PASTURE
FOR
LIFE
e: info@pfla.org.uk
@PastureForLife
www.pastureforlife.org
UN Committee on World Food Security
Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition
31st October 2015
HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Sustainable agricultural development for
food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock
The Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) would like to thank the UN Committee on World Food
Security for the opportunity to comment on this draft report.
The PFLA is a UK-based organisation that promotes ruminant livestock production based entirely
upon grazed pasture and conserved forage. The PFLA offers a Certification scheme for farmers and
retailers wishing to distinguish produce derived from pasture-based livestock production systems.
A significant consideration that underpins our work is that of sustainable land use and food
production and to that end we recognise the detrimental impact that the cultivation of arable crops
for livestock can have. The inefficient conversion between feed in and produce out represents an
equally inefficient use of land suitable for arable crops. Furthermore, animal feed crops tend to take
the form of large-scale monocultures, which in developing countries represent an important land
use change that can disrupt indigenous patterns of farming and natural ecosystems, including
rainforest.
We base our work on solid scientific evidence wherever that is available, but it is clear that there are
significant gaps in terms of the nutritional benefits of produce derived from livestock raised on
pasture-based systems, the environmental impacts and also the relationship between animal
welfare and the method of production. We are in the process of compiling an economic study of
production costs from a range of certified farms, using the UK’s AHDB “Stocktake” facility to
benchmark these results and to compare them with mainstream production. Unfortunately this
work is not sufficiently advanced to contribute the results to this report, but even at this early stage,
the differences are striking, particularly in terms of the resilience of the economic model.
There are two areas of the report where we would welcome further analysis if the opportunity arises
between the draft stage and publication; these are to do with land use change and the issue of
water use.
Pasture-Fed Livestock Association C.I.C.
Registered address: The Grange, Little Bytham, Grantham Lincolnshire NG33 4QS
PASTURE
FOR
LIFE
e: info@pfla.org.uk
@PastureForLife
www.pastureforlife.org
Land Use Change
The impact of Land use change is mentioned just once in the report (P.8, line 48) and that is within
the context of greenhouse gas emissions. However, we believe the true impact of land use change is
in fact significantly more far reaching and should be given a higher profile within the report:
The loss or change of habitat can have a dramatic impact on biodiversity that can, in turn, impact
pollination, pest and disease vectors, soil conservation and water retention amongst many other
factors.
Land use change also often displaces indigenous forms of farming and food production and marks a
shift from a subsistence model of food supply to one based upon economic trade. This has an impact
upon the resilience of food production, particularly when considered in the context of climatic
change, where more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns are confidently predicted.
The task of quantifying or assigning a monetary value to land use change is almost impossible, but
we feel that both its environmental and social impacts must be properly reflected within the report.
Impacts upon water supplies
Section 3.3.3 of the report addresses the important issue of water. Although the report describes
the problems potentially caused by pollution, the PFLA would suggest that it is useful to make a
more implicit distinction where the water footprint is broken out into three parts:
 The green water footprint (consumption of rain water);
 The blue water footprint (consumption of surface and groundwater); and
 The grey water footprint (pollution of surface and groundwater
The consumption of water associated with Livestock production is commonly expressed in volumes
per weight of produce (e.g. litres per Kg meat). However, there is a significant difference in impact,
depending upon the category of water that is affected: In terms of competition for resources, human
consumption is often associated with blue water, but extensive livestock production is
predominantly associated with green water. Furthermore, in terms of pollution, intensive
production often produces grey water which, if it isn’t properly treated at source, can cause
significant environmental problems and can contaminate both green and blue water reserves (as
suggested within this section of the report). Extensive livestock utilises green water, and because
urine is returned directly to grazing pastures at relatively low rates (compared with applications of
manure from intensive units), any toxins or pollutants are rapidly broken down by microflora. As
such, the majority of water consumption in extensive, pasture-based livestock systems in fact
constitutes a closed loop, with minimal environmental impact. It should also be noted that urine is
an important source of plant nutrition and therefore the impact of livestock cycling water in this way
should not be measured entirely in negative terms.
John Turner, PFLA Certification, October 2015
Pasture-Fed Livestock Association C.I.C.
Registered address: The Grange, Little Bytham, Grantham Lincolnshire NG33 4QS