We hear a lot on the news about the impacts of different industries on the environment. But increasingly, all animal farming is lumped together as if it was one monolithic system – the truth, as farm vet Dr Cassandra Longhi reveals, is much more nuanced.
What are extensive and intensive farming systems, and what’s the difference?
Very broadly, in farming “extensive” and “intensive” terms relate to the amount of input (capital, fertilisers and other chemicals, use of machinery, stocking density) over land area. Larger inputs over a relatively small area would fall under intensive farming, whereas extensive tends to be lower input over larger areas.
To compare intensive and extensive farming methods and their own merits or faults used to be a job for farmers, agronomists, economists and other professions with some degree of experience in farming. Innovations in farming usually take a long time to become established – old ways are always remembered and used to compare.
Is there always a clear-cut division?
No, like many things in this world farming cannot be easily categorised in black and white intensive vs extensive; many shades of grey, or rather many degrees of farming in between intensive and extensive exist. Some farms may be intensive on one aspect, and more extensive on another. For example, on the average British dairy farm the intensive part only applies to the arable crops and the milking herd, but the youngstock and grassland are managed in a more extensive manner. If the milking herd is on a grass-based system, the inputs are lowered again, and the whole farm becomes a bit more extensive. A British beef and sheep farm is a relatively extensive business compared to the above dairy herd, although it couldn’t usually be compared to the South American/Australian etc stations that are managed over very large areas.
Some types of livestock are more (or less) suited to be “intensified” – usually due to their size and nutritional requirements. Chicken and pig farms are much more intensive than cattle, as production systems have evolved to maximise stocking densities over smaller areas. An exception to that would be the feedlot system, in which large numbers of beef cattle are kept housed and fed a grain-based diet, or the mega-dairies that have started to appear in some countries. Sheep farms can be anything in between; in Australia and New Zealand, sheep farming is very extensive, even more so than in the UK.
Do we need both kinds?
For as long as the human population continues to grow (and the Earth surface does not), then the answer is yes. Especially if we want to maintain areas of biodiversity, intact ecological habitats, wildlife and the world’s people more or less fed, we may have to accept that intensive food production over smaller areas is preferable in certain parts of the world where the conditions (soil, climate, terrain and availability of resources) are more suitable.
Even if we moved completely away from livestock farming and purely focused on plant crops, there would be large areas that likely would have to be abandoned as not suitable to growing the plants we need most – effectively reducing the amount of land available for food production. Grazing livestock do an amazing job at making the most of underrated and poor land by eating vegetable matter that we could never use and turning it into high quality protein.
Regenerative agriculture
Organic and biodynamic agriculture have been known for many years; in more recent times, a newer trend that has been named regenerative agriculture started to gain traction. Regenerative means to learn from past ways of farming – both the old rotations of our great grandfathers and the more modern, intensive methods, bringing in the best of both, leaving out the worst (such as really high inputs and monoculture, or poor grazing practices). The final aim is reinvigorating the soil – the basis of farming, and ultimately, the food that we all eat – and returning it to a healthy status that doesn’t rely so heavily on artificial additions.
It is not the same as rewilding, although to achieve truly regenerated soil some degrees of rewilding and increased biodiversity are necessary. This however does not need to compete harshly with livestock and crop farming, but rather each farm should try and find ways to incorporate aspects of livestock, crops, wilder areas in rotation like our ancestors used to do. The farm productivity, though, would never be as high as the vast monoculture fields, which allow for cheap crops and meat.
For a few generations now we have become far too used to mass-produced, really cheap food (which is often not very healthy). We appear to have idolised quantity over quality, to the detriment of soil, farms and their health. Most farms at some point or other have had to consider whether they were able to expand to maintain their competitiveness, close their doors or think of alternative ways to generate income. Many farmers try their hardest by holding down two (or more) jobs, because the farm alone is not sufficient to provide a family’s income anymore.
Is regenerative farming the solution to the riddle?
It probably won’t fit all places and cultures; this appears to be a movement that could be the answer to many current issues in temperate regions like Europe. It would be interesting to see whether it may also work in other climates. We have known for a long time now that very intensive monoculture/livestock production systems are not sustainable. This is even more true in the last months with the ever-worsening price hikes (fuel, fertilisers, animal feed). On the other hand, the extreme opposite of very extensive farming may not be able to produce all the food we need. Perhaps a thoughtful, more focused return to old, slightly more extensive and diverse ways mixed with modern culture and ideas would be a good path to try and restore the health of our soil, farms and ultimately, ourselves who will eat the produce.
DISCLAIMER: the opinions in this article are solely the author’s own.
Discussion