Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions

1
Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions

• Exploring the relationship
• Tara Garnett
• Food Climate Research Network
• 7 December 2007

2
About the FCRN some context

• Funded by UK research council based at
• Surrey University
• Focuses on
• Researching food chain contribution to GHG
  emissions and options for emissions reduction
• Sharing and communicating information on food
  climate change with member network

3
FCRN outputs

• Four comprehensive studies so far
• Fruit vegetables
• Alcoholic drinks
• Food refrigeration
• Meat dairy
• Working seminars To inform research
• Mailings regular news on food / GHGs to 670
  members
• Networking To catalyse further research

4
Presentation today

• Trends production consumption
• Review of livestock-related studies
• GHGs associated with system inputs
• GHGs associated with system outputs
• Mitigation options
• Scenarios
• Conclusions
• Largely but not solely UK focused

5
Limitations

• Focus on GHGs and not other environmental impacts
• Up to farm gate only (although leather, wool and
  rendering upstream impacts)
• More on cattle than the other livestock
• No economic analysis planned for future study

6
Overall food-related contribution to GHG
emissions

• EU EIPRO report 31 all EU consumption related
  GHGs
• FCRN UK estimates around 19 (probably an
  underestimate)
• Defra estimates similar

7
Food consumption related contribution to UK
consumption GHGs (work in progress)
8
1. CONSUMPTION TRENDS
9
UK consumption - meat
10
UK consumption dairy ex milk
Milk consumption declining
11
Projected global trends in demand
12
1997
Global meat demand by animal type
2020
Source IFPRI 2001
13
Policy influences
14
2. REVIEW OF LIVESTOCK GHG CONTRIBUTION
15
Livestock GHG estimates

• Global 18 (FAO)
• EIPRO 15 (half all food impacts)
• Dutch study half all food impacts
• UK (from this study)
• 6.6 production related GHG emissions (NETCEN
  other)
• 8 consumption emissions (Cranfield plus volumes
  based on MLC Defra)

16
But

• Livestock production yields food and non food
  benefits they save having to produce them by
  other means
• Make use of unproductive land byproducts
• We have to eat therell always be an impact
• Would non-animal substitutes be any better for
  GHG emissions?

17
To understand why the impacts arise and
how/whether they can be reduced you need to look
at

• The inputs to livestock production and GHG
  implications
• The outputs and GHG implications

18
3. THE INPUTS
19
The inputs

• What are the second order impacts?
• What is the opportunity cost could these inputs
  be used in other ways?

• Cereals How much? Alternative uses (food,
  biofuel)?
• Oilseeds Second order impacts? Relationship
  between cake and oil?
• Grazing land Inputs to? Alternative uses?
  Benefits of?
• Byproducts Alternative uses?
• Land Whats the best way of using the land for
  most output at least GHG cost?
• Energy not discussed

20
Cereals

• UK 50 wheat 60 barley
• Globally 33 37 cereals
• Cattle 50 feed cereals pigs poultry 50
• Alternative uses?
• Direct human consumption (quality wheat grades?
  Nutritional comparability with meat?
• Biofuels?

21
Oilseeds - soy

• Soy 40 oilseeds in livestock diet (av)
• By- or co-product?
• Soy volume 20 oil 80 cake
• Soy value 33 oil 67 cake
• Feed cake drives soy production now biofuels
  too
• Implications?
• Human diet
• Lost carbon sequestration 2nd order impact

22
Human diet oilseed consumption
23
Soy lost carbon sequestration

• Brazilian soy 60 EU imports
• Legal Amazonia Cerrado rainforest
• Direct indirect deforestation
• Direct doubling of soy cultivation in last
  decade and could double again
• Indirect push other industries onto land
• Plus of course Brazilian cattle ranching
• Lost C sequestration not captured in standard LCA

24
Former forest, Matto Grosso Brazil
25
Byproducts

• Livestock make use of byproducts resource
  utilisation
• How much production do byproducts actually
  sustain?
• Could these byproducts be used for something
  else? Opportunity cost?
• Quality of feed / methane?
• Are they byproducts produced near where theyre
  needed?

26
Grassland

• 37 agric land used for grazing
• Grass not a free resource fertiliser inputs
  significant N2O emissions
• Overgrazing globally - FAO estimates this
  accounts for 7 global GHG emissions
• Some overgrazing in the UK and also undergrazing

27
Grassland continued

• Carbon sequestration appropriate grazing makes
  sequestration pay BUT losses if overgrazed)
• Alternative use biomass cultivation? If
• Price is right
• No disruption to soil (C losses)
• Or forest cover

28
Land the big issues....

• Need to consider the opportunity cost of using
  land for one purpose over another
• Land to feed animals or to feed humans?
• Land for feed production or for C sequestration?
• Land for animal rearing or for biomass
  production?
• Bearing in mind projected 9 billion by 2050

29
4. THE OUTPUTS
30
Livestock The outputs

• Nutrition protein, calcium, iron, B12, fat
• Leather wool
• Rendered products glues, soaps, pet food
• Manure nutrients and soil quality
• Soil carbon sequestration
• Landscape aesthetics biodiversity

31
Questions

• What benefits do we gain from livestock
  production?
• Are these benefits accurately accounted for in
  life cycle analysis?
• How much do we need these products?
• (who defines need?)
• To what extent can we obtain these goods /
  services by non livestock means and what would
  the GHG implications be?

32
Nutrition
33
Protein

• Global av 28.7 g protein a day (ie. pure protein
  not grams of meat or milk)
• Devpg world 21 g a day
• Developed world 20 kcal from animal products
• Developing world 6

34
Calcium, Iron B12

• Dairy products good sources of calcium non meat
  alternatives available
• Red meat good sources of iron non meat sources
  available anaemia global problem
• B12 sources animals, yeast and (now)
  fortification

35
General conclusions on meat, dairy and nutrition

• Good source of calcium, iron Vit B12
• Not so important for protein
• Provides fat in excess
• Livestock products not essential
• But useful in small quantities esp. for
  vulnerable groups
• Issues in developed world and extremely poor in
  developing world different

36
Other benefits leather and wool

• Leather useful byproducts but not needed at
  current levels (but devpg world industries)
• Comes with own environmental downsides
• Wool v. small textile player

37
Non-carcass rendered products

• Are we making the best use of the carcass?
• Decline in offal consumption
• Trading of unwanted parts
• Pet food... (do we need to feed them all this?)
• Oleochemicals
• Energy
• Some waste
• Are there ways of consuming which would enable
  lower livestock production levels?
• Post-BSE disposal problems future risks?

38
Manure

• Costs benefits
• Avoids need for mineral fertilisers (although
  harder to optimise input levels)
• Contributes to soil quality / carbon sequestering
  properties of soil
• Leads to methane and N2O emissions
• Manure isnt necessarily where you want it
• Fertiliser needed in first place to support
  animal feed production

39
Soil carbon sequestration

• Overgrazing and undergrazing
• Not relevant to all livestock types

40
Biodiversity aesthetics

• Importance of grazing to biodiversity
• Overgrazing and decline in biodiversity
• 20 land degraded worldwide (73 in dry areas)
• Overgrazing more of a problem than undergrazing
  (though this may change)
• Grazing land in UK - biological interest?
• Aesthetics We like what we know... Not a
  question of all or nothing

41
5. MITIGATION
42
Relative importance of different gases - GWP
Source Williams AG (2007) per comm. Based on
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L.
(2006) Determining the environmental burdens and
resource use in the production of agricultural
and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra
Research Project IS0205.
43
Mitigation options

• Husbandry
• Changing management
• Managing outputs
• Changing numbers
• Need to consider all gases pollution swapping
  risk

44

• Framing issues Animal welfare, biodiversity,
  long term soil quality, rural economy
• Trade offs inevitable With other social /
  environmental concerns pollution swapping

45
1. Husbandry for productivity

• Modifying diet
• Concentrates
• High sugar grasses
• Legumes
• Nutritional supplements
• Animal breeding for productivity / longevity /
  multifunctionality
• Animal welfare biodiversity?
• 2nd order C impacts of high cereal diet?

46
2. Changing management

• Soil inputs reduce N inputs, soil management,
  maximise N efficiency
• Intensive vs extensive extensive more nitrogen
  efficient?
• Organic vs non organic Studies mixed long term
  soil fertility / C storage potential? System vs
  individual differences?
• Housing Manure management but animal welfare?

47
3. Managing outputs

• Manure AD
• Slurry and FYM heap management

48
4. Changing numbers

• Simplest ...and hardest

49
Key issues

• What do we decide to use our land and other
  resources for?
• Need to bear projected 9 billion population in
  mind
• And an 80 (more?) required cut in emissions...
• Tackle problems in isolation or as a whole -
  atomised vs synthetic approach?

50
6. SCENARIOS
51
The scenarios

• Business as usual
• Maximum productivity
• Organic
• Intensive plus extensive
• Livestock switching
• Marginal livestock rearing
• NEED TO CONSIDER other sustainability welfare
  objectives second order impacts land
  opportunity cost

52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
7. THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCLUSIONS
58
What I think is fairly certain

• Livestock impacts significant
• Some livestock production positively beneficial
• But not at current levels...
• ...Or given current trends
• Techno-oriented mitigation approaches dont
  tackle second order impacts
• Nor relationship with other sustainability
  objectives

59
And....

• Significant reduction in production and
  consumption meat AND dairy needed
• We need to pay more for livestock products
• We need to collaborate globally and think
  strategically about how to make best use of land

60
In other words

• In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050
• What is the best use of global land so that
• We are all fed adequately ...
• At minimum GHG cost?
• Stored carbon is not released?
• Biodiversity is protected?
• Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??
• Meeting Needs rather than demand - only feasible
  approach

61
Thank you

• Tara Garnett
• taragarnett_at_blueyonder.co.uk
• www.fcrn.org.uk
• Food Climate Research Network