What if we were all vegan?

Opponents of vegetarianism often predict dire consequences for our countryside "if everyone went vegetarian" or, even more calamitously, "if everyone went vegan". Such prognostications ignore the obvious fact that the UK is not, alas, going to turn vegetarian, let alone vegan, overnight, and consequently that any changes to the landscape will be gradual, reflecting a decreasing dependence on food from animals. They also suppose that the existing landscape is sacrosanct, and that any widespread change in diet or lifestyle that threatens the status quo should be viewed with suspicion, if not totally opposed. This kind of argument is used by proponents of 'field' sports, who eagerly point out that this copse or that spinney would not exist were it not required to provide cover or safe breeding ground for animals to be hunted or birds to be shot.
The British landscape has been shaped by human hands ever since Bronze Age man began clearing the native deciduous woodland for timber and farming several thousand years ago. Change has accelerated over the past 50 years as the push for greater productivity led to the removal of many traditional but 'unproductive' landscape features such as ponds and hedgerows, and farmed animals were increasingly reared indoors in 'factory farms'. Thus, the 'demand' for cheap food (and meat in particular) has already had a dramatic (and, some would argue, catastrophic) effect on our landscape. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask what the consequences for the British countryside would be if the demand for meat and other animal products were to fall, perhaps to zero.
Such a question was asked on the BBC Radio 4 Farming Today programme broadcast on 27 December 2003. The assembled panel of experts predicted that there would be a "dramatic effect on upland and lowland grazing", that if grassland were to be ploughed in all at once "there would be massive nitrogen pollution", "large areas of arable land may be abandoned" and that there would be "detrimental effects to waders like lapwings and curlews". Luckily, Jenny Hall of the Vegan-Organic Trust was among the listeners. Her response to the panel is instructive:
If livestock were to be taken out of agriculture over a period of time then much more land would be available to grow food. A person consuming a plant-based diet uses about one eighth of the land as a meat eater does. Therefore the current situation, where 80% to 90% of the 46 million acres of UK agricultural land is used to feed animals, could be reversed and we could stop importing food for human and animal consumption. Most of the affiliated farms in the Vegan-Organic Trust run vegetable box schemes which are ultra efficient ways of feeding and educating people about sustainable food production and rural land issues; connecting urban populations to the countryside. VOT advocates a 'people-orientated' food sector where local producers can get fair pay. The efficient use of the countryside for grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, pulses and bio energy would mean that more bio-diverse wildlife habitats could be integrated into farming which would reduce the need for pesticides.
If all grassland were to be ploughed in there would indeed be massive nitrogen pollution. However, grassland and particularly nitrogen fixing leys using clover and lucerne are an integral part of 'stock-free organic' systems. Interestingly, many of our affiliated farms have populations of ground nesting birds. Crops can be brought to the grassland through rotation, or hay can be removed from the grassland to make plant-based compost or hay mulches. Researchers at the Co-operative Wholesale Society have found that this form of nitrogen transfer is more efficient than mixed farming and, of course, uses less land. Also, linking vegan farming to pollution overlooks the massive pollution and health costs of the livestock industry that are borne by the water consumer, NHS and tax payer.
So much for the cultivable areas of lowland Britain, but what about the upland areas that are generally unsuitable for arable farming. At present these areas, comprising some of the wildest and most beautiful parts of Britain, are mainly used for rearing hardy breeds of sheep and cattle. Commercial forestry is an obvious and widely used alternative, but in tackling this question Jenny Hall chose to quote Sir Martin Holdgate, former UK government chief scientist and Director of the World Conservation Union. Writing in the journal of the UK Wildlife Trusts, Sir Martin considered alternatives to sheep farming in the English Lake District following the foot and mouth disease epidemic:
During the foot and mouth epidemic there have been claims that the Lake District will become a 'wilderness', loss of sheep 'would make the Lake District a desert'. I sympathise with those who have suffered the consequences of FMD, but these claims are simply untrue.
Had we inherited Lakeland as it was before its settlement by pastoral and agricultural people some 5,500 years ago, it would be a land of unpolluted lakes, teeming with fish and rich in waterfowl. The lake margins and valley flats would be covered by extensive tracts of fen woodland. Alder woods would flank the wild rivers. Ospreys would breed in trees around the shores. Forests, dominated by oak, would mount the valley sides. … The retreat of heather moor can certainly be linked to overstocking. What we now have is a cultural landscape created by the interplay of terrain, wildlife, and human use over the centuries. Would it be a disaster if, following the sad loss of many flocks, farmers decided not to re-stock? The ecosystems, eaten out of existence by the sheep, would slowly begin to reclaim their ancient realm. Hawthorn, birch, hazel, rowan, holly, juniper, oak and ash would slowly extend their refuges in the gills and crags to take over more land. It is customary to attack such embryonic woodland as 'scrub', but it is nonetheless rich in birds and insects and is high forest in the making.
No one can predict with certainty what the landscape of a vegetarian or vegan Britain would look like. Perhaps we will never know. However, it seems certain that such a landscape would have more room for wildlife, not less, and that doom laden scenarios of cabbage monocultures bereft of animal life are plainly nonsensical.
Paul Appleby