Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Thank you.

I return to the fact that the system in Scotland is predominantly grass based. Both of you have said that things can be intensified, but with hill farms, livestock numbers are pretty much set by the hill in question. Given that, I want to ask a couple of questions. First, is the introduction of methane-reducing feed part of your calculations on emissions? Secondly, how does the UK livestock production system compare with other countries that are involved in, say, beef and sheep production?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. Let us look at a hill setting. Am I not right in thinking that there is new science on the types of greenhouse gases that are being emitted? I also want to come back to Chris Stark about methane reduction levels, because there is now science around reducing methane through feed, but we can do that in a second or two.

Right now, the science says that the best way to renew grassland is to graze it and then to take the livestock off it. Hill farmers generally have a stocking rate that is based on the viability of their hill. I have absolutely no problem with planting trees to make a hill more viable, but, when it comes to reducing the numbers of livestock and planting trees, has any calculation been done on how much carbon is released by breaking up the hill soil in the first place when planting trees? How do you intensify a hill farm and still make it profitable?

I will ask you a wee question about that. What is the lifestyle—lifestyle? The lifestyle of trees is that they stand up tall. What is the lifespan of the tree that you have planted, after you have broken up the soil and there has been an initial release of carbon? How many years does that tree have to stand in order to sequester the amount of carbon that it released by being planted in the first place?

Okay. I will just come in on that point. Right now, the farming community is trying to reduce its methane emissions. We know that methane gas is in the air temporarily but that it is more polluting; we understand that. That seems to be a crucial focal point in reducing the emissions that cattle will produce in intensive systems. If you factor that in—sorry, I have completely lost the point that I was going to make.

Did you answer the question about the intensity of UK emissions as compared with other parts of the world?

Chris, I know that this has been a fairly testing evidence session for you, but one thing that we absolutely agree on is the fact that we should be eating less meat and better quality meat. Given that we are such a great producer of low-carbon meat, Scotch beef and lamb would seem to be the perfect fit for consumption in this country. However, how will we get consumer demand for meat down? If we do not reduce the demand for meat in the first place and we are working to the standards that we are, with the price implications of that, the only other way that that demand will be met is through imports.

Therefore, I take on board the points that you make about the Mexico, Australia and New Zealand deals, which will all be bad for our emissions. How much meat are we eating currently, and how much do we need to reduce it by in order to reach the target that you tell us that we need to reach?

We are at it now.