thomas

Document Sample
thomas Powered By Docstoc
					Impact of Livestock on the
      Environment
                 An overview
Cledwyn Thomas, Dominic Moran, Nigel Scollan and
                Eun Joong Kim

                                       IBERS, SAC, EAAP
           Livestock and Meat
• Future growth in consumption driven by
  – Population increase
  – Income
  – Preferences
• Over 80% in developing countries
• Most growth predicted in Pigs and Poultry
• Concerns about environmental sustainabilty
  of the sector
                      Aim
• Overview of the impacts that the red meat
  industry, will have on the environment with
  focus on climate change
• Role of the International Meat Secretariat in
  the debate on Environmental Impact
                 Challenge
• The need to continue to deliver productivity
  (efficiency) gains to provide food security/
  meet demand (not through increased animal
  numbers!)
• Ensure rural livelihoods
• Improving environmental sustainability,
• Managing animal and human health risks.
            Livestock Benefits
• Covert human inedible to edible
• Sustain Rural Livelihoods
  – Bank
  – First step from poverty
  – Major employer
• Landscape
• Biodiversity/ ecosystems
• Nutrient Cycling
       Environmental Impacts

                           Positives
Grazing    Ecosystem and Landscape
           Maintenance


Pigs       Soil fertilization
       Environmental Impacts
                      Intensification



                    Positives           Negatives
Grazing      Ecosystem and              Destruction of
             Landscape                  natural habitats/
             Maintenance                overgrazing


Pigs         Soil fertilization         Habitat Destruction
                                        Pollution
       Environmental Impacts
                      Intensification



                    Positives           Negatives
Grazing      Ecosystem and              Destruction of
             Landscape                  natural habitats/
             Maintenance                overgrazing


Pigs         Soil fertilization         Habitat Destruction
                                        Pollution

                     Negatives overcome through
                     Technology/Management
Landscape/ Ecosystems
  Greenhouse gas (GHG) and
          livestock

Fundamentally different from diffuse
    and particulate pollution, etc
        Impact is GLOBAL
Major sources of livestock related
greenhouse gas emissions

                             Enteric fermenation and
                             respiration
                             Animal manure

                             Livestock related land-use changes

                             Desertication

                             Cutivated soils-livestock related

                             Feed production

                             On-farm fossil fuel use

                             Postharvest emissions
      Estimates of Contribution
Livestock sector emits
• 18% of global greenhouse gas (in CO2
  equivalents – Steinfeld et al, 2006)
New studies show
some higher, some lower but highlight the
  variation in GHG associated with Livestock
  Systems
           Causes of Variation
• Inherent errors / uncertainties of methods to
  calculate GHG
• Contribution of Land Use Change
• Systems of Production
  – Species (Pigs, Poultry and Ruminants)
  – Intensity of production
• System Boundaries / Units of expression
            Life Cycle Analysis
Inform decision making
  – Livestock, food security, environment policy
    decisions
  – Identify critical points in process
  – Assess systems mitigation options (sensitivity
    analysis)
  – Benchmarking
  – Consumer choice
Global warming potential and land use
required to produce livestock products



                Emissions         Land
                (kg CO2e/kg)   requirement
                                 (m2/kg)
     Pork       3.9 - 10          9 -12
    Chicken     3.7 - 6.9         8 - 10
     Beef       14 - 32           27-49




                                  de Vries and de Boer, 2010
         Regional Variation


Country         Beef
                (Kg CO2 e/ kg protein)
Netherlands     176
Brazil          455
India           543
                             Gerber et al, 2010
    Total GHG emissions on two mixed
            sheep/cattle farms
                      (kg CO2 e /ha/year)


                          Farm 1               Farm 2
                     Mean (Range)           Mean. (Range)
Total                    1215                   3091
                      (368- 3726)            (789 – 9305)


        Farm 1 - Intensive lowland
        Farm 2 - Organic extensive
                                                Edwards-Jones et al., 2009
Key components of the GHG footprint of New
Zealand exported lamb (Ledgard et al., 2010)




                                               On-farm
                                               Transport
                                               Processing
                                               Consumption




              3% Processing, 12% Consumption
                Priorities
• Need to understand the causes of the
  variation
• Need to develop improved models of
  prediction
• Use these models to
  – Derive improved inventories
  – Examine strategies at farm, sector and
    regional scales
  GHG -What will we do about it?
• Do nothing/ deny human contribution/not our
  problem
  – many Govt have decided this is not an option
  – livestock sector will not go unnoticed
  – retail sector interest in Carbon Footprinting
  – pressure groups very active
                   Action
• Unlike other sectors, Agriculture (Livestock)
  emissions have huge uncertainties
                       BUT
• We cannot risk doing nothing
                    RATHER
• Seek solutions that both reduce emissions and
  improve productivity
 The relationship between live weight gain
(LWG) of cattle and methane production per
                 kg of gain




(Kurihara et al 1997, Klieve. and Ouwerkerk 2007, Howden and Reyenga 1999)
            Potential Mitigations
             (methods to reduce emissions)
• Improve performance efficiency through
   – Breeding (e.g. Pigs 3% reduction in GHG per yr)
   – Direct selection??
• Direct manipulation of digestion
   – Replace fibre with starch
   – Ionophores / essential oils
   – Manipulation of rumen microbes
• Management and engineering
   – Storage
   – Timing and method of N applications
A marginal abatement cost schedule
                Mitigation
• Adopt win – win strategies
• Some key strategies are limited by current
  bans (ionophores, growth promoters, GM)
• Can create conflicts (higher performance
  needs to be supported by higher density diets
  and hence conflict with human needs)
• Key Unknown - Soil C sequestration offset up
  to 4%?? of the global GHG emissions
                       Actions
 (irrespective of uncertainties – livestock sector
  will not go un –noticed, governments will get
               increasingly involved)

• Voluntary Codes
• Command and Control (public health, animal disease
  but also Environment Protection,)
• Market based Instruments
   – Pollution tax
   – Cap, Permit and Trade
What will happen? - voluntary codes and retailer
 pressure but longer run C,P and T?
      Conclusions – Role of IMS
• Emphasise meat systems can deliver +ve
  environment, ecosystem, landscape benefits
• Promote and disseminate technologies that
  deliver positive benefits as production
  intensifies
• National Inventories of GHG– extend to
  developing countries, better methodology
• Promote win- win mitigation
                 IMS Role
• Develop a position on voluntary codes/
  retailer cooperation/Government
  Interventions (e.g. Cap and Trade)
• Stakeholder involvement in research
  programmes (Global Research Alliance/EU)
• Promote evidence led policies and public
  debate to recognize the challenge and new
  technologies available
                                       Issues lifecycle
   Level of public attention                                                                                   Reïncarnation




                                                                    Traditional pattern
                                                                                                                   Legislation or self-
Regulation/                                                                                                                  regulation
Certification


Public action and pressure on
legislators


Public indignation                                                                                             Issue fatigue
and mobilisation



Societal concerns



Media attention
                                                                                          ‘Managed’ pattern
Uneasiness with opinion
leaders


Calm environment
                                Initiation   Growth   Development     Mature                     Post mature




                                                                                               Backus, 2010
                                       Issues lifecycle
   Level of public attention                                                                                        Reïncarnation




                                                                         Traditional pattern
                                                                                                                        Legislation or self-
Regulation/                                                                                                                       regulation
Certification                                                        Livestock
                                                                        and
                                                                    Environment
Public action and pressure on
legislators


Public indignation                                                                                                  Issue fatigue
and mobilisation



Societal concerns



Media attention
                                                                                               ‘Managed’ pattern
Uneasiness with opinion
leaders


Calm environment
                                Initiation   Growth   Development          Mature                     Post mature
                                       Issues lifecycle
   Level of public attention                                                                                         Reïncarnation




                                                                          Traditional pattern
                                                                                                                         Legislation or self-
Regulation/                                                                                                                        regulation
Certification


Public action and pressure on
legislators


Public indignation                                                                                                   Issue fatigue
and mobilisation



Societal concerns



Media attention                                    New
                                                 Emerging                                       ‘Managed’ pattern
Uneasiness with opinion                           Issues
leaders


Calm environment
                                Initiation   Growth         Development     Mature                     Post mature
       IMS Role – Horizon Scan
• Water – the major driver of future growth in
  livestock production
• Competition for food/ feed resources between
  – Human needs
  – Industry/ fuel
  – Animals
• Environmental impact of intensive pig/ poultry
  in transition/ developing countries
Thank you for listening
        Consumption / Demand
• Product labelling , specifically Carbon
  Labelling from LCA (methodology!)
• Impact on meat exporters
  – NZ LCA +ve
  – Shift from GHG production to GHG consumption
• Consumer Behaviour
• Future prices as competition between Feed,
  Food and biogas
        Consumption / Demand
• Product labelling , specifically Carbon
  Labelling from LCA (methodology!)
• Impact on meat exporters
  – NZ LCA +ve
  – Shift from GHG production to GHG consumption
• Consumer Behaviour
• Future prices as competition between Feed,
  Food and biogas
Increasing
                            Need higher density
performance –
                            diets
reduced
emissions per
product
                Increased need for cereal/oil seed/byproduct




                     Conflict with human/biofuels etc
                                                                N2O emissions
                                               Decreased CH4    depend on Nos.
                                               emissions per    of animals, feed
                                                  animal            manure
      Improved                                                   management,
       fertility                                                    soil and
                                                                    weather

                           Decreased No.            More
      Improved               of animals            energy
        health              required per           dense
                             kg product             feed
                                                                  CO2 emissions
                                                                   from land use
      Improved                                                         change
                                                                 associated with
       genetics
                                               Increased CO2    livestock depend
                                               emissions per   on energy density
Routes for impact of management and                kg feed        of feed, carbon
technology interventions designed to improve                      content of soil,
productivity on GHG emissions from livestock                        management
(Gill et al. 2009)                                             practices, weather
  Inventories, Methodologies and
           Uncertainties
• No inventories in most developing countries
• Commonly used Tier 1 inventories use fixed
  factors
• Estimates of livestock contribution have high
  errors
UK error estimates for GHG emissions
                  (Mt CO2e)


Gas Source        2007 Total            Error
                               (95% Confidence interval)
N2O +CH4 Manure     4,500               ±30%

CH4 rumen           15,400              ±20%
fermentation
Projected trends in meat consumption
                       (Steinfeld, 2006: FAO,2006)




                  Per cap        Total (Mt)
                  (kg)
Developing 2002   28             137
           2050   44             326

Developed 2002    78             102
          2050    94             126
       Resource use for livestock
Livestock consume 33% of cereals produced



          Energy              Protein
          Total efficiency    Total efficiency


Milk      0.25                0.21
Beef      0.07                0.08
Pigs      0.21                0.19
   Livestock consume 33% of cereals produced



             Energy                            Protein
             Total efficiency   Human-edible Total efficiency   Human-edible
                                efficiency2                     efficiency2

Milk         0.25               1.07           0.21             2.08
Beef         0.07               0.65           0.08             1.19
Pigs         0.21               0.3            0.19             0.29

       2outputs of human-edible energy and protein divided by human-
       edible inputs. (Gill et al , 2010)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:11/11/2011
language:English
pages:42