How many animals went in to making your burger?

This is a repost from my article that was just published in the Guardian newspaper:

The conflict between farmers and predators has wiped out the UK's large carnivores. More must be done to improve coexistence

When you take a bite from your beef burger, have you ever stopped to think about the other animals besides the cow that were killed in the making of your dinner?  It is a little known fact that the meat industry tends to be at odds with wildlife conservation.  But how can this be?

The UK used to be home to vast plethora of wonderful beasts; the grey wolf, the brown bear, and the Eurasian lynx, to name but a few.  However, farmers thought that these carnivores killed livestock and so were wiped out many centuries ago.  Now, our largest land predators (besides humans, of course) are badgers and foxes – and yet the meat industry is still waging war against these two species.

In other areas of Europe, carnivores are met with a similar fate: the few dozen brown bears remaining in northern Italy are under threat from local farmers; wolverine and lynx are persecuted in the northern Swedish reindeer herding areas; seals are shot in Scottish waters to limit perceived destruction to fish.  Some of these species are legally allowed to be culled if they are a nuisance to agricultural activity, whereas others are illegally poached.

The challenge remains as to how we can reduce the necessity for farmers and fishermen to cull predators just for the sake of our dinner.  There have been a number of initiatives rolled out across Europe to try to improve coexistence with carnivores. These include compensation payments paid by governments to cover the cost of killed livestock, subsidies for protection measures such as electric fences, monetary rewards for increases in carnivore populations, and training from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in non-lethal predator control. 

Each of these schemes have been met with some successes and failures: compensation payments, for example, reduce the cost of coexisting with carnivores, but also can lead to farmers neglecting to take proactive measures to reduce the likelihood of livestock being killed by predators, as they know they will be reimbursed.  Rewards for increased carnivore populations can be a good idea in theory, but it is difficult to count wildlife.  Such a scheme in Sweden has increased the population of wolverines and lynx, but not wolves, possibly because reindeer herders do not feel that the money is enough to create coexistence with this particular species.

Until now, the private sector has remained elusive in this controversy.  In other areas of the world, market-based approaches have included paying a price premium on meat produced in “predator-friendly” farms, where farmers agree not to kill carnivores, instead taking active measures to ensure their livestock are protected.  The extra income could incentivise farmers to become more tolerant of carnivores and therefore reduce lethal control.  A similar idea arose recently with the badger cull debate, where consumers petitioned for “badger-friendly” milk.  However, these sorts of labelling schemes are very difficult to monitor, as it is hard to prove that a farmer has not killed a predator.  Conversely, dolphin-friendly tuna worked well because many boats were already dolphin-friendly by default before, and those that weren’t were then easily converted through changing fishing practices.

NGOs have tried to petition the agricultural industry to ensure that their husbandry methods include as many non-lethal predator controls as possible.  Guarding dogs, for example, have been proven to reduce livestock killings by predators.  Herders too can help, as can corralling livestock into small enclosures at night time.  However, these all have negative effects on the livestock industry.  Dogs, for example, can kill sheep, herders are not effective with livestock that do not flock together, and corralling livestock can reduce grazing time and therefore weights of livestock. 

A possible solution is to implement a worldwide initiative that will improve the sustainability of all aspects of the meat industry.  The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is a consortium of large beef producers, exporters and suppliers that aims to reduce the environmental impact of beef.  However, to date, there have been no measures to ensure that the beef industry does not kill carnivores when raising cattle.  

We therefore need to raise consumer awareness of the plight of carnivores on livestock and fish farms.  The conflict between farmers and predators is not just affecting our British wildlife, but is one of the driving factors into the global decline of endangered large carnivores such as lions and tigers.  If we want a future world where these magnificent beasts still roam the countryside producers must be made accountable for the actions they take, including the killing of threatened carnivore species.  Eco-labels may be one option, compensation and rewards may be another, but in reality we need to ensure that carnivores are not just worth a monetary value to farmers, but are inherently valued for their existence as well.  This takes education, tolerance and time to imbue, but it may be the only hope we have for safeguarding the future of these species.