 Across the Western world, meat has been getting an increasingly bad rap from environmentalists, concerned about methane emissions and land degradation, and health experts worried about the effects of over-consumption. In the developing world, this has sparked fears that government and charitable funding for livestock projects could be channeled elsewhere, with dire consequences. Jimmy Smith is the head of the International Livestock Research Institute based in Nairobi, Kenya. He's been in Australia this week to address what he says are some common misconceptions about livestock, and he joined me in the Brisbane studio. In recent times, the debate about livestock have turned quite negative. Those who are vegetarians or those who are vegans and some people who are very concerned about the environmental impacts feel that livestock are bad for the planet, so we should get rid of them. So much of the funding development assistance that the developing countries receive come from the developed world, of course, and if livestock is getting a bad message, then there will be less funding for developing livestock systems. Have you seen that happen? I haven't seen it directly yet, but there are conversations. We are asked, why should we be funding livestock research? Mostly, owners in the European countries would ask that question because their strong voice is about the effects of livestock on negative effects of livestock and the environment and carbon and the atmosphere and so on and so on. Is that something that you would agree with? Well, livestock can be managed in a way that they do not damage the environment. As a matter of fact, they can benefit the environment. Range lands, these are not suitable for cropping and therefore livestock production is really the only thing they can be used for. When livestock are grazed on these range lands in an appropriate way, the cycle of growth, consumption, carbon sequestration is made more rapid when livestock are grazed. If they are not grazed, then the plant stagnates, so the biological cycle of the range slows down. So, having livestock that graze the range land at an appropriate stocking level would allow you to increase the biological cycle and therefore allow the range lands to be fixing carbon instead of emitting carbon. So when people say, oh, you shouldn't be eating meat because it's bad for the environment, what's your response? I have no issues with people who are vegans or vegetarians, but my general response to that claim is that there's no moral equivalence between those who make poor choices of food and those who have no choice of food. For example, consumption in North America, Europe, Australia is about 100 kilograms per person per year. That figure is 8 kilograms in Africa. So both in terms of food security but more important from nutritional security because of the dense beneficial nutrients in livestock source foods, the population of many developing countries can benefit from consuming more animal source foods. As a matter of fact, there's great concern in the nutrition community about the first 1,000 days of life where if the diet is not adequate, the stunting can take place irreversibly. Many nutritionists are saying that an adequate diet in that first 1,000 days could not be met without animal source foods. Jimmy Smith, the head of the International Livestock Research Institute.