Gwyn Jones Farm diary: Chickens, and war in the Middle East

War in the Middle East is likely to affect our lives in the UK, driving up costs and thwarting any small gains our government makes. It will have a significant impact on farm businesses as the price of fertilizer, fuel, electricity and possibly animal feed goes up. It will depend on how long the conflict lasts, as it will change global trade patterns as shipping is held up or re-routed, increasing fuel consumption considerably (experts say by up to 40%). Shipping insurance costs will also shoot up, but agricultural markets are sensibly reacting cautiously, but with risk premium priced in.

Farmer protests have continued, complaining that there was no mention of farming and food security in the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. They were out in Westminster again on their tractors whilst Rachel Reeves made her statement to the house. They really need to get a sense of perspective and realise how bad their continued protests look to the general public.

Chickens are in the news again as fast-food chains row back on their promise to use only slow-growing breeds. Nando’s, KFC, Wagamama and Burger King were amongst others who had committed to buying slower growing chicken through the Better Chicken Commitment. They now (and 14 other leading brands) say that their supplying farmers will be allowed to rear the fast-growing breeds which take roughly 35 days from hatching to reach maturity. The slower growing chicken takes a further two weeks or so to reach maturity.

More than 300 companies across Europe signed up to the Better Chicken Commitment, agreeing to only use the slower growing chicken by this year. The initiative seemed to be working, as in 2022 only 5% of the 1.1 billion chickens reared in the UK were slow growing varieties, but the number has more than doubled since then and much more was expected today given the commitments given. It all seems to be falling apart as the defectors are forming a rival Sustainable Chicken Forum, run by the UK Hospitality trade group.

The reason is a simple one. Should all farmers switch to the slower growing birds, they simply could not produce enough, as the birds need more space given that they are bigger and space allowance is more generous under the scheme. At any given time, there are around 120 million chickens being reared (6 weeks’ worth), and as the the slow growing birds need more time, a further two weeks’ supply would be needed. Apart from the cost of building new sheds, the delay and difficulties over planning are a big barrier, coupled with huge objections from campaigners against ‘factory farming’.

Then there is the extra cost of feed, which makes up 70% of the farmers costs, 770 grammes more feed per bird and 35% more water. Farmer margins have been under severe pressure of late, as feed prices fluctuate due to geopolitical events and extreme weather around the world. Bird flu has also hit the industry very hard, with millions of birds being culled.

British poultry farmers have agreed to decrease stocking density of conventional systems by 25% and all this has meant that over the last five years, chicken breast meat has increased from £4.75 per kilogram, to £7.95. Farmers and the food industry worry about the cost to the consumer, and whilst high end supermarkets sell only slow growing chicken and other supermarkets have it on sale, the smaller supermarkets and food services import a great deal of cheap chicken, particularly from Ukraine.

The final issue is the environment and here welfare groups clash with environmental groups, although they are very often the same people. The slow growing chicken needs more feed, more space and more time to grow, therefore its carbon footprint is almost double. This is significant when one takes the sheer number of chickens into account but has been met with fury by Chris Packam who claims that the climate argument is a cover for greed, calling the claim ugly and unforgivable.

The difficulty he and other campaigners have, is that they cannot have it both ways and the same is true for intensive beef production and housed all year dairy cows. On strictly environmental grounds they are the best, as they produce more for less. Interestingly, whilst environmentalists are happy to see farmers try and reduce methane from cows and sheep with diet additives and so on, the intensive truth really hurts. Personally, I would always put welfare before environment and I don’t like the idea of blaming cows and sheep grazing quietly in fields, whilst aircraft with subsidised fuel come into Gatwick.

The chicken story is one of the most commercial successful stories in agriculture and offers the consumer amazing value. British farmers have increased chicken production sixfold in the last 60 years or so. Back then, a chicken weighed 900grammes after 56 days, twenty years later it was 1.8kg, and thirty years after that it was five times bigger at 4.2kg. Chicken is by far the most popular meat globally, with 33 billion birds worldwide, up from 11 billion 35 years ago. It now accounts for almost as much meat as all other meats combined.

Producing such value comes at a cost and that is what the Better Chicken Commitment is trying to address. It is a good move, but in order for it to be successful it needs to be properly supported. It is not helpful to criticise farmers when they deliver what the consumer wants at a price they want to pay. Fundamental changes need to take place in planning law, in protecting farmers livelihoods, and importing cheaper products produced to very different standards will not do. We will fail in all attempts to improve welfare unless two things happen, everyone must act in a fair and respectful manner and have a grown-up conversation about cost.

Better welfare costs money, its no-good pretending otherwise and cheap food policy and supermarket pressure often prevent improvements. Hospitality simply cannot afford to pay more as things are today. The taxes and rates hikes have crippled so many pubs and restaurants and asking them to pay more will not work unless customers will pay more. It’s the same in the supermarkets and other outlets, the cost-of-living crisis means that now may not be the right time. Given that we produce only 60% of what we eat, with the geopolitical uncertainty, do we want to risk decreasing that at this moment in time?

Very difficult questions will need answering once things have settled down. Do we prioritise animal welfare over leisure? Will you spend your flight money on food, and a holiday in the UK? When you see the sheer number of ships and aircraft around the world whilst the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine rage, what is their combined carbon footprint? How many fewer ships and aircraft would we need if we fundamentally change our habits (or rights as they are seen these days). Finally, what about our wasted food? What an absolute scandal and an insult to our farmed animals that is.