ENGLISH NEWSPAPER The Telegraph has been accused of publishing factually incorrect and damaging comments about UK sheep farming, which has resulted in an online backlash from angry farmers.

The article in contention was titled ‘There’s a fluffy white menace that is spoiling Britain’s National Parks’ in which the author Chris Moss labelled sheep a ‘blot on the landscape’ and proceeded to demonise their behaviour and suggest their removal from National Parks.

One comment amongst many which caused furore with readers and farmers alike, read: “When not polluting the soil with their poop and the atmosphere with their methanous emanations, (sheep) are busy, day and night, munching and chewing away every blade of carbon-absorbing greenery they can get their incessantly ruminating jaws on.”

Read more: UK sheep farmers are part of the climate solution

The National Sheep Association condemned the piece as divisive at a time when many in the agriculture and environmental movement were increasingly working together to mitigate the impacts of climate change and reverse biodiversity decline.

“Mr Moss states that sheep are ruining our landscapes, including National Parks, ignoring the fact the vast majority of these are in areas where sheep farming is the predominant land use activity,” argued NSA chief executive Phil Stocker. “Maybe he should consider that it is thousands of years of sheep and livestock farming in these areas that has actually made these iconic regions such that people want to designate them as national parks. In fact, sheep farming and its relationship with the Lake District landscape and culture is one of the core reasons why this national park was designated a World Heritage site in 2017.”

Mr Moss' article suggested that the UK 'must reforest great swathes of the countryside' if it is to achieve national climate goals but the NSA pointed out that it failed to acknowledge that planting forests on peat soils – such as those found in many National Parks – has actually been shown to have a negative influence on carbon emissions, compared to leaving it to native vegetation that has evolved to thrive under natural grazing.

One reader responded to the accusation that there are ‘millions of sheep ramming the rural spaces that should really be set aside for humans’ by pointing out that 'without grazing animals, all the beautiful areas to walk would eventually become inaccessible wastelands populated by impenetrable brambles and nettles and similar plants'.

Another pointed out that over two-thirds of the land in the UK is only suitable for grazing and that grazing sequesters carbon into the soil. "If we stopped keeping sheep and cattle and planted trees, not only would we committing an act of environmental vandalism but also aiding climate change as planting trees on grassland causes carbon to be emitted from the soil, as well as loss of great quality food, high in omega 3 fatty acids that is really important for health."

Farmer Rebecca Davies accused The Telegraph of publishing ‘one-sided drivel’: “The countryside is not just for admiring, it’s a home and workplace for many (like myself). If consumers were willing to pay more for food and if supermarkets were willing to pay farmers higher prices then we wouldn’t have to keep stock levels so high. The problem is supermarkets want to flog cheap food and people have been all to happy to buy it. I’d happily keep less sheep if I could earn more from fewer numbers. Sadly that’s not the case.”