Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 468a5c-ODA1O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions

Description:

Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions Exploring the relationship Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network 7 December 2007 * * Feed inputs embedded in these are ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:108
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 62
Provided by: cfs3
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
  1. Four comprehensive studies so far
  2. Fruit vegetables
  3. Alcoholic drinks
  4. Food refrigeration
  5. Meat dairy
  6. Working seminars To inform research
  7. Mailings regular news on food / GHGs to 670
    members
  8. 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
Maximum Productivity Maximum Productivity
GHG reduction UK reduction but not elsewhere
Impact on human nutrition Nutritionally enhanced meat etc otherwise little difference
Impact on non food goods Little impact slight reduction
Rural economy Little impact gains for niche farmers producing nutritionally enhanced products
Soil fertility N surplus risk
Biodiversity Most ruminant on biologically monotonous pasture. Scope for some species diversity in upland areas
Aesthetics Similar to today but less livestock in uplands
Animal welfare Arguably negative
Land opportunity cost Increased land for biofuels but conflict with land needed for feed? Second order impacts lost carbon sequestration potential on land overseas.
53
Organic Organic
GHG reduction Reduction on per area basis but not necessarily per yield (although need to consider carbon storage)
Impact on human nutrition If consumption reduced, possibly good
Impact on non food goods Little impact slight reduction
Rural economy Depends on CAP etc- if consumers are willing to pay more for organic he impacts could be beneficial
Soil fertility Mixed results greater use of manure and legume rotations could have a positive effect
Biodiversity Probably good
Aesthetics Depends on the scale but probably positive
Animal welfare Possibly good
Land opportunity cost Less land available for other purposes. Lower reliance on concentrates means land use impacts overseas lower (although organic farming still depends on concentrates).
54
Intensive extensive Intensive extensive
GHG reduction First order reductions, although second order impacts unclear and probably negative
Impact on human nutrition Unchanged from current situation the total output of livestock products may not change very greatly
Impact on non food goods Probably unchanged
Rural economy This depends on CAP and other policy developments, but the impacts could be negative if costs increase relative to current methods.
Soil fertility Possibly positive
Biodiversity No change if standard grass / grass-clover mixes are sown although overgrazing may be reduced.
Aesthetics Little change some less intensive systems
Animal welfare Extensive systems may benefit animal welfare although management will be key
Land opportunity cost High dependence on concentrates means potentially negative impacts from lost carbon sequestration overseas. Less land available for biofuels production
55
Livestock switching Livestock switching
GHG reduction Fewer CH4 emissions. Renewable energy could reduce C intensity of pp units. Second order impacts negative. Problems could arise from pig and poultry manure surpluses
Impact on nutrition Chicken (fatless) pork low in fat but less good for Ca Fe.
Impacts on non food Less leather wool
Rural economy Negative for ruminant farmers. Mixed for PP more competition from more entrants could simply drive prices down.
Soil fertility Possibly negative - fewer livestock to fertilise grass land
Biodiversity Patchy - grazing land can be managed to maximise biodiversity rather than grazing productivity but benefits of grazing lost
Aesthetics Negative in so far as we value seeing livestock grazing
Animal welfare Depends on the rearing system adopted
Land opportunity cost More land needed to grow feed (but cattle eat cereals too). Less available for food / biofuels. Lost sequestration potential.
56
Marginal livestock rearing Marginal livestock rearing
GHG reductions More CH4/kg output N use efficiency might decrease. Feed production impacts 2nd order impacts reduced. Overall GHG reduction through number cuts and measures to reduce consumption
Impact on nutrition Consumption would decline positive but interventions needed to maintain Ca Fe levels among vulnerable groups. Cattle sheep main meat .
Impact - non foods Slight reduction in availability
Rural economy Potentially v.damaging unless measures taken to raise the cost of livestock products and increase returns to farmers. Potential for diversifying into other areas eg biocrops
Soil fertility Possibly beneficial. Less manure available for arable land but area needed for arable would decline (since feed cereals cut). Nutrient shortfalls could in part be met from AD digestate and compost.
Biodiversity Depends on management reductions in overgrazed areas will be good but numbers will need to be maintained in undergrazed areas
Aesthetics Depends on management. If upland areas stocked appropriately then favourable. Some changes may be seen as negative such as an overall decline in the livestock we see on rural land.
Animal welfare Poss beneficial although care is needed to maintain good nutritional health.
Land opp cost Positive - less lost carbon sequestration from overseas feed production. Land could be used for arable or for biofuels.
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
About PowerShow.com