons of soya oil for human consumption equating to 2,360,000 hectares of soya beans. The animal feed portion is consequently a waste product from human consumption. This is not to say the use of soya is entirely justified, merely that the animal use in the UK is not responsible for deforestation.
Secondly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have recently released a report recategorizing methane from animal sources and downgrading the role it plays in global warming.
Methane is only stable for a short time (around 10 years) in the environment before breaking down to carbon dioxide which, although more stable, has a lower warming effect. If cattle methane production levels stay stable, methane is merely replacing the methane produced 10 years ago, which similarly replaced methane produced 10 years prior to that. Therefore, it does not contribute to further warming beyond the level of carbon dioxide produced by degradation. In reality, methane levels from cattle farming have fallen since 1996, so the effect will be to reduce global warming. This reduces the contribution of cattle farming to UK outputs by a factor of 4.
This does not mean that farming practises don’t still need to consider their effects on the environment, but the amount it needs to reduce emissions by to achieve net zero production is much smaller.
Thirdly, the farming methods demonstrated, whilst commonplace in the Americas, are worlds apart from the beef production systems in the UK. We are a temperate country with a fantastic capacity to grow grass. This grass, together with hedgerows and trees, act as carbon sinks, pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil. The main dietary emphasis of grass, either grazed or conserved, in UK beef production means the images mainly portrayed in the programme, are not comparable with those seen in the UK. The IPCC report of 2018 recognised that grass-based systems can have a positive environmental effect.
Finally, the programme gave no fair comparative approach to differing farming systems, and guidance as to which are likely to have significant planetary environmental effects. It merely presented the extremes.
So in conclusion, the BCVA thinks a number of key messages were missed for the programme to maximise UK relevance:
• UK beef production is not responsible for deforestation.
• Methane from cattle is not responsible for significant changes in global warming potential.
• UK beef has a far lower environmental effect than those practices demonstrated.
• UK meat does not contain any growth or hormone promotors and from 2014-2018, sales of veterinary antibiotics for food producing animals has decreased by a massive 53%.
So, whilst we recognise that global farming has some steps to achieve full environmental sustainability, there should be a total emphasis on purchasing British reared beef, rather than imported beef.
Rod Dumbreck
Member
BCVA reply to BBC
The UK imports 1.1 million tons of soya, of which 90% is fed to pigs and poultry. This equates to 458,000 hectares of soya beans. However, the UK imports 1.4 million tons of soya oil for human consumption equating to 2,360,000 hectares of soya beans.
Google
Land. The agricultural area used is 23.07 million acres (9.34 million hectares), about 70% of the land area of the England. 36% of the agricultural land is croppable (arable), or 25% of the total land area. Most of the rest is grassland, rough grazing, or woodland.
Wikipedia
The total area of agricultural holdings is about 23.07 million acres (9.34 million hectares), of which about a third are arable
So 3.37Million Ha arable in the UK
and 2.36Million Ha in other countries, involved in producing Soya Oil for UK consumption
IS THIS RIGHT (in the Mathematical Sense)? (Its plain wrong in several other ways)
The UK imports 1.1 million tons of soya, of which 90% is fed to pigs and poultry. This equates to 458,000 hectares of soya beans. However, the UK imports 1.4 million tons of soya oil for human consumption equating to 2,360,000 hectares of soya beans.
Land. The agricultural area used is 23.07 million acres (9.34 million hectares), about 70% of the land area of the England. 36% of the agricultural land is croppable (arable), or 25% of the total land area. Most of the rest is grassland, rough grazing, or woodland.
Wikipedia
The total area of agricultural holdings is about 23.07 million acres (9.34 million hectares), of which about a third are arable
So 3.37Million Ha arable in the UK
and 2.36Million Ha in other countries, involved in producing Soya Oil for UK consumption
IS THIS RIGHT (in the Mathematical Sense)? (Its plain wrong in several other ways)
- Location
- Breconshire
Despite all the negative responses, the programme is being advertised on iplayer.
Those numbers seem quite staggering if correct. Two thirds of UK's arable area being used ONLY for UK's consumption of a single oil product? Spread that across other oil products and then start to add in other food crop products and that makes a huge number. It doesn't feel right somehow, as if there's a decimal point in the wrong place. Are we really importing that much food?
- Location
- Devon
Think you're mixing up your references?
Soya growing in the UK is not much more than in the experimental stage afaik.
Edit: sorry, I think i see what you're saying now?
Last edited:
Sometimes, the back of an envelope really can be quite revealing...
- Location
- Devon
A quick Google- 2.8ton/ ha yield, 7-8T bean to produce 1000litres oil
- Location
- Exeter, Devon
A quick search (Wikipedia etc., so can’t verify too much) shows world soybean production of 335,000,000 tonnes. Average benchmark yields are said to be 2.8 tonnes/ha, though I suspect these are American yields. Assuming a global average yield of 2.5 tonnes/ha, this equates to 134 million hectares worldwide area.
PostHarvest
Member
- Location
- Warwick
Data from UN Food & Agriculture Organisation shows that world production in 2017 (Latest available data) was 352.643,548 tonnes so Wikipedia isn't too far adrift. Area harvested was 123,551,145 Ha and the average yield was 2.017 tonnes/hectare. I know those figures don't compute, but that is the data given on their official report.
Rod Dumbreck
Member
Another quick Google of "How much Soya oil does the UK Import" gives
The UK also imports a relatively small amount of soya oil, approximately 203,345 tonnes in 2017
I think we should ask the BCVA which data they are quoting, and Ive just downloaded another eyewatering tome on the subject, don't expect Ill read it tonight.
- Location
- Shropshire
That's still equivalent to 1.5 million tonnes of soya assuming around 7.5 tonnes to produce a tonne of oil. More than is imported directly for animal feed.
We can surely assume that it will only have gone up on the back of demand for soy milk and other such products
- Location
- Limousin
Environmental damage aside, soya consumed in anything other than small amounts is very detrimental to human health. Just something the big US corporates are not to keen for you to know.