Another great post Helen, thank you. I really enjoy reading your posts (even as someone who is pretty much vegan)I have a question that has been niggling me (especially as a language nerd)... calling animals 'live stock' effectively says that we are still viewing animals as 'stock', or commoditites that we own and use (exploit?) for our benefit, rather than sentient beings who we can partner with to help restore the soil. I think a shift in mindset, and language, is crucial to helping people shift to regenerative practices, and understand that caring for animals is also caring for the land, and for us. And that's hard to do when you (a general you, not you specifically) still see the animals as stock. I'd love to know your view on it.
Thank you so much, Amy — I really appreciate your reflections, and it’s such an important point. I completely agree that language shapes how we relate to the world around us, especially animals. I’ve always had a deep connection with my pigs, even though they were reared for meat, they were never “just stock” to me. They responded to voices, they played, they had personalities. I’ve seen firsthand how much animals thrive with genuine care and interaction, and how damaging it can be when they’re treated as mere units of production.
I do still use the term livestock at times because it’s the recognised industry language, and sometimes just for the sake of avoiding repetition but I hear your point, and I’m going to be more mindful of it. I love your suggestion that we frame animals as partners in regeneration. It feels much truer to the kind of farming I believe in and want to advocate for. Thank you for challenging this with kindness, I’m really grateful to have voices like yours in the conversation. 💚
Ah thanks Helen for your thoughtful response 💛 The recognised industry language is tricky, our brains love a shortcut, and making things easy to understand is vital, so we have to find the balance between finding alternatives that speak to the truth we recognise (for example that animals are not just stock) AND are instantly recognisable to people – because if we have to educate people with completely new language, that makes it much harder to bring about the change. It's no small task!(I've been pondering on the term 'stakeholder' for weeks now and that is a tough one to crack!)
Looking forward to more of your posts, it's wonderful to see regenerative framing gaining momentum and your voice is very much needed to help accelerate it.
It not the animals its the soil. And more often than not, animals will help restore and retain the soil…. Oh my, I wish I could let all the expletives out.
First, reducing food systems to a binary of “evil animal ag” vs. “saintly plant-based rewilding” is laughably simplistic. Plants don’t grow by magic, especially not without fertiliser, often derived from either synthetic chemicals or… animal manure. Oops.
Second, the idea that grazing systems contribute nothing to biodiversity or carbon sequestration except what’s “put in the ground” shows a total misunderstanding of regenerative practices, rotational grazing, and carbon cycles. Guess what - it’s not the pigs fault you skipped soil science.
Third, invoking the suffering of “blacks, Hispanics, immigrants and prisoners” while blaming… pigs, is not activism, it’s virtue-signalling wrapped in racial guilt spaghetti. Food sovereignty and land access for the Global South don’t magically improve because white vegans tweet about rewilding.
And let’s be real: rewilding everything means less food, more imports, and even more neo-colonial extraction from the South exactly what you claim to oppose. Rich, no?
So yes, eat your kale, but don’t pretend it’s revolution.
Meanwhile, some of us will keep feeding communities, improving soils, and living with the land, not just lecturing about it from the moral high horse of Substack.
Oh dear. Looking into the science is exactly what I've been doing. Biodiversity etc improves over industrial and monocrops, d'ah, but not compared to a plant based system.
Rewilding means more food as animal ag is so greedy or land, water and energy. You can't even grasp this basic concept.
I can't bear this unscientifc unevidence hippy attitude that you're saving the world by exploiting animals.
Ethics are subjective. But let’s not ignore the obvious: animals taste good. Food is cultural, emotional, and deeply human. Millions of people around the world have raised, respected, and eaten animals as part of resilient food systems for millennia.
That doesn’t make them unscientific, it makes us connected to their land and heritage.
Calling it all “hippy nonsense” is easy. Understanding the complex science of agroecology, basic nutrition, and culture takes more work.
You’re entitled to your beliefs, but not to rewrite science, history, and culture to suit them. I’ll enjoy my steak while you Google ‘how plants feel pain.
You’re not my doctor, nutritionist, or farmer - and definitely not invited to dinner. Move along.
I appreciate the challenge; it keeps the conversation lively. You suggest my argument doesn’t hold up to evidence, yet your post dances more with passion than data—let’s sprinkle some facts into the mix, shall we?
I’ve long held that integrated livestock farming, can enhance soil health and biodiversity. Research from the Soil Association (2023) shows rotational grazing boosts soil organic matter by 20-30% over a decade, outpacing monocrop fields. The Pasture-Fed Livestock Association adds that well-managed grazing systems can increase biodiversity by 50% through native plant regrowth. As for carbon, a 2022 study in Nature Sustainability found that holistic livestock management sequesters more carbon than it emits, up to 2 tons per hectare annually, thanks to deep-rooted grasses and dung.
Your plant-based economy vision is intriguing, but the evidence isn’t all rosy. The UN FAO (2021) notes that while rewilding with trees can sequester 1-2 tons CO2/ha/year, it often requires displacing food production, risking shortages—hardly sustainable for 8 billion mouths. Livestock, when integrated smartly, complements this, not competes. The myth of farmsteads might be entrenched, but the data suggests they’re part of the solution, not the villain.
I’m no elite hoarding bunkers—just a farmer trying to harmonise with nature, not conquer it.
The papers on sequestration by holistic management are deeply flawed. They are not carbon neutral let alone carbon negative https://jowaller.substack.com/p/yet-another-unsuccessful-attempt?utm_source=publication-search but you’ve got the weight of the enormous animal ag industry funding research and the media behind you, I can see that you are not going to be open to consider you might have been misled.
I am talking about replacing animal ag land with trees because animal ag takes up so much more land than plant based. This land is then free. So all this land with trees isn’t causing food shortages- that’s absurd. You fail to grasp the basic concept.
Intergrated ‘livestock’ farming can enhance soil health compared to industrial or monocrops yes of course it can. But mixed plant crops also produces this benefit without animals.
Another great post Helen, thank you. I really enjoy reading your posts (even as someone who is pretty much vegan)I have a question that has been niggling me (especially as a language nerd)... calling animals 'live stock' effectively says that we are still viewing animals as 'stock', or commoditites that we own and use (exploit?) for our benefit, rather than sentient beings who we can partner with to help restore the soil. I think a shift in mindset, and language, is crucial to helping people shift to regenerative practices, and understand that caring for animals is also caring for the land, and for us. And that's hard to do when you (a general you, not you specifically) still see the animals as stock. I'd love to know your view on it.
Thank you so much, Amy — I really appreciate your reflections, and it’s such an important point. I completely agree that language shapes how we relate to the world around us, especially animals. I’ve always had a deep connection with my pigs, even though they were reared for meat, they were never “just stock” to me. They responded to voices, they played, they had personalities. I’ve seen firsthand how much animals thrive with genuine care and interaction, and how damaging it can be when they’re treated as mere units of production.
I do still use the term livestock at times because it’s the recognised industry language, and sometimes just for the sake of avoiding repetition but I hear your point, and I’m going to be more mindful of it. I love your suggestion that we frame animals as partners in regeneration. It feels much truer to the kind of farming I believe in and want to advocate for. Thank you for challenging this with kindness, I’m really grateful to have voices like yours in the conversation. 💚
Ah thanks Helen for your thoughtful response 💛 The recognised industry language is tricky, our brains love a shortcut, and making things easy to understand is vital, so we have to find the balance between finding alternatives that speak to the truth we recognise (for example that animals are not just stock) AND are instantly recognisable to people – because if we have to educate people with completely new language, that makes it much harder to bring about the change. It's no small task!(I've been pondering on the term 'stakeholder' for weeks now and that is a tough one to crack!)
Looking forward to more of your posts, it's wonderful to see regenerative framing gaining momentum and your voice is very much needed to help accelerate it.
It not the animals its the soil. And more often than not, animals will help restore and retain the soil…. Oh my, I wish I could let all the expletives out.
Keep at it Helen, your posts are great.
Thanks so much for your encouragement!
The soil health is the key to everything!
None of this holds up to the evidence. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-green-washing-of-white-priviledge
Let’s unpack your nonsense:
First, reducing food systems to a binary of “evil animal ag” vs. “saintly plant-based rewilding” is laughably simplistic. Plants don’t grow by magic, especially not without fertiliser, often derived from either synthetic chemicals or… animal manure. Oops.
Second, the idea that grazing systems contribute nothing to biodiversity or carbon sequestration except what’s “put in the ground” shows a total misunderstanding of regenerative practices, rotational grazing, and carbon cycles. Guess what - it’s not the pigs fault you skipped soil science.
Third, invoking the suffering of “blacks, Hispanics, immigrants and prisoners” while blaming… pigs, is not activism, it’s virtue-signalling wrapped in racial guilt spaghetti. Food sovereignty and land access for the Global South don’t magically improve because white vegans tweet about rewilding.
And let’s be real: rewilding everything means less food, more imports, and even more neo-colonial extraction from the South exactly what you claim to oppose. Rich, no?
So yes, eat your kale, but don’t pretend it’s revolution.
Meanwhile, some of us will keep feeding communities, improving soils, and living with the land, not just lecturing about it from the moral high horse of Substack.
Oh dear. Looking into the science is exactly what I've been doing. Biodiversity etc improves over industrial and monocrops, d'ah, but not compared to a plant based system.
Rewilding means more food as animal ag is so greedy or land, water and energy. You can't even grasp this basic concept.
I can't bear this unscientifc unevidence hippy attitude that you're saving the world by exploiting animals.
Ethics are subjective. But let’s not ignore the obvious: animals taste good. Food is cultural, emotional, and deeply human. Millions of people around the world have raised, respected, and eaten animals as part of resilient food systems for millennia.
That doesn’t make them unscientific, it makes us connected to their land and heritage.
Calling it all “hippy nonsense” is easy. Understanding the complex science of agroecology, basic nutrition, and culture takes more work.
You’re entitled to your beliefs, but not to rewrite science, history, and culture to suit them. I’ll enjoy my steak while you Google ‘how plants feel pain.
You’re not my doctor, nutritionist, or farmer - and definitely not invited to dinner. Move along.
I appreciate the challenge; it keeps the conversation lively. You suggest my argument doesn’t hold up to evidence, yet your post dances more with passion than data—let’s sprinkle some facts into the mix, shall we?
I’ve long held that integrated livestock farming, can enhance soil health and biodiversity. Research from the Soil Association (2023) shows rotational grazing boosts soil organic matter by 20-30% over a decade, outpacing monocrop fields. The Pasture-Fed Livestock Association adds that well-managed grazing systems can increase biodiversity by 50% through native plant regrowth. As for carbon, a 2022 study in Nature Sustainability found that holistic livestock management sequesters more carbon than it emits, up to 2 tons per hectare annually, thanks to deep-rooted grasses and dung.
Your plant-based economy vision is intriguing, but the evidence isn’t all rosy. The UN FAO (2021) notes that while rewilding with trees can sequester 1-2 tons CO2/ha/year, it often requires displacing food production, risking shortages—hardly sustainable for 8 billion mouths. Livestock, when integrated smartly, complements this, not competes. The myth of farmsteads might be entrenched, but the data suggests they’re part of the solution, not the villain.
I’m no elite hoarding bunkers—just a farmer trying to harmonise with nature, not conquer it.
The papers on sequestration by holistic management are deeply flawed. They are not carbon neutral let alone carbon negative https://jowaller.substack.com/p/yet-another-unsuccessful-attempt?utm_source=publication-search but you’ve got the weight of the enormous animal ag industry funding research and the media behind you, I can see that you are not going to be open to consider you might have been misled.
I am talking about replacing animal ag land with trees because animal ag takes up so much more land than plant based. This land is then free. So all this land with trees isn’t causing food shortages- that’s absurd. You fail to grasp the basic concept.
They increase biodiversity compared to industrial and moncrops but not compared to mixed plant crops.
Intergrated ‘livestock’ farming can enhance soil health compared to industrial or monocrops yes of course it can. But mixed plant crops also produces this benefit without animals.
Great article.
Let’s hope the ripple becomes a wave. We need the rewilding concept to be embraced.
The inclusion of animals in wild nature is where, I’m sure, they are really happy.