Opportunities and risks facing the English red meat sector

Here we look at key opportunities and risks for pork, lamb and beef now and in the future.

Risk: If the decline in the production base is not arrested, the economic contribution of the red meat industry to England and Britain will fall.

Currently, the adverse consequences of a shrinking supply of animals are being highlighted most by processors. For producers, the shortage of supply has resulted in high sheep and cattle prices in recent years (pig prices so far in 2025 have been below their 2024 highs).

To avert further decline of the production base, the following should be promoted and supported:

• Maximising productivity
• Scaling up
• Developing new production models
• Importing livestock
• Improving knowledge transfer

Opportunity: Demand for red meat domestically has been resilient over the last year or so. Globally, demand for red meat is growing. We identify six demand drivers to consider.

The proportion of vegetarians in the population remains low (less than 10%), and demand for plant-based meat alternatives is dropping. Still, domestic long-term per capita consumption of red meat has fallen considerably, with poultry meat being the main beneficiary.

Globally, demand for red meat is growing. While the importance of the EU market is well appreciated, other overseas markets are also important for extracting value from parts of cattle, sheep and pigs that domestic consumers do not want; this demand across the balance of the carcase is critical to profit margins.

So, there is good reason to renew efforts to identify and deliver what consumers both in Britain and overseas want.

Our analysis has found:

• Cost and convenience remain key demand drivers, with strengths and weaknesses in these areas across beef, lamb and pork
• Domestic consumers are tending to trade off quantity for quality. It is increasingly important to consistently deliver meat of high eating quality based on taste, succulence and tenderness
• Health concerns are affecting demand for meat. Red meat – and especially processed red meats like bacon, burgers and kebabs – are particularly vulnerable. On the plus side, unprocessed red meat scores highly among consumers for the micro-nutrients it provides (e.g. iron, vitamin B12, zinc)
• How meat is produced – its provenance – also impacts consumer demand, though it is not clear how much of this is driven from government regulation. Meat produced organically scores highly for provenance, while non-organic producers of livestock receive no tangible link between how the animal is produced and its market (farmgate) price, bar a small premium for being farm assured
• Producing more environmentally friendly meat seems to be driven more by government emissions targets rather than the consumer. Monetising other environmental benefits (e.g. more biodiversity) of “regeneratively raised” meat also remain very niche in terms of overall demand for red meat
• Sales of 'fifth quarter' (offal, hides, sinews, etc.) are incredibly important for carcase valorisation. A significant share of these products is exported, so awareness of the global marketplace, particularly beyond Europe, is important

Brexit presents both a risk and an opportunity: the cost of exporting to the EU has gone up in spite of recent agreements. And Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) since Brexit are having a range of impacts.

Prior to leaving the EU, the British red meat industry had tariff-free and frictionless access to the rest of the EU. Though the only major export was sheep meat, EU membership was also important in balancing carcase sales across all red meat.

Fortunately, the UK–EU FTA ensured that trade in meat products remains tariff free. However, it is no longer frictionless: non-tariff barriers add costs and time delays that reduce shelf life.

The new post-Brexit trading arrangement between GB and Northern Ireland is a particular concern in terms of added cost and biosecurity checks. Despite the simplifying of arrangements agreed under the 2023 Windsor Framework, the pig industry estimates an extra 6% has been added to the cost of each tonne of pork sent to Northern Ireland.

British beef and sheep farmers are more open to competition from imports as a result of the 2023 FTAs with Australia and New Zealand. The threat from Australia is greater, given very little beef and sheep meat could be imported tariff free when the UK was in the EU. And the progressive reduction in New Zealand beef tariffs is significant.

Though both New Zealand and Australia are net importers of pig meat, the export opportunities for the British pig industry are considered minimal.

The consequences of potential new tariffs by the US government are difficult to predict at this stage. But there are already signs that New Zealand and Australia are taking advantage of their new trade deals with the UK (and in New Zealand’s case, the EU) to reduce their exposure to the Chinese market. While there are concerns about the equivalence of production standards in the Australian and New Zealand FTAs, the bigger fear is a potential trade deal with the USA.

Some opportunities have emerged post-Brexit. The UK joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in 2024, which potentially offers opportunities to grow exports in Asia. It is unclear how trade negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council currently stand. But an FTA with Middle Eastern countries is seen as a positive development.

A large proportion of inputs into the English red meat industry are imported. Consequently, the industry is exposed to price (exchange rate) and availability risk, which could be exacerbated if there is an international trade war.

Based on Farm Business Survey costings, concentrated feeds (animal feed in AHDB statistics) and fertiliser are the two biggest imported inputs, with medicines and vaccines also sensitive to supply from overseas.

Vaccine availability has also become a problem in recent years despite long-term dependence on imported product. It seems that leaving the EU has increased the bureaucracy in approving new vaccines.

Risk: The industry is exposed to health threats via a range of routes, some of which are more difficult than others to combat.

Weak or poorly applied border control processes can expose the red meat industry to avoidable risks. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and African swine fever (ASF) are two of the most significant risks facing the red meat sector.

The situation has been exacerbated by a surge in illegal meat imports of bushmeat in 2024. The research found that some in the industry were questioning whether more rigorous import controls were required.

Temperature increases driven by climate change are expected to amplify the incidence of midge-borne diseases. It is becoming more challenging to prevent health threats posed by midges and migratory birds.

Midges are responsible for spreading bluetongue and Schmallenberg viruses to areas of England nearest to the continent. The movement of livestock from these parts can further transfer the viruses to other parts of Britain, which may result in the imposition of strict movement controls.

The biggest challenges to the health of cattle, sheep and pigs come from a range of diseases that are controllable with good practice. The effectiveness of national campaigns to better control diseases – like TB, Johne's and BVD in cattle, scab and Jaagsiekte in sheep, and swine dysentery – are in question.

Part of the challenge is getting widespread uptake of best practice by farmers. One example is the overuse of anthelmintic wormers, which leads to growing resistance problems and therefore productivity and animal health issues.

English livestock farmers can apply for animal health and welfare grants to promote better health management, for example those available under the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway.

Net zero targets are particularly challenging given the way that they are set and monitored.

The devolved governments have slightly different targets, timelines and approaches to the overarching UK-level ones.

Moreover, no account is taken of comparative advantage or carbon leakage.

The UK is a net importer of beef, and England is a net importer from Scotland. Domestic red meat production has a comparatively low emissions intensity, and this means reducing domestic production in favour of other countries’ production (either via imports to the UK and/or displacing UK exports) could increase global emissions, with intra-UK trade replicating this at a domestic scale.

Emissions from agriculture and LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry) are reported separately, giving an incomplete view. Separation of the two means that opportunities for on-farm sequestration do not register against agriculture.

Equally, emissions and emission savings (e.g. on-farm carbon sequestration, use of renewables) may be reported elsewhere (e.g. under electricity or waste), distorting agriculture’s profile.

Calls to reduce red meat consumption face resistance due to nutritional concerns, conflicting social goals and lack of enforceable policies. It is not clear whether policy measures beyond guidance (e.g. the NHS Eatwell Guide) will ever be contemplated. Without import controls or carbon border adjustments, reducing domestic production could simply shift emissions (and economic value) overseas.

Stakeholders also note that political support for net zero appears to be fracturing domestically and internationally, with some large corporations already backtracking on climate commitments.