Why free range meat costs the earth
Intensively reared chicken can claim to be the most climate friendly meat, says Tom Heap
Feelgood food just got tricky. It was easy when 'good' meant anything which could have stepped off a John Constable canvas: free-range chicken, foraging pigs and grazing cattle. But then climate change came along.
Now it transpires that a meaty diet adds to greenhouse gases. The UN has calculated that livestock warms the planet more than transport.
First a few farmyard facts. Cows and sheep are ruminants, which means their digestion produces much methane, a gas with 20 times the global warming power per puff of carbon dioxide. It comes out in breath, burps and farts. Their manure is also heavy with nitrates which pollute both water and air. Pigs produce less gas but plenty of manure. Chickens eat and waste little.
There is also a vast difference in the efficiency with which these animals turn vegetable fodder into meat protein. Cows and sheep need eight kilos of grain for one kilo of meat, pigs about four kilos, while the most efficient poultry units need a mere 1.6 kg of feed for a kilo of chicken. Clearly, the less land you need to support each animal, the more you have left for anything else, like climate-friendly forests.
Fearful that the 'anti-carbon tyrants' will attempt to wipe their business from the planet, the meat industry has been looking for low greenhouse gas solutions. The problem is that many of them are found indoors.
Housed animals give humans control. The diet can be precisely manipulated to maximise growth and minimise polluting gases. Animals don't waste food energy on running about and keeping warm. Their manure can be collected and burned as a fuel, avoiding contamination of rivers.
A combination of precision husbandry and species advantage puts the humble chicken, raised in an indoor shed, right at the top of the climate chart.
Tom Heap presents 'Costing the Earth', BBC Radio 4, May 8 at 9pm ·
Comments are now closed on this article
















Comments
A flimsy little article that doesn't support the headline. Chicken are not great methane emitters, and nothing is said about the carbon costs of the sheds which house battery chicken - building them, running the fans which prevent overheating where so many animals are crammed together, fuel to transport the chicks from hatchery to prison. As usual, a media luvvy cobbles together a simplistic, headline grabbing piece of nonsense. And this guy presents Costing the Earth! What hope have we with a media as stupid as this.
Free range chicken find food from the environment; insects, weeds, seeds etc. as well as the feed they are given. And then we come to the animal welfare issues which Heap fails to discuss. I wonder how he'd like to spend his life in prison, never seeing or feeling the sun, never breathing fresh air.
Facts?
We are using corn and rapeseed oil to make biodesiel. A great plan. What we are in fact doing is taking oil and making it into fertilisers, to feed the plants. We then turn the plants back into (less) oil. Or we feed the crop to animals, which in effect turns oil into meat.
Once the oil gets expensive, food prices go up. Oh, guess what has just happened?
Once oil becomes costly enough to halt fertiliser use, then we might see the animal waste going back onto the fields where it was for so many millions of years, rather than into a furnace or, more likely, being buried or tipped because the antibiotics and hormones fed to the animals mean that no farmer in his right mind would allow that crap on his plants - not least because it is so concentrated it will act more like weedkiller!
To sort this lot out, big changes are needed.