Circular Farming: Better Food, Healthier Planet

Forget the headline battles over “cow versus climate.” We dig into how livestock, managed within a circular bioeconomy, can actually reduce risk, recover nutrients, and improve the food we eat. With Professor Michael Lee of Harper Adams University, we connect the dots between soil carbon, methane chemistry, and what ends up on your plate, showing why measuring only gross emissions per kilogram misses the true picture of sustainable dairy and beef.

We start by reframing circular farming: crops generate non‑edible biomass and the food industry creates co‑products; ruminants turn those streams into milk and meat while producing organic manures that, with new stripping and separation technologies, return nitrogen and phosphorus to the fields that need them. That reduces dependence on mined phosphate and fossil‑fuel fertiliser and strengthens soil health and biodiversity. We also unpack the geopolitics of nutrients, from export controls to the hidden carbon cost of extraction, and why better manure management is both an agronomy win and a climate hedge.

Then we get precise about methane. Biogenic methane sits in a short‑lived natural cycle; thermogenic methane from fossil sources adds new carbon to the atmosphere. Agriculture must cut emissions, and can, through genetics, feed, and efficiency. But farms are too often judged on gross emissions while their removals through soils, hedgerows, and trees are booked elsewhere. Case studies from Ireland show how net accounting can reveal major improvements and, in some systems, net‑zero performance. The takeaway is clear: measure net, reward verified removals, and avoid a carbon‑only lens that ignores biodiversity, water, and rural livelihoods.

Finally, we get practical about what to eat. We don’t eat by the kilogram; we eat for nutrients. Animal‑source foods provide highly bioavailable protein and hard‑to‑get micronutrients, while plant foods supply the fibre most of us lack. Ultra‑processed “plant” proteins often strip out that fibre. A smarter plate is plant‑rich, fibre‑dense, and includes modest amounts of unprocessed dairy and meat. Using more of the carcass, including offal, cuts waste and boosts nutrient density.

If this conversation changed how you think about livestock, sustainability, and nutrition, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review. Your feedback helps more people find evidence‑based farming stories that matter.

This was recorded in October 2025, and all information was correct at the time of recording.

For more information about our podcast visit www.chewinthecud.com/podcast or follow us on Instagram @chewinthecudpodcast. ChewintheCud Ltd is also on Facebook & LinkedIn. You can email us directly at podcast@chewinthecud.com

Transcript

Hello And Dairy Tech Debrief

Andrew Jones 0:14

This is the Chewinthe Cud Podcast, a podcast for the UK dairy industry, brought to you from the southwest of England and listened to around the world. Hello and welcome to Chewin the Cud Podcast. My name's Andrew Jones, and with me as always is Sarah Bolt. How are you doing, Sarah?

Sarah Bolt 0:40

I'm very well, thank you, Andrew. And how are things treating you?

Andrew Jones 0:42

Yeah, not too bad, not too bad. As we uh record this, it's uh a couple of days after Dairy Tech. So how was Dairy Tech for you, Sarah?

Sarah Bolt 0:50

Well, if I overlook the aching feet, it seemed a long day. I actually had a really lovely day. Um I was lucky enough to be asked to do um a presentation on the um innovation stand and uh had some really nice feedback about that, and a few people come to my stand afterwards asking for for more information. So can any be good?

Andrew Jones 1:10

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. It was good. It was it was a bit of a weird one. I suppose uh best comment I had is a farmer local to me who said uh he said it's a bit weird. He said, We've all come to look at the shiny kit, but with milk price where it is, none of us are looking to spend any money. So, but there were there were plenty of farmers there, there were obviously plenty of trade there as well. Um, and it was good to see people from my point of view. It's good to meet a few people that we'd spoken to on the podcast, but I've never actually met in person. So I actually ran into Owen Atkinson. Um obviously we did the Co wSignals one with. Uh I caught up with John Spence, who's coming up shortly, one on Clovers, um, and and other people. I'm sure there's plenty of people I could name that I've forgotten already in this moment, but uh but there was just two, so it was really good.

Sarah Bolt 1:51

Um always a nice show, isn't it? It's always yeah, it was good.

Andrew Jones 1:54

It was it was it was good to catch up with people, it was good to catch up. So anyway, on to today's episode. Now, today's topic had the provisional title of The Importance of Livestock in Relation to Human Health and Nutrition. I'll be honest and say I'm not quite sure how much we actually spoke about that. I think we just got distracted on various topics about sustainability.

Sarah Bolt 2:12

I think we did, but it was all it's all really exciting stuff though, isn't it?

Introducing Prof Michael Lee

Andrew Jones 2:16

Oh, undoubtedly. It was it was a great conversation with a lot to learn. Um and uh and interestingly, I saw something today. Our guest mentions that fibre is something we need to look at now, and yet all the fast food giants are apparently saying 2026 is the year of fibre. Well, surely the answer is just go and eat lots of fresh veg or whatever it happens to be, not go eat more fast food full of fibre, because it's never as good. But anyway, that's another topic. Um, but anyway, anyway, as you see, we could easily get distracted on this topic. There's a lot to it. Um, but our guest is great, he definitely looks at it very much from a livestock perspective uh and gives us some good arguments uh as to why livestock is important to the whole sustainability model issue, however, you want to look at it. We are not the demons that everyone says we are. This podcast has been brought to you today by ChewintheCud Limited, who offer completely independent dairy and beef nutrition, our signals advice and training, along with ROM's mobility scoring. For more details on these and other services available, please visit our website www.chewinthecud.com or email us directly on nutrition at chewinthhecud.com. ChewintheCud Limited now offers first aid training from a registered first aid at work trainer and experienced minor injuries practitioner. For more details, please visit our website www.chewinthecud.com or email us directly on training at tune the cud.com. Hello, I'm Andrew Jones.

Sarah Bolt 4:01

And I'm Sarah Bolt.

Andrew Jones 4:03

And welcome to the TuneTheCud Podcast, a podcast for the UK dairy industry.

Sarah Bolt 4:07

Farmer, advisor, processor, and everyone else. We have topics and episodes that will interest you.

Andrew Jones 4:13

We discuss the practical and the technical aspects of different UK dairy industry topics.

Sarah Bolt 4:18

We aim to make you think about what you're doing and ask yourself, can it be done differently?

Andrew Jones 4:23

Listen to us speak with specialists from inside and outside the industry about their area of expertise.

Sarah Bolt 4:29

Subscribe and listen to episodes for free on your favourite podcast platform.

Andrew Jones 4:34

Sign up to our website www.chewinthecud.com for podcast notifications so you never miss an episode.

Sarah Bolt 4:41

And links to our socials, including Instagram, chewinthecud podcast. All one word and remember no G.

Andrew Jones 4:47

Or email us direct on podcast at chewinthecud.com.

Sarah Bolt 4:51

If you like what we do, please share and leave us a review to show your support. And that's it.

From Nutrition Science To Sustainability

Andrew Jones 4:56

Enjoy today's episode. Hello and welcome back to ChewintheCud Podcast. Our guest today is Professor Michael Lee, who is Deputy Vice-Chancellor from Harper Addams University. Morning to you, Michael. Morning, Andrew. How are you? Yeah, very well, thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to join the podcast. No, thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us. So Michael is here today, and we are looking to talk about the importance of livestock in relation to human health and nutrition. And I guess we'll also probably talk about the environmental uh benefits as well. Um, but before we do, Michael, please tell us a little bit about yourself and how you got to where you are today.

Michael Lee 5:45

Yeah, thanks, Andrew. Well, I'm a wannabe Irish dairy farmer, but my my mother was the wrong sex, so never inherited the family farm. So I ended up going into academia. Um I did my first degree in animal science at the University of Wales Aberisworth, uh, and became fascinated with nutrition. Um, so I then moved and did my PhD at the University of Aberdeen, uh, so ticking off the nations of the United Kingdom um on nutritional biochemistry, um, particularly uh looking at protein and energy metabolism. My my love for nutrition continued, and I did then move to uh a research institute to do a postdoc on liquid metabolism. Um and that was a fascinating time because that was a time of what we call the great white lie um in nutrition. We were all told that metabolic syndrome was due to animal facts, and so we had these lean cuisines strip out the animal fat, replace it with palm oil, uh, but also make it tasty by adding in sugar. Um and then, of course, we realized that atolite actually metabolic syndrome and obesity was predominantly driven by ultra processing and sugars and um plant-based refined oils. Um so that that time and that great wide lie when I was looking at at living metabolism uh and looking at the role that animal source foods play in human nutrition was really uh elucidating and uh and fascinating. And then I moved into looking at some micronutrient work before um finally then moving to another research institute, uh Rothenstedt, via the University of Bristol, when I was looking at the other side of the argument and the negative externalities of livestock, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen, phosphorus, pollution. And the key research question then was what is the balance between human and planetary health when it comes to livestock?

Sarah Bolt 7:54

I was gonna say that's where I first came across you, Michael, was uh uh down at uh down at Rottenstead at uh at Northwick there. It's uh yes, it's some somewhere uh close to my heart. Going back many, many years ago, I used to uh used to sell the dairy cake into the uh suddenly showing my age now because I can't remember when um when they got rid of the dairy cows, but it was probably still the 90s, I think, when they went.

Michael Lee 8:22

No, it was it was it was early 2000s when oh that makes it feel a bit better. Yeah, it makes you feel a little bit better. But amazing place. Northwick is an amazing research facility. Um definitely it's the world's most instrumented farm for for for the listeners. If they wouldn't have a look at the Northwick farm platform, collects nine million data points per year looking at nutrient flows. So you can track all the nutrients from the farm into product, and then and the the Northwick farm platform, as you might be saying out, Sarah, is a suckler beef enterprise and sheep, um, but also nutrients lost into water and air. So you've got real primary data in terms of flows of nutrients, and critically shows the role of grazing livestock and grasslands in in protecting the environment.

Grasslands, Rewilding, And Biodiversity

Andrew Jones 9:09

Well, to be honest with you, that was the very first podcast Sarah joined us as a guest, wasn't it? As we were talking, we I titled it, It's not just trees, like you're talking about grass and how important grassland is it, Michael. And I got fed up of all you see is people go, Oh, well, the answer's trees. No, it's not just trees, because if you plant trees everywhere, how are you gonna, I don't know, feed livestock for I can't say or whatever it happens to be? Trees have a place, don't get me wrong, but it's not the answer. And you see people that just buy land and go, oh, well, I'm gonna rewild it, and they either have no plan and just let it go to pot and do its own thing, well, that's not the answer, or they just go and stick a load of trees over it. That's not the answer. But there you go.

Michael Lee 9:47

Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. It's it's the correct tree in the correct place at the correct time, and that, and and that, and that's the key point. Um, and of course, there's a lot of naivety when it comes to rewilding, as you as you rightfully say, Andrew. Of course, if you look at Neolithic times, the UK and and uh and Dogger Bank, which attached us to the main part of Europe, uh Dogerlands, was grazing steppes. Um, it wasn't um uh forests, it was grazing steps and it was grasslands. Um, and and of course, we need grazing ruminants to retain uh that that landscape. And of course, just moving to um monocultures and coniferous forests uh of coniferous woodlands has a huge negative impact on biodiversity.

Andrew Jones 10:35

Yeah, I remember hearing that years ago. I think I was still sixth form, and someone said, Oh, I'm not really so big on um a forestry commission because all it is is you plant pine trees. Is that really the answer to what we're doing? As you say, it's it's monoculture, and you could turn around and say the bigger picture here, what we're talking about today, is you get rid of livestock. Well, what are you gonna do? It's got to be monoculture, surely, to grow whether it's cereals or maize or whatever it happens to be to feed the human population. That just doesn't work. You're gonna lose your biodiversity straight away. Um, but so so and obviously now you're at Harper Adams, and obviously, so what are you doing at Harper? I mean, you can't just be Deputy Vice Chancellor, you must be doing something else as well, I'm guessing.

Michael Lee 11:16

Well, the deputy vice-chancellor is is is a pretty big role um within the university. Um, but we have a fantastic senior leaders team here at the university. So we have um our PVC of education, um uh Lydia Arnold and our PVC um both Simon Simone Clark have a not phenomenal understanding of pedagogical development, which allows me as a DVC then to spend a little bit more time on the search and addressing some of the um the challenges within the sector, supported by our vice-chancellor, of course, Ken Sloan. Haddy on the names in there, of course.

Andrew Jones 11:55

Well, I was gonna say, and then you won the gold cup this year, because it Kate Robinson and her team won the gold cup this year as well. So might as well drop that one in as well.

Michael Lee 12:03

Yeah, we have well, of course, as you rightly said, we have the best dairy and the best pig herds in the country, both national award winners. So huge respect to the team at Future Farm for delivering that. And we also have the best med school in the country as well, Little One NSS schools um for our brand new Harp and Keel vet school. So there we are, we've got the publicity out in terms of the ill-selling for Harper Adders, which is a fantastic university if you want to deliver the future in agri-food um look for applications um uh on our website. So, yeah. So I've done that.

Sarah Bolt 12:39

Bringing it back to you, Michael. I mean, you know, sort of you only have to look at the publications that have come out even this year. There must be what, sort of five or six publications that you're you're named on, and uh, you know, sort of tell us a little bit about those the the research you you've been doing over over this last year.

Michael Lee 12:57

Yeah, thank you, thank you, Sarah. Yeah, 18 publications actually. Sorry. Yeah, but that's okay. But it's it's it's not me, it's it's the team.

Andrew Jones 13:04

Not anyone's keeping count, obviously.

Michael Lee 13:06

No, no, not at all. Um, but in it it is it is the team. Um, and and that's the great thing about Harper. I've been given the time as well to continue to do the research and support in the sector and the role that livestock play in human and planetary health. Um, so a major piece of work that I've been doing this year has been on circularity, how you're gonna deliver a sustainable library food system. Um, how and and of course the key aspect of that is to move from a linear system of inputs, output waste um into a circular system.

Sarah Bolt 13:42

And it's a bit of a buzzword at the moment, isn't it? But actually, you know, sort of can you tell us the the benefits of bringing that linear system into a circular system?

Circular Agri‑Food Systems Explained

Michael Lee 13:52

Absolutely, yeah. Circularity is key to sustainability and resilience because what circularity delivers is the reduction of non-renewable resources. So fossil fuels, plastics, you know, um rock phosphate, um inorganic, sorry, organic, sorry, inorganic nitrogen fertilizer driven from fossil fuels. So, how could you reduce these non-renewable resources, which by definition means they are linear, not circular, and deliver a circular agri food which basically takes the nutrients, converts inverted commons waste into a fantastic resource. And of course, if you think about a circular food system, without livestock, it's very difficult to see how that circle is rounded. Because if you grow crops, you produce biomass, which is small production, it's human edible. You look at any crop you grow, whether it be wheat, just the grain, you've got the husks and you've got the uh uh the straw, or if you're growing soybeans or uh peas or beans, you've got a whole amount of biomass, which is not human edible. Um, also, if a farmer grows a grain crop that doesn't eat food standards, i.e., you know, if you're growing barley and it's not uh doesn't hit um uh brewing standards, or you grow wheat and it doesn't hit malting standards, then of course you you you need an output for that crop. So livestock utilizes a whole load of byproducts and crops which are not suitable for human um uh consumption. And of course, uses land which is not suitable for grazing. So that's one part of the circularity. The other part of the circularity is the is the manures.

Andrew Jones 15:43

I was gonna say, sorry, that was one of our early podcasts we did with uh someone from one of the local feed companies. I can't remember what we call it. Is it uh the the was it the feed industry? The I can't remember exactly what it was called now, but basically that's what we're saying. We went through all the ingredients that went through the feed mill. And apart from I think we worked out beans, everything else in there is waste. Even the wheat and barley is grown on land that's not suitable maybe to produce the quality for human consumption, but it goes into livestock. You look at the soya, um, you look at the palm kernel. What we get is the waste after they've extracted all the oil they want out of it, and then you look at whether wheat feed comes from the the um uh the milling industry, all of these products are waste products, and we are using them as part of that that cycle that you mentioned there, aren't we?

Michael Lee 16:29

Yeah, absolutely. And we have to really emphasize that. There's still work that needs to be done. I'm not saying that it's imperfect, of course. We need to think about the types of crops that we grow, and obviously, we'll come on to human health and the amount of fiber that we need to consume and the amount of fresh fruit and vegetables we need to consume. So, of course, we need to consider what we need to grow, but throwing the baby out of the bathwater, you know, demonizing livestock when we need to produce a sustainable hyperfood system is crazy because we need that livestock as part of that circularity. And as I says, the other part of that critically is the manures. If we're going to stop mining Western Sahara for rock phosphate, and we're going to stop harbor bosch, which we critically need to do to get the planet back into a sustainable nitrogen cycle, we need to better utilize um nitrium and phosphorus in the terrestrial environment. The best source of that is organic manures, farm our livestock. Of course, the issue is that we need to be able to strip that out and apply that strategically in soils that need it. Um, and always the biggest issue has been moving slurry with high water content across the country onto soils that need it. So we often applied it to soils that didn't. The key now is mutant stripping, and we have some amazing research led by Marie Kirby here at Harvard Adams. This is stripping out phosphorus and nitrogen at source from our dairy, producing a cruel product that then can be applied into soils that need it. It's a strategic application using new technologies to really convert organic um manures into high precision, technology advanced solutions that stops the use of non-renewable resource. Now, if we got a bit of livestock, we are in a huge mess trying to provide the key nutrients for the increased amount of plants that we need to grow. Very clear. We need to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables and more green leafy um uh brassicas. We do, critically, we do. We don't need enough of those. But to be able to provide the nutrients to grow those, we need we need livestock. Otherwise, we're going to continue to mine Western Sahara and we're going to continue to use harbour bosch.

Andrew Jones 18:46

Well, so that you're mentioning the mining, it's starting to get uh a little bit um geopolitical now, isn't it? Am I reading is it China in the phosphates is starting to limit its exports because it's see it it knows it's a finite resource and it wants to keep hold of it to keep giving it that advantage, I guess, moving forward.

By‑Products, Feeds, And Manure As Resources

Michael Lee 19:05

Absolutely. So one of the key projects I was involved for when I was at Rothamsted was looking at the resources of phosphate around the world and understanding the geopolitical issues it's gonna be causing. Of course, we have the solutions. We have the solutions to this. And it's the back end of pigs, sheep, cows, and chickens that are gonna deliver that solution. Um, but otherwise, if we just rely on mined phosphate, we we are gonna be in a geopolitical issue because you're right, the powers are gonna control those resources. And of course, mining, right? Mining those resources doesn't just damage for taking phosphorus from uh a resource that needs to be retained in it and putting more in the terrestrial environment and have that impact on water courses and water health, but also mining releases greenhouse gases, significant greenhouse gases. Uh in fact, the biggest greenhouse gas emitter um from methane in China is through mining, not livestock. It's mining that delivers the biggest course of methane. Um so so we need to be extremely aware of of the impacts of these use of non-renewable resources. And remember, of course, what livestock can deliver.

Sarah Bolt 20:18

I'm just gonna pick up on that that um point about methane and and cows, that it's the one that's always talked about, isn't it? And I think it's perhaps thinking about how the the planet used to be covered with a lot more big animals that were perhaps belching methane as well. And actually it's not something new that we've got a head of livestock that's that's belt that's belching methane. It's just that they happen to be farmed livestock rather than back when the the the woolly mammoths and whatever else were were roaming the the lands. And I think it's a really interesting. Have you got any sort of observations on that as well?

Michael Lee 21:00

Me gonna start talking about nutrition if you get a danger here, but yeah, I've got obviously a lot a lot of um thoughts around um global methane emissions. Let's be clear. Methane is an important greenhouse gas, but it's important in a positive as a negative way. If we have no methane emitted from planet Earth, we will be a frozen planet. Methane has been vital as part of the Goldilocks effect for planet Earth to make it this perfect environment, not too hot, not too cold, and to be able to sustain life. And methane has been buffered and balanced on planet Earth for millions of years. It's part of the natural cycle and it goes up and down. Now, I want to be abundantly clear as well on this point. Mane is out of balance with its natural buffer. We are emitting too much methane currently. For it to be controlled by the natural ability of planet Earth, which is predominantly through the atmosphere's hydroxy radical production. And basically, to make it simple, a planet heats, water vapor rises, UV light hits water vapor, it makes hydroxy radicals that act like a bleaching agent which interact with methane, break it down to CO2 and water. So therefore reducing temperature. So you have a nice, a nice buffer. At the moment, methane levels in the atmosphere are rising, and they're rising at a phenomenal rate. And that's due to two aspects. We've reduced the ability of the atmosphere to remove methane. So we've impacted in some way in the hydroxy radical removal mechanism. And there's lots of things I could talk about that. But also we're we're emitting too much methane. And we're doing that from numerous resources, from mining, from agriculture, and from natural resources. And if you think about where methane is produced in the planet, 40% is natural. So it's from soils, it's from anaerobic soils, it's from you know um permafrost, but actually the warming planet is increasing that. And it's about 40%. 30% is then from uh from waste and uh uh mining and those sort of industries, uh losses and leaks from natural gas pipelines, and the 30% is agriculture, which predominantly is enteric fermentation, but also don't forget rice paddock fields. So you've got 30%, 30%, and 40%. And we've got them, and we've said we've got to reduce global methane by 30%. Now agriculture can play a part, and it's doing it. Our farmers are reducing methane, but also we've got this other 30% here, which we mustn't forget, which is for mines and natural gas leaks. So Roman looks good, 30% reduction, 30% agriculture, 30% mining and gas leaks, and 40% natural. So everyone needs to play that part.

Andrew Jones 24:09

But as an industry, it always feels like we're the low-hanging fruit that they're targeting us so that others can, I don't know, keep flying their planes or whatever it happens to be. And to my understanding as well, like the the fragment's sake, the cow belches, it puts out methane, but that methane is what then, as you say, breaks down and goes back into the cycle, back into the plant, and is all part of that cycle. It's the unbalance from human activity as much as it is anything else. So, yes, you're right, agriculture needs to play its part, and we undoubtedly are, but certainly it feels like we're always the low-hanging fruit that we're being overly targeted. Do you think that's right or not?

Michael Lee 24:45

Yeah, we I think agriculture is um targeted, particularly when it comes to methane, because you know, it is a big contributor for that methane emissions. But as you rightly said, it's the biogenic component of that methane, which is that natural cycle. And of course, that is about getting that back into that natural cycle of production, breakdown by the atmospheric hydroxy or the soil, and then back into CO2 route. The thermogenic or the fossil methane, of course, is the area that we we really have to have a focus on, but we need to buy time. And agriculture is a great way actually of buying time because we can significantly reduce our emissions through better farming practices, through genetics, through improvement in production, through improvement in feed. And our farmers are doing that. We've seen that, I've seen that on the ground. Um, and and and also, of course, realizing that actually we are one of the lowest emitters per unit of product on the globe. And we need to represent that in our figures. And this is what really annoys me when we look at global averages um when we look at um the impact of animal source foods on the planet. So, yes, it is about biogenic and thermogenic cycles.

Phosphate Geopolitics And Fertility

Sarah Bolt 25:59

One of the metrics that I'm often disappointed in that we talk about the the methane from farming, but we don't talk about the methane that is produced by producing human food. We talk about it as the methane produced from farming rather than thinking about it as the end product. Because as a as somebody that uh part of the human population that would like to stay eating, um, it's actually quite important that that actually we recognize it's food production rather than farming. And I I know that's just words, but I think if we talked about it more in a food production point of view.

Michael Lee 26:44

Yeah, absolutely. That's it's a really important point, so and it's going to naturally nicely segue in into nutrition because um, yeah, I totally agree. The way that we reflect our emissions at the moment, particularly when we look at agricular anything, anything we produce, we talk about CO2 equivalents, so the three greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrosoxane, then the main three greenhouse gases. We convert them into CO2 equivalence and then reflect that. So kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of product, it doesn't matter what it is, per kilogram of product. It could be beef, it could be peas, it could be plastic coat hangers. We refer to it as kilograms of product. We don't actually look at the value of why it was produced. Now, if we look at food, we don't eat food because it weighs a certain amount. We eat food because of its nutrient density and how it's, you know, on good balanced diets, there's other ways why we eat food as well, of course. Um, but because of their key nutrients they contain. So when we look at animal source foods, which do have a higher carbon footprint when measured through carbon dioxide equivalents at a gross level, and we can come on the difference between net and gross at the moment, but they do have a higher um environmental footprint for a gross level. We need to reflect on the nutrients that they contain and the fact that they are more nutrient dense than plant source foods. They have a different nutrient composition as well than plant-based foods. Um to reflect that.

Andrew Jones 28:22

I don't know how up to date it is, but last I heard someone done some sums on this. And was it the cost to have the same energy density from a purely vegan diet compared to a uh a mixed diet? Is it like one and a half times the cost, I think, financially, because of the energy density difference you're talking about? Now, I don't know how up to date that was. It's probably a year or two ago I heard that. But I mean that to kind of in like you're saying, it is meat. Well, as you say, looking at it, it looks like oh, it's bad, but actually it has big benefits in other ways, doesn't it?

Michael Lee 28:55

Yeah, um, you know, let that let's be clear, you know, uh and on one thing that I'd I never want to do. There shouldn't be a black and white debate, and this shouldn't be omnivores versus vegans. You know, people choose to have a vegan diet for any reason they're they want to, and that's absolutely perfectly fine. And I'm sure I know I know you agree, Andrew and Sarah. And you can be a healthy vegan, of course you can, absolutely, but you need to can think about your key nutrients. You need to be a bit of a nutritionist expert to produce a balanced, key supplemented diet if you are a vegan. You know, that's clear, that's scientific fact. You need to look at that.

Andrew Jones 29:32

And I guess I raise raise that more from, as you say, everyone's choice is their choice, but it's more the fact that everything seems to be pushing us that we should all be going for a vegan diet when actually that isn't the answer, which all comes back to the circularity we're talking about, the the the animal, the nutrition, all of this is how is is important in what we're talking about.

Michael Lee 29:54

Yeah, totally, Andrew. It's respect both ways. It's absolutely respect both ways. You know, respect people who choose to be on a vegan diet, and I totally do. I've got a lot of good friends who are vegans, um, and but also, you know, respecting the other way people who've chosen to be an omnivore, which is the natural way for human evolution and the natural food systems that humans and agriculture has evolved. And there's a reason for that, and that is about nutrient balance. It's about balance. Animal source foods give a very different balance of key nutrients and increase the bioavailability of nutrients on plants.

Andrew Jones 30:39

I mean, uh, this is maybe a slightly different example, but I mean, you see, is it they're seeing now that is that chimpanzees are hunting and eating meat when they can. And I did years ago, it shocked people. Was it that even the big old cuddly panda bear, it's too lazy basically to go and hunt, but if it can find some carrion, it will eat it because it realizes the energy density of what's in there, isn't it?

Methane 101: Biogenic Versus Fossil

Michael Lee 31:00

Yeah, you know, here's another shock for you. Strictly, there's no such thing as a herbivore because there's a condition called pika. If herbivores in the uh natural environment are deficient in key micronutrients, they will seek out and eat um other animals. I've seen cows eat dead rabbits because they were deficient of um phosphorus and potassium. Um I've seen giraffes pluck birds from the trees um when they have certain deficiencies. Um, so you you you know, herbivores would also include animal source foods when they have a key micronutrient deficient. There's a well-known conditions called Pika, you can look it up online, and it's where herbivores will search out animal source foods. So strictly, there's no such thing as a hundred percent uh herbivore because they will, at some level, uh you know, seek out animal source foods if they eat it. It's very rare, of course. Uh when my standard roles are herbivores for a reason. But yes, we we and and that's because of the the different bag of nutrients that animal sourced foods will provide on top of plant source foods. Now, as omnivores, we should eat a predominantly plant-based diet. And if you look at the key foods that we would consume, we certainly need to eat more fruit, we certainly need to eat more green leafy vegetables, and the reason why we need more of those is because of vitamin balance, but also critically fiber. We don't have enough fiber in our diet. Now, the big challenge that I have with the plant-based movement is that they are stripping out the key reason why we need to eat more plants to make an animal source protein replacement. They are removing the fiber to concentrate the protein, and that's not the reason why we need to eat more plants. We need to make more plants for fiber, not protein.

Andrew Jones 33:06

But it's interesting, it's where you are in the world, the advice may be on that, because uh just in my own personal example, I believe it was, was it over here it was five fruit and veg you had to eat a day? I believe was it? Well, at the same time, uh, that was when I came home. So I lived in Australia for 10 years. So when I came home in 2008, in Australia the advice was five veg and two fruit a day. So they were they was they were suggesting seven uh pieces of fruit and veg, was over here it was five. And you're like, well, why why are governments telling something? I think someone said it's because all that's all they could vince the British public to eat was a maximum of five. And you're like, well, is surely they should be giving us the right advice, but I suppose.

Sarah Bolt 33:45

Has it moved to 50 different things in a week now, rather?

Andrew Jones 33:48

Oh, we don't have a clue.

Sarah Bolt 33:50

Yeah, rather than the five a day.

Michael Lee 33:52

But also it's the critical now it's it's whole fruit. Here's my apple on my desk, right? It's whole fruit, not fruit juices or fruit shoots. And this is where we we get, again, you know, perverse outcomes from advice. No, it's clear, you know, I I don't drink uh orange juice. I don't drink orange juice because of the high fructose content, and I and I can't regulate my fruit intake by drink drink drinking orange juice. I know I should drink eat oranges, and people say, Well, I drink I drink enough juices. Well, what are you doing when you're juicing something? You're removing the fiber, which is the main reason why you should be consuming that fruit and just drinking the sugar. So, and and this is where those some of the misnomers associated with it. Because it's natural sugar, they think, oh, it's fine. No, it's not fine. Fructose is one of the most dangerous sugars because unlike glucose, which is metabolized in every cell in your body, fructose is metabolized in one, the liver. And if you don't use it for energy, what does it get converted to? Fat. Where does it sit? In your liver. What's the other product that does that? Alcohol. So you're actually you're overconsuming, you know. So so that narrative of consumption needs to be really contextualized. It's whole, whole fruits, whole fruits, whole plants. And when we talk about animal source foods, unprocessed, um, predominantly that's what we should be consuming.

Andrew Jones 35:24

You mentioned orange juice. I was gonna say my other half would tell me that's my guilt, is uh I do like my orange juice, and I like to have a I cut it back to just a glass, usually a glass a day, but it used to be more. But that's my guilty secret or guilt is is the orange juice, I suppose. And she keeps telling me you're drinking too much.

Michael Lee 35:42

Absolutely. Andrew, it's everything in moderation, my moderation, that's the key thing. And the key message, of course, is there's no no unhealthy foods, there's unhealthy diets. Yes. So if you overconsume orange juice, it's gonna give bad too much fructose and just be drinking like Coca-Cola. Um, but if you you know, but if you drink one glass of it, well, you're getting your vitamins and your balance and your fructose, and you can burn off your fructose without it um producing fatty liver for you.

Sarah Bolt 36:06

So going back to basics, Michael, why do we need this fiber in our diet?

Michael Lee 36:12

So fiber is a natural agent that cleans the gut. You know, it's undigestible, it's a cleaning agent. You know, cells turn over. Um, so I mean, you need that sloughing, we need a healthy gut, healthy VI, you know, within that. And fiber is absolutely critical to that. It's it's it's the cleaning, it's the cleansing agent, and that's why it's so important. And hence why a balanced diet is so important. Um, and and of course, like I said, that that balance of plants and animal source foods really delivers that key nutrient. And and we hear so much thing about protein, protein at the moment. If you just listen to the media, the things that God, no one's even eating any protein because the amount of extra protein that we need. But you know, and that's also an issue when we talk about the average person. Well, the average person needs about 60 grams per day. If you're if you're elderly or you're uh have um immune issues or you're not healthy, then you might need to up to 100 grams of good protein a day. But we keep on top of we need more and more and more and more. Uh, but actually, if you're not, unless you're a bodybuilder, what do you do with the protein? Probably most dark and you're just urinating out.

Sarah Bolt 37:27

I was quite interested the other day. I went to pick up a a steak in a in a supermarket and it had a big sticky label on it telling me how many grams of protein there was in my in my beef. Because again, they're trying to sell that protein story.

Michael Lee 37:40

And and of course, and then again, it's the balance there of animal source proteins and plant-based proteins. Um, you know, animal-based proteins are significantly more bioavailable. Because if you think about, and it's it's obvious if you think about what which is the main protein in meat, actomycin. What is the protein in our muscle? Actomyosine. So a perfect amount of amino acids in the perfect position, broken down, absorbed, most bioavailable. What's the major protein in plants? Rubisco, you know, harvests um uh uh energy from the sun. Very different protein um to actomyocine, doesn't have the same amount of um uh uh amino acid balance within it, and also it's not broken down in the same way um within the guts that um the actomyocid is. So so you've got a very different amino acid balance within protein.

Andrew Jones 38:35

Taking a step back, I mean you mentioned that. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I mean, let's be honest, that if you go back before BSE, that's why they fed meat and bone meal, wasn't it? Is because it had that uh um amino acid balance and the proteins that were but were more directly suited for the animal. And I know there's the whole issue that cows aren't perceived to uh eat meat. Uh you've just obviously explained otherwise, but um I'm not out to date, I'm not advocating for being but built and herbivores, absolutely. No, exactly and I'm not, but that was the thinking behind it, is because the bioavailability, it was more, you know, it suited the animal better than or more available than directly from a plant.

Protein, Fibre, And Real Nutrition

Michael Lee 39:16

Yeah, absolutely. And if you think of why, you know, you you particularly when you think about dairy cows, you know, the the genetics of a modern dairy cow is very, very different to um Bos Brimogenus, you know, the the the Ox, which, you know, where um uh Bos Taus evolved, um, and its amino acids and protein requirements are very different, um, particularly for our whole Holstein cow. So they're looking at protein quality. And you're right, meat and bone meal had a really high amino acid profile, which was which which delivered that. Of course, moving a herb of a more natural herb around an omnivore, forget about Pika, wish I had mentioned it. Um is is you know, it was wrong. And the outcome of that unfortunately was BSE. In fact, you probably, again, you know, it was probably another couple of hours. I've just written a paper on on circularity and the role of rendering and the role of meat and bone meal, which you now call PAP, processed animal protein, and what a vital resource it is for omnivorous livestock. So pigs and poultry, we should be using significantly more meat and bone meal for pigs and poultry. And we need to reflect that. And room meat pap going into pigs and poultry would be a huge advantage. It would significantly reduce our requirement for soy overnight. Um, and also has high levels of calcium bioavailability and other uh minerals. So we need to look at that, but certainly not go back, you know, herbivores are herbivores, and we should not um transgress that line ever again.

Andrew Jones 40:48

But it's interesting you mentioned that because I've always been told that, you know, you know, while we take soy out of dairy diets and it's very achievable, uh, especially say you start amino acid balancing and stuff. Um with pigs and poultry, I'm told that soy is the one that's really hard to take out because of it its amino acid profile, and you're saying there is an alternative. But it also, while we've been uh talking about it, it's made me think, you know, we're talking about the the cycle and using everything. It makes me think, are we almost having to take a step backwards, but maybe with more science? Because I certainly remember my grandmother always saying, Oh, you know, when we slaughtered a pig, we didn't waste a single thing. Everything was used for this and everything was used for that. Whereas now people have got uh, I suppose, what's the better word, almost squirmish, and oh, well, we can't eat this, we can't eat that. Whereas then it was just oh, we'll use the blood for blood for black pudding, and how many people go, oh, I'm not touching black pudding? Well, it hasn't had blood in it for years, and you know, these sorts of things is it are we almost going backwards, but now having a better understanding from the science point of view?

Michael Lee 41:48

Yeah, you yeah, totally. We we need to better understand. We and to your honest, we haven't been spoiled because you know that's what we've done. You know, food is so easy accessible, farmers do all the hard work, and you know, all we have to do is go to the supermarket and we choose anything we want. Um, and because of policy as well, Ford, is it critical that you know it's it's affordable? Um, we could we can set we can have another discussion whether for food is as affordable that we have food banks within the UK, but and it's critical that the most important nutritionally dense foods, um, including animal and plant-based uh foods, are uh are available and uh to the whole population. But we also need to think about what we consume and that balance and utilizing the whole carcass, um, which we used to do extremely well. Now, there are sectors, you know, there's a lot of, and this is the importance about understanding about export and import. We we export different parts of the carcass. So, for all, for example, all the tracheas go to China because they love tracheas over in China. They love crunch, you know, that have just come from China, actually uh flew in yesterday, hence probably why I'm a little bit tired for this podcast. But you know, that that they they value certain parts of the animal. All chicken feet go to China. Um, but there's there's different parts that we we would value. We've got to think about awful again. And there was a really amazing study, and I wish I was involved in it. This wasn't one of my papers, Sarah, unfortunately. It was done actually. My my PhD and postdoc, um Graham McCauliff, was an author on this piece of work, but um, it was led by Ty Beal. Um, and he did a piece of work looking at the key micronutrient density of different fruits. And and and the analysis was basically that if you think of a nutrient which is hard to acquire, it should have a higher value. It's the same as mechans. You would if I gave so if I gave you a kilogram of gold and I gave Andrew a kilogram of lead, and I said, I've treated you exactly the same, I've given you both a kilogram of metal. I think Andrew would be a little bit upset.

Andrew Jones 43:57

Given current gold prices, yes.

Michael Lee 44:01

But it's exactly the same with nutrients. If nutrients are hard to acquire, then the food that delivers more of a nutrient should be valued higher. So what Ty Beal and his group did, they they reanalyzed all the foods, so many different food items, about the key nutrients that they provide against their carbon footprint. And the food that was the most sustainable, i.e., it gave the most key available nutrients for the lowest environmental footprint was liver. Is that right?

Sarah Bolt 44:35

It makes sense, doesn't it?

Michael Lee 44:37

You think of everything that we deposit in our livers and Yeah, the key, you know, the nutrient density of the liver. And of course, because it's so nutrient dense, sometimes you have to be careful about consuming it, especially if you're pregnant and you know vitamin A, etc. and all those things. But just shows the value of that key, key uh animal source.

Andrew Jones 44:56

There's a classic example of that. It's a very acquired taste, isn't it? Liver. I mean, for me, I don't I don't mind a little bit, maybe once, once, twice a year. We might, me and my other half might have a bit of liver and bacon or something, but there's a lot of people will not touch liver.

Sarah Bolt 45:07

I won't touch it, it's just got a weird texture.

Andrew Jones 45:10

It used to be on the school, uh it used to be a regular when I was in primary school on the school diet, liver and onions were uh every couple of weeks, liver and onions, whether you liked it or not.

Michael Lee 45:18

And and and I suppose that's the difficult, and that's where we really need social science. You know, getting some of these products back into popular YW takes time and you're not gonna do that overnight. If people say I'm not gonna eat that, then then they aren't. You know, you can bring a horse to water be hard made to drink.

Andrew Jones 45:35

Well, another example steak and kidney pie. I know my other half said she wouldn't touch it. Now, for her, it's the fact that she says she can smell the kidney being a nurse and she's had that, you know, have to deal with urine and whatever. It's like I just can't touch it for that reason. I mean, everyone's got different reasons, haven't they? But they're they they're things that people used to eat a lot more of than they do now.

Sarah Bolt 45:53

Used to entry the kidney pie. Yeah.

Andrew Jones 45:57

I know, all right then. But you know, it's it's not many people these days will eat steak, you know, if you even steak and kidney pie is the one that most people will eat. But you say offal in general has just sort of moved off the menus, hasn't it?

Offal, Whole Carcass Use, And Culture

Michael Lee 46:08

It has, but it'll, you know, and it going back to the circularity and nutrient density, it's something that we really consider. But the other parts of the world, and that's what we summarise in this paper, which is published by the FAO at the moment, Food and Agricultural Organization, the United Nations report on the role of livestock in a circular bioeconomy and another. Um, so to get that report, but it actually shows the key value of all the aspects of the animal, particularly, and and those aspects are not for, and other parts of the world are utilizing those resources.

Andrew Jones 46:39

But surely you you say that. I was thinking, as you mentioned, like the the feet to China, chickens' feet to China, surely there's an environmental cost for transporting them that that that we probably ought to make better use of them ourselves, shouldn't we? Rather than but I guess at least they're using them rather than getting completely wasted. But does that balance it out or not?

Michael Lee 46:59

Yeah, absolutely. You know, it if if the the country that is not going to utilize that resource and there's another market for it, it should be exported. And actually, the carbon footprint of that is a small component. Um the the where it's a big component is where you use air freight. So when you use air freight for resources, then particularly things that have got a short shelf life, then that has a bigger impact on their on their carbon footprint. Certainly, you know, when you buy flowers from parts of Africa and they've got very short shelf life, or or beans from Kenya, you know, that that that has a bigger impact on their own.

Andrew Jones 47:33

Well, I was gonna say, or the one I'm thinking immediately thinking of since I left Oz, there there was a market, I think it fell back a little bit of basically flying milk straight into China. I mean, that must have had a fair carbon footprint on it for doing that.

Michael Lee 47:45

Yeah, but it it it would. So anything the air freight has a bigger carbon footprint. Um, but most most of these products, you know, refrigeration in such a way at the moment that it is seed freight, it takes a longer time to do it, which is a significantly less part of the cut carbon aspect um in in terms of the of the footprint.

Sarah Bolt 48:04

So if we come back to the UK and and I think you just sort of alluded to it a bit, that actually is education the way forward. Do we need to learn how to to cook with tripe, cook with kidneys, cook with chicken feet? Um to you know, do will that help? Will that be acceptable to the the UK population, do you think?

Michael Lee 48:28

Um I think it's about respect, isn't it? It's it it again, it goes it boils down to respect, respecting people's views and their dietary choices, and then helping them with that. So again, not demonizing any any choice. Now, would we get everybody you know full of game? No, I don't think we would. Um it would take you know a very long time. Um, but you know, but but talking about the values of these products instead of some the continual demonization of an animal source foods because they have a higher carbon footprint per kilogram product at a gross level. Um uh, but but you know, but but thinking about how they are part of a sustainable diet and talk about the key levels that people should be consuming as part of a healthy diet, unless the narrative of reduction. Because the issue of just talking about reduction, for example, at the moment, you know, people say we should reduce animal source food consumption by 30%. But what if you're not eating enough? What if your iron levels are too low? And you're gonna take less red meat, but you're you're you're anemic? Is that a healthy choice for you? No, of course it isn't. So it's about understanding what you know an average person should be consuming, but then also reflecting, of course, I'm not an average person. Everybody's different, and my requirements may be different because I am immunocompromised, because I'm over 80, because I'm a young child, because I'm an imensurating woman, I'm gonna have very different um uh nutrient requirements than the average. And unfortunately, most of the guidance on what we talk about reducting is based on an average, and there's no such thing, there's no such thing as an average.

Andrew Jones 50:20

In your comment there, you mentioned gross, I believe earlier you said you talk about the difference between gross and net. Would you like to go on with that?

Michael Lee 50:28

Yeah, I think we always talk about, and one of the major um drivers for for the UK government and agriculture driven by the NFU, of course, is that we should be net zero. But when we talk about the carbon footprint of animal source foods, we report the gross footprint, i.e., how much emissions that animal gave out to produce that product. What we don't consider is how much carbon the farm removed from the atmosphere in producing that product. That's the net aspect. So it's the the key emissions minus the removal is your net positions.

Andrew Jones 51:07

Now, unfortunately. Sorry, just the carbon dioxide used to grow that grass or that cereal or whatever it happens to be.

Michael Lee 51:14

Yeah, so yeah, absolutely. So the ability of farms remove carbon dioxide through soil, through NPP, what call net primary production, plants, be it grass, be it hedgerows, be it um herbal lay borders, be it trees. Um the ability to reduce uh inorganic fertilizer use, so turn to more organic, so therefore reducing fossil fuel use and use of organic fertilizers, producing green energy on farm, be it through animal hybrid digestion, be it through uh solar panels, be it through wind. Um, farms have phenomenal ability to capture carbon or remove carbon from other industries. But what we do when we report our agricultural products, we report them at a gross level, and all the net removal sit somewhere else. So the way we report our emissions in the UK government, we we report to DAFRA our agricultural emissions, um, and we report then to DESNES, so the Department for Energy and Net Zero, our carbon removals from soil, trees, plants, um, and energy production. So we disaggregate. So the advantage sits here, but the emissions sit there, and then we report the gross when we should have put, of course, we report in the net. Now that's really important when it comes to ruminant products, particularly, because they have the higher gross emissions, but also it have the biggest capability to remove.

Andrew Jones 52:49

How does that compare to other industries, though? Are they reporting on a net or a gross basis?

Net Versus Gross: Counting Carbon Right

Michael Lee 52:55

So for the vast majority of other industries, um they are decarbonizing. They are using one greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and they're predominantly reporting on fossil fuel reduction. So, yes, they're reporting on the gross, but they haven't got the net removal. Because if you think about energy, how is energy produced? Well, it used to be producing coal, we stopped doing that. Then we started burning oil, and now we're trying to reduce oil by having more solar, wind farm solar, etc. So the reporting is the reduction of the fossil fuel use. That's not the same in agriculture.

Sarah Bolt 53:34

It's because of that unique position, isn't it?

Michael Lee 53:37

It's that you position of agriculture. It's three greenhouse gases, and it's not just it's not just um fossil fuel. And hence why, and it's one of the big things I've been pushing, which is that this reporting of biogenic and thermogenic sources in agriculture. Thermogenic is from fossil fuels, which we need to decarbonize and remove, just like energy and transportation sectors are doing. The biogenic component, we need to get in a natural cycle. Natural cycle with removals. So we need to report both. So agriculture is unique, and unfortunately, it falls between two national inventory report systems that feed Devra and Desnets. So the farmer, unfortunately, we talk about net zero, they're hit with the stick of gross emissions, but they're not given the carrot and the reward of the net removal. At the moment, we've got to get that right.

Andrew Jones 54:27

And if we do get that right, how do we sit as an industry? So take a take a piece of beef. How would how would that from what it's reported now? How would it report if you took that into account? What would the net value be?

Michael Lee 54:42

So there's some there are some farms now that I met to. So there were some, you know, if you look at this, there's an amazing, actually, there's two amazing research projects, lots of amazing research projects, but two in mind, both Irish, and I'm not being biased because of my Irish links. So one of them was Arc Zero in Northern Ireland, led by Professor John Gilliland. Um, and the other one was called Green Life, uh, led out of Chugusk, uh, I think by um Tim Keady out of Af and Rock. What ArcZero did was to map seven farms, very different farms, for their net emissions. So from a primary level basis. So the true emissions that they gave off from the livestock, but the true carbon capture within soils and trees, and and actually measuring it. And of those seven farms, they actually found two were net zero. Um because of that balance within within their systems. And and the other project I referred to was about green life, and that was looking at the carbon footprint of sheep within uh in islands, and they looked at intensive set of systems, and they actually mapped the impact of net removal from soils and found a significant reduction in the carbon footprint, but over half, nearly three-quarters of reduction in carbon footprint from the more expensive sheep systems because of the soil carbon catch. Now we're not doing enough of that.

Andrew Jones 56:13

So, what you're saying is we're closer to net zero than we're being led to believe.

Michael Lee 56:17

Some farms are, but let's but there's let's be clear here. Not all farms are going to be net zero.

Andrew Jones 56:23

No, no, no, I'm not saying that, but we're closer than we we're being led to believe, maybe.

Michael Lee 56:27

Yeah, because we're not properly assessing it. If you think about how we're assessing um carbon capture on a farm, we're still at tier one. We're doing very, very defined national level assessment. We we need more data of the carbon stocks and the carbon removals on farms. And as a government, we should be funding that data capture on farms. Now they're doing that now in Northern Ireland, based on the back of the R0 project. So the soil health scheme in Northern Ireland, I think, is fantastic. The way they're doing that and supporting farmers and delivering that. There is an amazing project actually in GB, uh, the AHDB 170, supported by um the Agricultural Horticultural Development Board, which is mapping 170 farms at the level that they did in RT zero and GB. Um, but we also, and this is another critical and it's a bookbearer of mine, of course, we've got to be careful we don't have carbon lenses. Because carbon is only one aspect of sustainability. You know, biodiversity, rural economies, you know, animal welfare, human welfare, all part of that mixture of sustainability, water quality at course, all those things need to be considered in the route. And you actually might have a more sustainable farm. There's a higher carbon emitter than a less sustainable farm because of all the metrics that we need to consider. And unfortunately, we use the carbon lens too often. Um, and so we we've got to be clear on that. So, but we do need to be better with the carbon assessment, but we also got to be careful that we don't just look at a carbon lens.

Sarah Bolt 58:00

Do you think it's possible that we could get all of UK agriculture in a net zero position? Do you think that that is something that we could achieve?

Michael Lee 58:11

Um it's it's got it's gonna be challenging because um we got to remember as well that agriculture can't decarbonize in the same way as the other sectors. And the reason for that is we're carbon. It's what we're farming, isn't it? It's what we're farming.

Sarah Bolt 58:30

We're turning sunshine into into product that's all's gonna be leaks.

Michael Lee 58:35

Unless you can reinvent the third law of thermodynamics. Uh, I don't think we don't think we can. Um, you know, you're gonna have some leaks from the system. Uh, whereas energy and transportation can decarbonize, they can stop burning fossil fuels, which is what decarbonization means for them, and use um renewables. Whereas agriculture is plumbing carbon and we're gonna have some some losses. But what we can do in farming is get it back into that natural cycle. And to answer your question, can we get it back into a natural cycle? Of course we can. Will that show using the common metrics that we currently use to judge net zero, will it show that farming is net zero? I don't know, and I don't think it will, because we're we're not fully accounting for the values of that circularity and that biogenic cycle. But let's be clear if we stop burning fossil fuels, we won't give a damn about burping cows, because we will be in a much better place on the planet. But it's gonna be a long time before we stop burning fossil fuels. So we do care about burping cows, and we are reducing the emissions from those burping cows. But we've got to be careful we don't throw the baby out in the bathwater because agriculture is different. It can't completely decarbonize because it is farming carbon.

Andrew Jones 59:57

There's some definitely some interesting points and thoughts there. And I've got to be honest with you, I'm looking at the timer. I could sit here listening to you for a lot longer, um, Michael, but we've uh we've been nearly an hour already. Um, but so really, as I'd usually say, any last words of wisdom that you want to bring to the table?

Can UK Farming Reach Net Zero

Michael Lee 1:00:15

Well, I just thank you, Andrew and Sarah. And I hopefully it's been uh interesting. I think we we spent a lot of time talking about the role that livestock products play from an environmental footprint. We've also mentioned, of course, about the the nutritional aspect, you know, and to be to make really emphasize that point again, you know, animal source foods are a vital part of a sustainable agri-food system. And it's about balance. And they and they give a different nutrient nutritional density than plates. And we need to consume them, of course, in moderation, uh, but also value them. And we should start, you know, rejoicing in the fine, amazing quality animal source foods that we produce. The amazing meat, the amazing dairy, particularly cheese. God, I'm a I'm a cheese nut. And and some of the cheeses that we produce within within the UK are incredible. And we should rejoice, value, reward, and thank our farmers for the fantastic food that they produce and stop this demonization of animal source foods. Yes, we need to eat in moderation. Yes, we need to have sustainable diets. We've known that since day one, that sometimes we don't eat exactly what we should do as a part of a healthy diet. But that should be the narrative, not reduction, because reduction is different for different people and have different impacts.

Andrew Jones 1:01:44

I I've got to say I agree with your cheese comment because having lived in Australia for 10 years, that's definitely something that was lacking with some variety of good cheeses. Most countries do not have the variety of cheeses that we do. So I that was something I enjoyed when I first got back.

Michael Lee 1:01:59

And another another plug for Harper, then. Um, as part of our new Harper Food Innovation, we're bringing Shropshire Blue back to Shropshire.

Sarah Bolt 1:02:07

Oh, that's one of my favourite.

Michael Lee 1:02:09

Well, it's a bunch of pears.

Sarah Bolt 1:02:12

Put Shropshire Blue with pears, it's amazing.

Michael Lee 1:02:15

Oh, it's beautiful. Absolutely. But it it's currently, other than the Shropshire Blue we make here now at Harper Adams, it wasn't made being made in Shropshire County.

Sarah Bolt 1:02:23

I didn't realise that.

Michael Lee 1:02:25

So we're bringing Shropshire Blue back to Shropshire.

Sarah Bolt 1:02:28

Oh, that's awesome. We ought to we ought to give a plug for Cornish Blue while we're there because that's that's that is you know almost as good as do it. I know. Excuse me.

Michael Lee 1:02:39

Let's have a county off. Let's have a county off.

Sarah Bolt 1:02:41

I think we should just keep trying them all. I think you know, just keep tasting them all and trying them all and we'll we'll be fine.

Andrew Jones 1:02:47

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, Sarah, any any points from you?

Sarah Bolt 1:02:51

I just think it's been absolutely fabulous talking to you, Michael, that you've brought to life um that circular bioeconomy making us understand the difference between that I can't say that word, linear no, I can't say it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and actually, you know, sort of m helping us to understand how livestock is so important in human health. And many of you know that I've all also got that uh that passion that livestock is absolutely essential for our planetary health. And I think you've just bought it all together and it's just fantastic to listen to you. Thank you.

Key Takeaways, Cheese, And Closing

Andrew Jones 1:03:38

No, thank you. Uh as you say, you you've um I don't know what the best way to describe it is, but I know myself, I just get a bit fed up that um uh agriculture just seems to be that low-lying fruit that they keep attacking. That you know, we've got to sort you out, and maybe it just feels because we're in it, you don't notice the bigger picture sometimes, but you've given us more that bigger picture about how it is the circularity needs to come back in, and and the fact that despite what others keep trying to tell us, livestock are part of the answer for the environmental point of view, for the um for the nutrition point of view, and and and they have a role in there. I mean, as they say, you know, livestock, sometimes the Welsh Mountains, as an example, well, you're not exactly going to plow it up and put it into cereals, are you? You so what's the best way? Oh, we've got this machine, it's called a sheep, it converts grass into a usable product called meat. There's your answer. You know, the answers are there. People just need to start thinking about the the bigger picture, and as you say, and you know, emphasize it's respect. If people want to be vegan, great, be vegan. But on the flip side, don't uh or have the respect that people don't want to be vegan and want to use it because it actually it livestock are not the end, uh are not the devil in all of this. They are part of the answer for for, as you say, for phosphate production, for you know, using more inorganic fertilizers rather than organic fertilizers because they do have a finite um life, uh finite availability. Um, so yes, so no, it's been fantastic listening to you, Michael, uh, as we find with a lot of, I guess, very passionate about their subject, and that's lovely to see. And it's lovely to see, you know, that that that somebody uh in academia can express that in the way you can, that how important what we or we are not involved anymore directly, but you know, on farm what people are doing, it is important, and you're not you're not the devil incarnate. And I mean, I know myself as an example, I did a um uh phosphate balancing for somebody, and they're like, he said, before I started this, I thought I was the devil incarnate as a dairy farmer, that it was all wrong. And actually, he was only just over. So he said, with some very minor changes, that So it it it's getting people to understand that despite what the bigger pict uh bigger media maybe are telling us or bigger uh influencers are telling us, we're not the devil incarnate, that we are part of the answer, we're part of the solution to um the the problems that are out there. Uh and if you get rid of us, actually you're doing yourself more damage than what uh the what the what advantages we can bring. So so on that, um I'd like to say um thank you very much, and uh otherwise it's a goodbye from me.

Sarah Bolt 1:06:37

It's a goodbye from me too.

Andrew Jones 1:06:39

And it's a goodbye from them.

Sarah Bolt 1:06:41

Goodbye.

Andrew Jones 1:06:42

Thank you very much, Michael.

Michael Lee 1:06:45

Thank you. Thanks, Andrew, thanks.

Andrew Jones 1:06:52

Thank you for listening to the Chewinthe Cud Podcast. A podcast for the UK dairy industry brought to you from the southwest of England and listened to around the world. Now for the really boring bit, I'm afraid, the legal disclaimer. The information provided during this podcast has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute advice. The information must not be relied upon for any purpose and no representation or warranty is given to its accuracy, completeness, or otherwise. Any reference to other organizations, businesses or products during this podcast are not endorsements or recommendations of Chewinthe Cud Limited. The views of Andrew Jones are personal and may not be the views of ChewintheCud Ltd, and the views of Sarah Bolt are personal and may not be the views of Kingshay Farming and Conservation Limited and any affiliated companies. For more information on the podcast and details of services offered by ChewintheCud Limited, visit www.chewinthecud.com. Thank you and goodbye.