Regenerative leather at Groundswell.
What does the farming of animals, particularly cattle have in relation to the fashion industry? And how can a regenerative network and collaboration between farmers and designers create a new system that benefits all?
Groundswell is an annual regenerative agriculture festival in Hertfordshire that provides a forum for farmers, growers, or anyone interested in food production and the environment to learn about the theory and practical applications of regenerative farming systems.
This is the second in a series exploring fashion and its connection to agriculture, using the discussions from Groundswell as starting points for some thoughts.
This one considers leather.
[Main article image of pasture-fed cattle in a herd at Linley Farm, Shropshire — Credit: British Pasture Leather]
For background to the festival, first read part one of this article series — Fashion is agriculture: wool.
Groundswell discussion 1 — Leather from British pastures: Can we create material supply chains that regenerate land?
Sara Grady + Alice Robinson (British Pasture Leather), Arizona Muse (DIRT), Nikki Yoxall + Jimmy Woodrow (Pasture For Life), Alex McIntosh (Create Sustain), Rosie Wollacott Phillips (Mulberry) and Jack Millington (Billy Tannery).
The premise behind this session was that it would be an interactive discussion on the topic of creating new networks for the production of a regenerative-ethos leather, however, with so many panellists it was clear that there would be plenty to get through even without audience questions. Which is a shame, because diverse panels have to react reflexively to what the “people” know and think they know, so that everyone can go away and alter their communications to be clearer. There wasn’t the time to expand fully on how leather fits into a farming system, though Alice did partly introduce “why leather?”.
Overall, it was an introduction to the topic of leather as both a farm and a fashion product (i.e. meat byproduct and hightly sought after material), so had any audience member been a farmer (which is likely, given the festival attendance), perhaps they would’ve been opened up to possible diversification and collaboration. The likelihood that you were supporting such a panel primarily as a fashion person could also have been high (because I recognised some folk), so as that audience type you would’ve come away enlightened to perspectives — such as with metrics and carbon data — that otherwise from the fashion scene you may not have received so clearly.
Why leather?
Leather is currently an anonymous product. Despite being envisioned as a luxury material (even when it is industrialised), there isn’t the transparency to discover — or the public awareness of — where leather actually originates, and all the processing involved.
Pasture For Life is a Community Interest Company that operates as an association of farmers who work to promote the benefits of grazing animals on pasture only, and who have also developed certification standards to provide a framework. Pastures are a grassland teeming with diverse plant species, and animals are pastorally farmed across this habitat (receiving no other food such as grains). It calls to the evolution of ruminants with grassland, and a reversion to a system that provides benefits via the “fifth quarter” [animals are butchered in quarters, and so the fifth quarter refers to the environment]. Pasture has been shown to provide more nutrient-dense meat, along with providing a diversity of plants for pollinators and soil health, on top of stressing the animals less and using local feed rather than deforested imports.
Pasture-fed cattle are healthier and have lived a nicer life, so the leather that comes from these animals is stronger and more supple. As Alice put it, the leather will be evocative of the farming community it comes from — however, with that comes considerations on leather’s natural character, and democratisation and pricing.
British Pasture Leather, founded by Alice Robinson and Sara Grady start with Pasture For Life — using only hides that have come to abbatoirs from P4L certified farms — and then relocate those hides to tanners and finishers for a range of applications that will prove the concept of regenerative leather. They have so far established a system, have identified abbatoirs that offer the transparency required, and are able to control the outcome. Though, this is such a huge endeavour; it requires more farms on board with pasture-fed cattle, more small-scale abbatoirs able to provide a more transparent (and less stressful) service, and more designers looking for a traceable leather so there’s a place for the finished hide.
Images: 1. Pasture-fed cattle in a herd at Linley Farm, Shropshire [Credit: British Pasture Leather]; 2. Hides hanging from the ceiling, probably drying at some point in the processing, showing the uniqueness of grain with each. [Credit: potentially Jason Lowe for British Pasture Leather]
Democratisation and pricing.
Arguably with any “more sustainable” product, there is an increase in price; not only for the consumer, but for the producer too. Pasture For Life explained that their member farmers have lower production costs because their inputs are less (already on farm, not bought in), though the cost challenge tends to be post-slaughter where you’re then working with tanners, finishers and makers. This seemed to correlate with the discussion on rare breeds (see other section) where it was discussed that even though production numbers are lower, the quality is higher and so therefore you have a higher production capacity (more product diversity, premium market price).
A few issues were mentioned that can affect production costs and product pricing:
That though meat production rates have remained about the same (despite veganism) leather production rates have declined. Is this because of less abbatoirs? Farmers not finding value in the hide? A consumer shift to “leather alternatives”?
Current subsidies aren’t yet favouring a new farming system that is regenerative rather than extractive, and so what incentive is there for farmers to gamble?
There are 5 vegetable tanneries in the UK, so there are capacity limits for how many hides can be taken from abbatoirs to those tanneries; and if the desire is for a traceable hide, then there needs to be more control over the steps. Leather production is highly regulated in the UK, with a specific time period for the hide to be tanned post-salting, and so storage isn’t necessarily an option.
Increasing the efficiency of abbatoirs, and therefore of tanneries and finishers, questions how to retain the artisan nature of a “slower” material. Does increased efficiency decline the overall material quality, and if yes, then how to convert more actors in the supply network to such a system?
Images: 1. Detail of Charlie Borrow’s handstitched British Pasture Leather weekend bag made and showcased at London Design Festival; 2. Vegea’s “leather” material made from grapes; 3. Hides hanging after being dipped in a large trough (the salting stage?) [Credit: Sara Grady via SSAW Collective]
Natural character and the role of the tanner.
A key feature of a “regenerative leather” is that it is from a natural environment and production cycle. This however means that the leather material shows all of the life marks of the cow, from wherever it’s scratched itself on a tree, to any injuries, to any weather changes. This requires a changing of perception from designers and from consumers of what leather looks and feels like, while simultaneously working with farmers to ensure they also know you know these marks are ok. There was a comment from Alex about how fashion wants uniqueness and yet standardisation; the system needs a full on shift if it is to accept the living nature of leather.
This led to the topic of alternatives to cow leather that seem to offer standardisation and sustainability — which we know is not the case, regardless of if we’re speaking on industrial or artisanal leather, because of synthetic inputs. Mulberry mentioned that they do 12000 repairs a year in their factories, and additionally that they already source from “beautiful tanneries” but want to be “better”, which could mean that they are looking to be open to less standardised finishes? Apparently some tutors are telling students not to use leather, while others are finding funding so that they can.
Communications need to be addressed, whether you’re speaking to a farmer, a tanner, a finisher, a maker, a distributor or a retailer. The importance is on highlighting leather as a diverse material, and specifically of the role of the animal in this diversification; the animal is key to the outcome of the hide or skin. Jimmy pointed out that the use of the word “fashion” in the discussion could be switched to “food” and nothing would seem out of line.
The role of the tanner in communications is vital, as they’re the link usually between farmer and maker. They hold the living material, transform it from hide to leather, and can therefore manage expectations about what that particular piece is and how it could be best used. There is perhaps difficulty on a larger scale to control specific outcomes, especially when in conversation with a designer or brand. Currently there is an issue with farmers being able to obtain the hides from their cattle, so until that problem has been solved, there isn’t clarity over capacity for UK tanning.
On the note of capacity, Billy Tannery have moved away from goat tanning to deer tanning (or just established this too, perhaps), simply because there is a greater supply of deer skins from culling. If through communications we can shift perspectives of what a leather is (though not a plasticised or lab-grown alternative), then perhaps consumer demand will increase farmer willingness to build relationships in this sector.
Images: 1. A rolling barrel at Billy Tannery used to vegetable tan hides of goat and deer; 2. Jack Millington of Billy Tannery pinning a hide to stretch it out. [Credit: Billy Tannery photographer unknown]
Metrics.
Along with discrepancies in communications, there are similarly discrepancies in data. Both aren’t reflective of the complexities of the leather industry from farm to product, and yet policies are forged on the outcomes. Though there are changes coming to the small abbatoir scene, regulation and consequential subsidies seem placed only to affect farming, rather than the overall chain, so likely limiting scope for farmers to use leather as a viable product (because they’re uncertain of how saleable the material could be).
A lot of data is focussed on achieving net zero, taking into account the carbon sequestration of leather material once finished, and yet carbon is a cycle; a true life cycle assessment needs to take the end of life of that product into account (along with the full grazing and production aspects), and the fact that the embedded carbon will be emitted once the product degrades (in whatever way).
However, by defining leather as a “byproduct”, industrial leather producers are given a card that says it’s ok to negate carbon emissions elsewhere in the chain. To truly get a handle on how much carbon a hide or skin can sequester, and if indeed it should even be recorded as doing so, then there needs to be transparency over where, what and how for each step of the chain.
Key takeaways.
The discussion aim was to establish where networks can be increased to improve the “regenerative leather” (vegetable tanned leather from pasture-fed cattle) space. It transpired that, in order to make improvements at either end of the production chain — farmer or maker — there first needed to be some framework clarity.
Farmers need more control over how their animals are slaughtered, so that they can receive the hides back from abbatoirs, and have traceable tags helpful for tanners and finishers and then the designers to retain the farm (and cattle’s) story. [See report from the Sustainable Food Trust on how crucial small abbatoirs are in the farm-to-fork chain].
Policies need to shift away from measuring solely carbon sequestration, and looking at carbon as a cycle, alongside the water and nutrient cycles that are affected (and can be improved) by farming. Life Cycle Assessments need to measure leather as a living material.
Communications need to be improved between farmer, tanner, designer and consumer so that there is greater empathy and awareness of leather as a living material that showcases a farming community and animal’s life, alongside a tanner’s skill and vision.
To improve the environmental framework of leather, then farming habits need to be entwined in such measures. There can’t simply be a focus on removing chromium from any tanning practices, but integrating livestock in a nature-friendly way whereby the farm (and planet) gains value from improved land and better quality meat and material.
Typically, the provenance of leather is identified as the tannery where it was transformed from raw to usable material. But of course, there is a story that precedes the delivery of hides at a tannery’s door. — Sara Grady in a SSAW Collective interview.
Images: 1. A small modular abbatoir design from LB Partners (I don’t know if this is good or not as I don’t even know what a large-scale abbatoir looks); 2. Cows on pasture [Credit: via Pasture for Life but could be Jason Lowe]; 3. Hides in a UK tannery (unknown) [Credit: Jason Lowe for British Pasture Leather]
Groundswell discussion 2 — The Diet of the Future: What will we be eating in 2050?
Sheila Dillon (BBC Radio 4 Food ProGramme), Sue Pritchard (Food, Farming & Countryside Commission), Chris Smaje (author ‘saying no to a farm free future’), food writer Mallika Basu and Dr. Catherine Tubb (Synthesis Capital).
This discussion on food has been included in the article on leather because the farming of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry is particularly divisive. A recent debate between environmentalist George Monbiot and Allan Savory at Oxford University brought out these massively opposing views. To consider leather and the origin of such a material, then we need to consider the animal and the farming practices it comes from.
With diets shifting towards more vegan meals (and the commercialisation of lab-based meats), plus fashion brands moving to “leather alternatives”, there is a slight drop in demand for meat [GOV.UK]. If we consider cattle (and accept leather as a “byproduct” only), then we ultimately have less hide availability too [though Leather UK’s 2022 report shows a drop in volume of raw material exports, difficult to quantify against meat volume to know if there is “waste”].
And of course I can’t miss out mentioning the heckles surrounding methane emissions [was the ‘methane blocker’ of April 2023 a fool’s hoax?], which is preventing the everyday person from considering the bigger picture. What the process of rumination is, how the farming system can affect the emissions, how life quality could be affecting this, what the benefits of the cattle are in proportion to the GHG…
So I was thrilled to see someone from a lab sat next to a small farming advocate. But unfortunately a conversation on the practicalities of hemp growing was on at the same time, and I did a half-and-half. My main thoughts here are just from the beginning of watching the panel in situ in that festival atmosphere, specifically on the panellists speaking about what we’ll be eating in 2050 — and then how this may relate to considering leather as part of a wider ‘fashion is agriculture’ scenario.
What will we be eating in 2050?
Catherine — she actually believes lab-based and biotech is the way forward.
Initially she was stumped by the question due to constantly thinking about how we produce food, that she forgot to think about what we’ll be eating. [Aren’t they intertwined?]
The last 30 years has shown us that there is unlimited potential, and we can eat anything. What we’ll eat in 30 years time is unimaginable. We have ‘disruptive technologies’ (which includes phones etc). She describes “technology” as energy, electric vehicles, biotech, precision engineering… “words that get bandied about and you don’t actually know what they mean”. Apparently farmers are the biggest uses of tech and tech studies use farmers. [This is likely a very specific farming system? And does she not realise that technology has existed since we became conscious beings?]
“I know the word systemic thinking has been bandied around a lot today” [this really made me groan] but at least she was stating the point that she thinks of the food system as enveloped with energy, information and transportation.
Food will be “better and cheaper”, though we’re not there yet. [Cheaper for whom? Better in what way, what does better even mean?"]
She had mentioned that farmers would do more with the land i.e. given more freedom because they wouldn’t be rearing animals (as Mike Berners-Lee said we need less) and that there would be delocalisation — not on farms, but fermentation and bioreactor labs in car parks. Making room for more rewilding.
A better understanding of “nutrition and our food system” — saying that with the upcoming unlimited potential we could eat turtle or mammoth if we want, because currently we have a narrow choice.
Chris — there was a joke about him following Catherine because they’re polar opposites in perspectives. He got a mini audience applause. Logical about his approach rather than simply envisioning a future he’d like to see.
He went straight into stating that the future of food is related to how certain “trends” such as climate change and energy play out. Water, geopolitics, land conflicts, inequality… this is all bubbling up.
One direction that could occur is that governments and corporations will hang on to the “better and cheaper” narrative, such as with investment in new tech. There isn’t currently enough conversation regarding the energy expenditure of the biotech food industry. If we were to become low carbon yet high renewable energy availability (decarbonisation), then perhaps we could go in the biotech direction that Catherine spoke on.
The other direction may be around hard conflicts arising over access to land and water, so people will need to begin taking responsibility for their own food supply. Agrarian localism. Probably more fruit and veg, less arable, and move away from “this high-tech stuff”, along with a move away from intensive farming (poultry and pigs) rather than removing ruminants.
Images: 1. In Beyond Meat’s analytical lab, scientists work to identify the signature aroma molecules of meat [Credit: Beyond Meat]; 2. Growing Communities’ Farmer’s Market
Sue — economic focussed, but gentle and taken from the approach of a farmer and a citizen.
Food isn’t different to what she was eating 30 years ago, so the questions being asked about the future of food aren’t in regards to agronomy or to technology, but to economics.
The current food system is financialised with “many actors working out how they can extract as much as possible from the processing and production part of the system”. It is commodified and consolidated. So for the future, we need to build a food system that deals with those current failures.
This means local food sytems where citizens and communities take more responsibility; growing more of what their own landscape can sustain without extensive inputs, in harmony with nature, and deals with the climate crisis. However, it also comes back to how food brings joy and conviviality: we’ll be eating more of the food that makes us healthy and gives us pleasure, and has acted on the climate/nature/health/inequity crises.
The problems we’re talking about now are the direct results of market failures in this current financialised, commodified, consolidated food system - how can we financialise it even more shouldn’t be the question. Communities, citizens, philosophers - what kind of world do we want to live in, what is fair and just, and how can we respond authentically and with integrity to the question of how can we all live within the earth’s resources so that everyone has enough good sustainably-produced food to eat? — Sue Pritchard.
Mallika — took a more explicit global take, considering how diasporic moves will continue to affect how we produce and what we eat.
The reality is that we’re inspired by the tastes and cultures of diverse communities globally. But this is extractive and exploitative when sourcing ingredients and produce. “It’s all about the taking, and not really about giving back - and we need to get better at that”.
Not everything can grow in the UK, so we need to be sensible about where and when we’re taking. Example about Hodmedod’s selling Brazil nuts directly from the growers.
People who buy the best meat, would buy the worst spices - no thought about the impact of these. Though there is more social awareness, e.g. on palm oil due to trends (and a mention on superfoods). Producers need to follow these trends, but use them in community-centric models.
Migratory patterns and diasporic moves will increase, and it’s likely those people will settle in urban cores, therefore being removed from the realities of rural production. Lack of representation into rural communities anyway, so there needs to be an inclusion of different socio-economic, cultural and racial backgrounds in conversations.
Images: 1. The Land Workers' Alliance, Roddick Foundation, Hodmedod and Kayapó-led cooperative COOBÂ-Y worked together to bring produce directly from the Kayapó people of Brazil to the UK for the first time; 2. Film still from ‘Feeding Lewisham: Foodbanks in Crisis’ (UK 2021, Dirs Cara Bowen, Tom Coleville, Dominic Soar 12 min) as part of the Barbican’s Eat The Screen festival.
What does the future of food have to do with leather?
Consider the scenario where we move to a farm-free future with no cattle (or other animal) rearing. All meat is produced in labs, or it’s all from plant-based sources. Here are three points/questions to unpack:
Without cattle there are no hides and therefore no leather. Do we produce a similar material from other “wild” animals e.g. deer? Have we switched completely to plant-based alternatives, or are we still producing synthetics? Are we repurposing existing leather materials and recycling from existing goods?
What would farmers use their land for if they didn’t rear cattle? Some land simply isn’t suitable for arable or veg crops. How are they diversifying as Catherine suggests (e.g. putting a bioreactor or lab on that land)?
What fertilisers are applied to the soil to retain its health and water-holding capacity? Without manure then larger-scale farms need to rely on food and green waste to build enough compost to apply — or they apply synthetic fertilisers made from natural gas. (At this point also, have we decarbonised and gone totally renewable, so allowing an increase of biotech, as Chris suggests? To which point, can synthetic fertilisers still be produced if farmers wanted them?)
Read four other articles on this topic:
Regenerative Wool at Groundswell.
A visit to Brickpits organic farm.
The current state of the UK fibre industry.
Regenerative Fashion book review.
An Additional article considering dyes and bast fibres will follow, along with other leads from the myriad of Groundswell discussions, particularly on soil and biodiversity - and its relation to the fashion system.
Subscribe to my newsletter to receive links to these articles in your inbox once a month.