Changing the Rules on Animal Feed

Progress or Peril?

This week, an email from The Guardian landed in my inbox, sparking a lively debate among the team at Farms Not Factories. The topic? The UK government is considering relaxing rules on animal feed that have been in place since the devastating BSE (mad cow disease) crisis of the 1990s. (Read the full article here.)

To put it simply: pigs could be fed to chickens, chickens to pigs, and insects to both. The government argues this could reduce reliance on imported feed like soy and fishmeal while cutting food waste. On the surface, it sounds like progress. But for me, this raises far more questions than answers.

As a small-scale farmer passionate about sustainable, high-welfare agriculture, I can’t help but feel uneasy. Are these proposed changes really about sustainability—or are they just paving the way for more intensive factory farming under a new label?

A Quick Look Back: Why These Rules Exist

The rules the government is proposing to relax were put in place to prevent diseases like BSE and foot and mouth. These crises were devastating—not just for farming but for public trust in food production. They led to strict bans on feeding animals to other animals and the use of food waste in livestock feed.

Historically, farmers kept “slop buckets,” filled with kitchen scraps and food waste, to feed their pigs and poultry. It was a simple, practical way to reduce waste and provide cheap nutrition for animals. But when these diseases emerged, the risks of cross-contamination became too great. The result? A blanket ban that meant no food waste from domestic or commercial kitchens could be fed to livestock.

Fast forward to today, and while the rules still exist, farmers like me have found ways to work within them. For instance, we partnered with Abel & Cole to collect waste fruit and vegetables that aren’t fit for human consumption. This partnership saved perfectly good food from landfill while supplementing our pigs’ diet.

It’s a win-win. Abel & Cole reduces its waste while ticking its B-Corp credentials, and my pigs enjoy a natural, soy-free addition to their feed. But the rules mean we can only accept whole, unprocessed produce. At Halloween, for example, we can collect whole pumpkins for our pigs, but not carved ones—because they’ve technically been “processed” in a domestic kitchen. It’s a frustrating and unnecessary limitation, especially when so much could be done to safely reuse food waste.

Feeding Animals to Animals: A Step Too Far?

The proposal to reintroduce safe animal byproducts—such as allowing pigs to be fed to chickens and chickens to pigs—isn’t necessarily a step backward. In fact, it could be seen as a practical way to reduce waste while respecting the natural omnivorous diets of these animals. Historically, animal byproducts were a common part of livestock feed, and when done safely, they could reduce reliance on imported soy and fishmeal.

However, the real challenge lies not in the practice itself but in how the general public perceives it. The rise of veganism and plant-based diets is driven in part by concerns about animal welfare, and the idea of animals eating other animals might feel like a step too far for some. There’s a risk that this could alienate consumers who are already wary of how meat is produced. For them, this could be the final push toward cutting meat out of their diets entirely.

As a farmer, I understand the importance of reducing waste and making efficient use of resources. But I also recognise that farming exists in a relationship with its consumers. Public trust is fragile, and while reintroducing safe animal byproducts might be logical from an agricultural perspective, it requires clear communication and transparency to address the inevitable concerns.

Insects in Animal Feed: Natural or Nefarious?

The part of the proposal that concerns me most is the idea of feeding insects to pigs and chickens. Proponents argue that insects are a sustainable source of protein. And yes, pigs and poultry naturally eat insects when they’re foraging outdoors. On my farm, my pigs root through the soil, eating bugs and microorganisms as part of their natural diet.

But farming insects at scale for livestock feed is a very different story. My fear is that this isn’t about mimicking nature—it’s about justifying intensive indoor systems. Factory farms could easily use insect-based feeds as a way to claim they’re “sustainable” while continuing practices that harm animal welfare and the environment.

There’s also the issue of genetically modified insects. Insects farmed for feed are often raised on GM substrates to make them grow faster. Are we comfortable with this being introduced into the food chain without rigorous oversight? I’m not.

Local Feed as a Better Alternative

Instead of looking to insects or interspecies feeding, why aren’t we focusing on local, sustainable feed systems? On my farm, we feed a homemade ration of wheat, barley, and micronized beans—all sourced from the farm where we rent grazing. Our pigs follow the arable rotation, clearing crop byproducts and fertilising the soil with their manure. It’s a closed-loop system that benefits both the land and the animals.

Reducing reliance on imported soy and fishmeal is crucial, but there are better ways to do it than introducing practices that could compromise animal welfare and food safety.

The Bigger Picture

This debate isn’t just about animal feed—it’s about the kind of farming system we want to support. These proposals might reduce costs and waste on paper, but they risk propping up the very systems we should be moving away from. High-welfare, regenerative farming can’t thrive if policies are designed to benefit factory farming.

What Do You Think?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Are these proposed changes a step toward sustainability—or a slippery slope to industrial farming? Do you see potential in feeding insects to livestock, or does it raise more concerns than it solves?

Let’s start a conversation. Farming and food production affect us all, and your voice matters in shaping the future of agriculture.

Read The Guardian article here.