MODULE 4: LIVESTOCK Lead Authors: Pierre Gerber (FAO) Contributing Authors: Benjamin Henderson, Carolyn Opio,…

1 Introduction Climate change is having substantial effects on ecosystems and the many natural resources upon

which the the livestock sector depends. Generally, climate change will affect the sector directly,

through temperature increases and shifts in rainfall amounts and patterns, and indirectly, through

ecosystem changes, changes in feed crop yields, quality, and types, possible increases in animal

diseases, and increased competition for resources. At the same time, livestock food chains are major

contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Steinfeld et al. 2006)

Sector’s trends

Global production of meat, milk and eggs has expanded rapidly during the last decades, in response

to rapid growth in demand for livestock products. This increase in demand, which has been

particularly strong in developing regions, has largely been driven by growing populations and

incomes. Between the 1960s and 2005 (Figure 1) for example, annual per capita consumption of

meat more than tripled, that of milk almost doubled, while per capita consumption of eggs increased

fivefold in the developing world (FAO, 2009a).

Figure1: Per capita consumption of major food items in developing countries

The factors that have driven growth in livestock product demand in the developing world– rising

incomes, population growth and urbanization - will continue to be important over the coming

decades, although the effects will be tempered (FAO, 2006; FAO, 2009a) Projected slower population

growth coupled with a decelerating consumption in the two countries that have mostly driven the

upsurge in consumption (i.e. China and India) are major factors that will influence future aggregate

demand. Excluding China and Brazil, per capita meat consumption in developing countries is

expected to increase to 26 kg in 2030 and 32 kg in 2050. In terms of future consumption gains, it is

projected that a marked gap will still exist between developing and developing countries,

highlighting the scope for further sectoral growth. Driven by demand, global production of meat is

projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050,

and that of milk to increase from 580 to 1,043 million tonnes (FAO, 2006).

Contribution to food security

Livestock make a necessary and important contribution to global calorie and protein supplies, but at

the same time, they need to be managed carefully to maximize their contribution. While livestock

products are not absolutely essential to human diets, they are desirable and will continue to be

increasingly consumed. Meat, milk and eggs in appropriate amounts are valuable sources of

complete and easily digestible protein and essential micronutrients. Overconsumption, however,

results in health problems.

Livestock can increase the world’s edible protein balance by converting protein found in forage that

is inedible to humans into forms digestible by humans. They can also reduce the edible protein

balance by consuming protein that is edible by humans, from cereal grains and soya, and converting

it into small amounts of animal protein. Choice of production systems and good management are

important factors in optimizing protein output from livestock. Livestock production and marketing

can help stabilize the food supply, acting as a buffer to economic shocks and natural disasters for

individuals and communities. However, the food supply from livestock can be destabilized,

particularly by diseases. Access to livestock source food is affected by income and social customs.

Access to livestock as a source of income and hence food is also unequal. Gender dynamics play a

part, particularly in pastoralist and small-scale farming communities, where female-headed

households tend to have lower resources hence fewer, smaller livestock, and within families where

the larger and more commercial livestock are often controlled by men. These problems are not

unique to livestock, but they are prevalent among producers and consumers of livestock products

and need attention.

2 Adaptation and mitigation needs

2.1 The impact of climate change on livestock

Climate change poses serious threats to livestock production, although uncertainties and complex

interactions between agriculture, climate, its surrounding environment and the economy, make

these impacts difficult to quantify. Increased temperature, shifts in rainfall distribution and increased

frequency of extreme weather events are expected to adversely affect livestock production and

productivity across much of the globe. This can occur directly not only through increased heat stress

and reduced water availability but also through reduced feed and fodder quality and availability, the

emergence of livestock disease and competition for resources with other sectors [23, 32–34].

While the effects of climate change on livestock are likely to be widespread, more serious impacts

are anticipated in grazing systems, as a result of their close links to climate and the natural resource

base that is being damaged by climate change, and their limited adaptation opportunities [35].

Impacts are expected to be most severe in arid and semi-arid grazing systems at low latitudes, where

higher temperatures and lower rainfall are expected to reduce rangeland yields and increase

degradation [36]. In contrast, the direct impacts of climate change are likely to be more limited in

non-grazing systems, mostly because the housing of animals in buildings allows greater control of

production conditions [33, 34]. Indirect impacts from lower crop yields, feed scarcity and higher

energy prices will be more influential in these systems. Climate change could lead to further indirect

impacts from the increased emergence of livestock diseases, as higher temperatures and changed

rainfall patterns can alter the abundance, distribution and transmission of animal pathogens [37].

However, the net impacts of climate change are unclear when considered in combination with other

important environmental and socio-economic factors that also affect disease prevalence, such as

changes in land use, host abundance, international trade, migration and public health policy [38, 39].

2.2 Overview of emissions

The livestock sector is a major contributor to climate change, generating significant emissions of

carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide throughout the production process. Livestock contribute

to climate change by emitting GHGs either directly (e.g. from enteric fermentation and manure

management) or indirectly (e.g. from feed-production activities, conversion of forest into pasture).

Based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, it is estimated that the sector emits about 7.1

gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent, about 18% of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Steinfeld et al.

2006).

Along the animal food chain, the major sources of emissions are the following (Steinfeld et al., 2006):

Land use and land-use change: 2.5 Giga tonnes CO2 eq.; including forest and other natural

vegetation replaced by pasture and feed crop in the Neotropics (CO2) and carbon release

from soils such as pasture and arable land dedicated to feed production (CO2).

Feed production (except carbon released from soil): 0.4 Giga tonnes CO2 eq., including fossil

fuel used in manufacturing chemical fertilizer for feed crops (CO2) and chemical fertilizer

application on feed crops and leguminous feed crop (N2O, NH3).

Animal production: 1.9 Giga tonnes CO2 eq., including enteric fermentation from ruminants

(CH4) and on-farm fossil fuel use (CO2).

Manure management: 2.2 Giga tonnes CO2 eq., mainly through manure storage, application

and deposition (CH4, N2O, NH3).

Processing and international transport: 0.03 Giga tonnes CO2 eq..

There are striking differences in global emission intensities among commodities. For example, on a

global scale, the emission intensity of meat and milk, measured by output weight, corresponds on

average to 60 kg CO2eq/kg of CW and 9.4 kg CO2eq/kg of CW, for beef and pork1, respectively, and

2.4 kg CO2eq/kg of milk (FAO, 2010). This analysis also found significant variability in emissions

across the different world regions. For example, the FAO life cycle assessment of GHG emissions

from the global dairy sector, found emissions per unit of milk product to vary greatly among different

regions; with emissions from Europe and North America ranging between 1-2 kg CO2-eq per kg fat

and protein corrected milk (FPCM) at the farm gate. The highest emissions are estimated for sub-

Saharan Africa with an average of 7.5 CO2-eq per kg FPCM at the farm gate. GHG emissions for South

Asia, West Asia and North Africa and Central and South America c range between 3 and 5 CO2-eq per

kg FPCM at the farm gate. The global average is estimated at 2.4 kg CO2-eq (FAO 2010) . Results from

the same study of the global dairy sector also found GHG emissions to be inversely related to

productivity - At very low levels of milk production (200 kg/cow/year) emissions where found to be

12 kg CO2-eq per kg FPCM compared to 1.1 kg CO2-eq per kg FPCM (high production level of about

8000 kg of milk), reflecting the strong effect of livestock intensification on GHG emissions on a global

scale (Gerber et al. 2011).

3 Climate smart livestock

3.1 Overall principles

3.1.1 Resource use efficiency

Given the current and future resource scarcity and in the face of projected demand for livestock

products, there is considerable agreement that efficiency gains in resource use is a key component to

improving the sector’s environmental sustainability. More efficient use of natural resources is a key

strategy to decouple livestock sector’s growth from environmental impacts. Natural resources use

efficiency is measured by the ratio between the use of natural resources as input to the production

activities and the output from production, e.g. kg of phosphorus used per unit of meat produced, or

ha of land mobilized per unit of milk produced. The concept can be extended to the amount of

emissions generated by unit of output, e.g. GHG emissions per unit of eggs produced. Examples of

opportunities that fall within this strategy are higher yields per hectare, higher water productivity,

1 Emission intensity estimates for beef and pork are based on recent FAO work on Life Cycle Assessment of

GHG emissions from the livestock sector (unpublished data) .

higher feed efficiency, improved management of manure and fertilizers and reduced losses along the

food chain (Westhoek et al. 2011). Improving the feed-to-food conversion efficiency in animal

production systems is a fundamental strategy for improving the environmental sustainability of the

sector. A large volume of food is wasted even before it reaches the consumer - a recent FAO (2011)

study suggests that about one-third of food produced is wasted. Reduction of waste along the

animal food chain can substantially contribute towards reducing demand for resources such as land,

water, energy and other inputs such as nutrients.

Current prices of inputs such as land, water and feed resources used for livestock production often

do not reflect true scarcities. This results in the over-utilization of resources by the sector and to

inefficiencies in the production process. Any future policy to protect the environment will, therefore,

have to introduce adequate market pricing for natural resources. Ensuring effective management

rules and liability, under private or communal ownership of the resources is a further key policy

element to improve resource use.

3.1.2 Building resilience: buffering and risk management at farm and system level

Livestock producers have traditionally adapted to various environmental and climatic changes.

However, in the contemporary situation, increased human population, urbanization, economic

growth, increased consumption of animal-source foods, and commercialisation have made those

coping mechanisms less effective (Sidahmed, 2008). Therefore, identification of coping and risk

management strategies has become very important.

Particularly in pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, livestock are key assets held by poor people,

providing multiple economic, social, and risk management functions. Livestock is also a crucial coping

mechanism in variable environments, and as this variability increases they will become more

important. For many poor people, the loss of livestock assets means collapsing into chronic poverty

with long-term effects on their livelihoods.

A wide array of adaptation options is available (see, for instance, Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal 2003;

IPCC 2007). Possible adaptive responses range from technological options (such as more drought-

tolerant crops), through behavioural (such as changes in dietary choice) and managerial (such as

different farm management practices), to policy (such as planning regulations and infrastructural

development). Some options may be appropriate for the short term, others for the long term (or

both). In the short-term, adaptation to climate change is often framed within the context of risk

management. Washington et al. (2006) outline an approach to addressing the challenges of climate

change that depends on a close engagement with climate variability. Helping decision makers

understand and deal with current levels of climate variability can provide one entry point to the

problems posed by increasing variability in the future and to the options that may be needed to build

resilience. However, there are still problems to be addressed relating to the uncertainty of climate

projections and projected impacts and how this uncertainty can be appropriately treated in the

search for social relevance (Wilby et al. 2009).

Longer-term approaches to adaptation are often couched in terms of "climate-proofing

development". They can involve system changes (such as a change in the set of commodities

produced or the shift from extensive to mix systems) or the adoption of new technology, currently

not available. The lag times between problem identification and ready, appropriate technology may

be long. Research being carried out today needs to be appropriate to the environment of 20-30

years' time, and this has implications for targeting as well as research design, testing and

implementation. This may involve searching for homologues of future climates that exist now, where

breeding and selection can be carried out (Burke et al., 2009).

3.2 Main strategies

This section summarises main CSA strategies for dominant livestock production systems.

3.2.1 Land base systems

While there are several climate smart options available for land-based grazing systems, applicability

to low input systems with infrequent human intervention tends to be quite limited. The main

mitigation options for land-based grazing systems are reductions in enteric CH4 emissions and CO2

removals through soil carbon sequestration. Manure management mitigation options are much more

limited in land-based systems.

The climate smart options discussed below fall into 3 categories: 1) those with clear

mitigation/adaptation synergies, 2) “mitigation only” options and, 3) “adaptation only” options.

Options for which there are risks of tradeoffs between mitigation, food security and adaptation have

also been identified. Climate smart options deemed suitable for land-based systems, along with their

capacities to satisfy multiple climate smart objectives, are listed in table x, below. Following this, is a

summary for each of the options.

Summary of CSA practices and technologies for land based systems

Practices/technologies Impact on

food security

Effectiveness:

adaptation

Effectiveness:

mitigation

Main constraints to adoption

Grazing management +/- + ++ technical: especially in

extensive systems

Pasture management + ++

technical and economic in

extensive systems

Animal breeding + ++ ++

technical, economic,

institutional: esp in

developing countries

Animal/herd management + ++ +

technical, institutional: esp in

developing countries

Animal disease/health ++ ++ +

technical, institutional: esp in

developing countries

Supplementary feeding + + ++ easy to implement, but costly

Vaccines against rumen

archaea ++ +

not immediately available,

may have low acceptability in

some countries

Warning systems ++ +

technical, institutional: esp in

developing countries

Weather indexed

insurance +

technical, economic,

institutional: esp in

developing countries

Agro-forestry practices ++ ++ ++ technical and economic

Grazing management

Grazing can be optimized by balancing and adapting grazing pressure on land and can provide

increase grassland productivity, mitigation and adaptation benefits. However, the net influence of

optimal grazing is variable and highly dependent on baseline grazing practices, plant species, soils

and climatic conditions (Smith et al 2008).

Perhaps the most clear cut mitigation benefits arise from soil carbon sequestration when grazing

pressure is adapted to stop or revert land degradation (Conant and Paustian, 2002). In these cases

enteric emission intensities can also be lowered, because under lower grazing pressures animals

have a wider choice of forage, and tend to select more nutritious forage which is associated with

more rapid live weight gain (LWG) rates (Rolfe 2010). By restoring degraded grassland, these

measures can also enhance soil health and water retention, increasing resilience of the grazing

system to climate variability. However, if grazing pressure is reduced by simply lowering animal

numbers, then total output per hectare may be lower except where baseline stocking rates are

excessively high (Rolfe 2010).

Rotational grazing to adjust the frequency and timing of grazing and better match grazing needs and

pasture resource availability is one of the main strategies for increasing the efficiency of grazing

management. This enables maintenance of forages at a relatively earlier growth stage, improving the

quality/digestibility and productivity of the system, reducing methane emissions per unit of LWG

(Eagle et al. 2012). This option is more suited to managed pasture systems, where returns on

investments in fencing and watering points, additional labor and more intensive management are

more likely to be recouped.

In colder climates, where animals are housed during cold periods, there is also scope to control the

timing of grazing. For example, early grazing of summer pastures is identified as a major cause of

grassland degradation in Northern China. Delaying grazing until the sprouting of grasses reaches a

more advanced stage of maturity has been identified as an important sustainable grazing practice.

Finally, increasing livestock mobility, a traditional strategy of nomadic and transhumant herders in

many parts of Africa to match animal production needs with changing rangeland resources, can

significantly enhance resilience of these systems to climate change. Land tenure reforms to deal with

encroachment of cultivation and other land uses which impede mobility will be needed (Morton et

al., 2007).

Pasture management & nutrition

Pasture management measures, additional to grazing management, include the sowing of improved

varieties of pasture, typically the replacement of native grasses with higher yielding and more

digestible forages, including perennial fodders, pastures and legumes (Bentley et al. 2008). For

example, in tropical grazing systems of Latin America, substantial improvements in soil C storage and

productivity benefits, as well as reductions in enteric emission intensities of animal production, are

possible through the replacement natural cerrado vegetation with deep rooted pastures such as

Brachiaria (Thornton and Herrero, 2010). There are, however, far fewer opportunities for sowing

improved pastures in arid and semi-arid grazing systems.

The intensification of pasture production though fertilization, cutting regime and irrigation practices

may also enhance productivity, soil C, pasture quality and animal performance. These approaches

may not always reduce GHG emissions: improved pasture quality from N fertilization may involve a

tradeoff between lower CH4 emissions and higher N2O emissions (Bannink et al., 2010). Also, after

accounting for energy-related emissions and N2O emissions associated with irrigation, the net GHG

emissions of this practice may be negative on grazing lands (Eagle et al. 2012). Grass quality can also

be improved by chemical and/or mechanical treatments and ensiling.

With increasing variability in climatic conditions (e.g. increasing incidents of drought) due to climate

change, there may be an increase in the frequency of periods where forage availability fall shorts

short of animal demands. In these situations supplemental feeding can be an important adaptation

strategy.

Animal breeding

Animal breeding to select more productive animals is a further strategy to enhance productivity and

thereby lower CH4 emission intensities. There has been recent research on the mitigation benefits of

using residual feed intake (RFI) as a selection tool for low CH4 emitting animals, but findings have so

far been inconclusive Waghorn and Hegarty (2011).

There is also evidence that cross breeding programs can deliver simultaneous adaptation, food

security and mitigation benefits. For example, composite cattle breeds developed in recent decades

in tropical grasslands of northern Australia, have demonstrated greater heat tolerance, disease

resistance, fitness and reproductive traits compared with pure shorthorn breeds which previously

dominated these harsh regions (Bentley et al 2008). In general, cross breeding strategies that make

use of locally adapted breeds, which are not only tolerant to heat and poor nutrition, but also to

parasites and diseases (Hoffmann, 2008), which may become more common with climate change

Adaptation to climate change can also be fostered through the switching of livestock species. For

example, the Samburu of northern Kenya are traditionally a cattle-keeping people that adopted

camels as part of their livelihood strategy to overcome a decline in their cattle economy from 1960

onwards, caused by drought, cattle raiding, and epizootics (Sperling 1987).

Animal/herd management, disease control and feeding strategies

In common with all livestock production systems, there are a number of animal and herd

management options for land-based systems, which can enhance animal productivity, feed

conversion efficiency and thereby reduce enteric emission intensities. Better nutrition, animal

husbandry, maintaining animal health and responsible use of antibiotics can improve reproduction

rates, reduce mortality, and reduce age to slaughter, thereby enhancing the amount of output

produced for a given level of emissions. The impacts of these measures on adaptation are likely to be

neutral.

In addition to animal health management to maintain and improve animal performance, the

management of disease risks may also become increasingly important, as there may an increase in

the emergence of gastro-intestinal parasites due to climate change (Wall and Morgan, 2009).

Breeding more disease resilience animals is one approach to addressing this issue.

Vaccines

Vaccines against rumen archaea are a potentially very useful mitigation option for ruminants in land-

based grazing systems, because of their wide applicability, even for very low input extensive systems

with little human intervention. However, more research and development is needed before this

option is ready for widespread adoption (Wright and Klieve, 2011)

Warning systems and insurance

The use of weather information to assist rural communities in managing the risks associated with

rainfall variability is a potentially effective preventative option for climate change adaptation,

although there are issues related to the effectiveness of climate forecasts for livestock management

that still need to be addressed (Hellmuth et al. 2007). Livestock insurance schemes that are weather-

indexed, i.e., policy holders are paid in response to ‘trigger events’ such as abnormal rainfall or high

local animal mortality rates may also be effective where preventative measures fail (Skees and Enkh-

Amgalan 2002), although there may be limits to what private insurance markets can achieve for large

vulnerable populations facing covariate risks linked to climate change (UNDP 2008). A recent

development in index-based livestock insurance is the potential for public-private partnerships in

situations where the incentives and risks involved do not make it feasible for the private sector

alone. Index insurance schemes based on satellite imagery are being piloted in several areas of

drought-prone northern Kenya (Barrett et al. 2008; Mude 2009).

Agro-forestry practices

Agro-forestry is an integrated approach to the production of trees and of non-tree crops or animals

on the same piece of land. Agro-forestry is important both for climate change mitigation (carbon

sequestration, improved feed and hence reduced enteric methane) as well as for adaptation by

improving the resilience of agricultural production to climate variability through the use of trees for

intensification, diversification and buffering of farming systems. Shade trees have impacts on

reducing heat stress on animals and contribute to improve productivity, improved forage value and

productivity and body condition of animals, reduced overgrazing and hence land degradation

(Thornton and Herrero, 2010).

3.2.2 Mix systems

Because of their multipurpose role, mixed systems, if well managed, may be among the most

promising means of adapting to and mitigating the impacts of crop and livestock on GHG emissions.

There are a number of proven existing practices such as agronomic techniques and livestock

management practices that already work well with multiple benefits (food security, mitigation and

adaptation). Options presented below address the integrated nature of mixed systems but focus on

livestock related interventions for climate smart agriculture.

Integrated soil-crop-water management

Soil and water management are intrinsically linked to crop production and management thus an

integrated approach is vital for promoting resource use efficiency, adapting to and mitigating climate

change as well as sustaining productivity. For example, by increasing the organic content of the soil

through conservation tillage, its water holding capacity increases, making yields more resilient and

reducing erosion (Lal, _). Existing soil and water adaptation technology include: minimum or zero

tillage, erosion control, retaining crop residues to conserve soil moisture, improved soil cover

through cover crops. Many crop management practices (mulching, green manures, conservation

tillage and conservation agriculture), will help land users adapt in areas predicted to receive lower

precipitation (increasing infiltration, reducing evaporation and increasing storage of rainwater in

soils). Promoting soil carbon capture also helps mitigate climate change. For instance, soil

management practices to reduce compaction, reducing tillage and retaining crop residues reduce the

potential for nitrous oxide loss and increase soil carbon while improving yields. In addition,

managing pests, diseases or weeds using technologies such as the ‘pull and push technology’ can

contribute to improving the availability not only of food but also of feed resources in crop-livestock

systems (Lenné and Thomas, 2005).

Water use efficiency and management

Water management is a critical component of adaptation to both climate and socio-economic

pressures in coming decades. Practices that increase the productivity of water use – defined as crop

output per unit of water use – may provide significant adaptation potential for all land production

systems under future climate change. A number of adaptation techniques and approaches specific to

water management include: adoption of varieties with increased resistance to extreme conditions,

irrigation techniques that maximize water use (amount, timing, technology), adoption of

supplementary irrigation in rain-fed systems and water efficient technologies to harvest water,

modification of cropping calendars (timing or location) (FAO, 2011). Descheemaeker et al. (2010) cite

three broad strategies for improving livestock-water productivity in mixed crop-livestock systems

including: feed management (improving feed quality, improving feed-water productivity, feed type

selection, grazing management) water management, and animal management (increasing animal

productivity and health).

Sustainable soil management

Carbon sequestration in soils has potential to mitigate as well as adapt to climate change (Pacala and

Socolow, 2004). The strategy is to create a positive C budget in soils and ecosystems through

mulching with residues along with no-till farming and integrated nutrient management (appropriate

application of both synthetic and organic fertilizer). In addition, soil C sequestration has numerous

ancillary benefits through improvement in soil quality and other ecosystem services. Restoration of

degraded soils, through increases in SOC pools, improves agronomic production which advances food

security and improves human nutrition Increasing the SOC pool is also important to enhancing

efficacy of limited resources of N and P. There are also benefits to water quality from control of non-

point source pollution (Lal, _).

Feed management

Herrero et al. (2008) estimate that crop residues can represent up to 50 percent of the diet of

ruminants in mixed farming systems. While these feed resources provide an inexpensive feed source,

they are usually of low in digestibility and deficient in crude protein, minerals and vitamins. The low

digestibility of these feed resources not only substantially limits productivity and but also increases

emissions in the form of methane. Increasing the digestibility of feed rations by improving the quality

of crop residues, or supplementing diets with concentrates will mitigate methane emissions. Other

existing practices include use of improved grass species and forage legumes. Using a multi-

dimensional approach for improving the quality and thereby the utilization of food-feed crops,

animal productivity can be enhanced, which can also lead to reduction in animal numbers, feed

requirement and the emission of greenhouse gases (Blümmel, Anand and Prasad, 2009).

Diversification to climate resilient agricultural production systems

Diversification of sensitive production systems can enhance adaptation to short- and medium-term

impacts from climate change. Transitions within mixed farming systems are already occurring: in

marginal areas of southern Africa, the reductions in length of growing period and the increased

rainfall variability is driving systems to a conversion from a mixed crop–livestock system to a

rangeland-based system, as farmers find growing crops too risky in those marginal environments

(Thornton et al., 2009). Changes to enterprise mix (e.g. proportion of crops to pastures) are an

example of one farm-level adaptation option. Farmers may reassess the crops and varieties they

grow, and they may consider shifting from farming to raising livestock (which may serve as a

marketable insurance in times of drought). They may also introduce different livestock breeds that

are more resistant to drought (heat-tolerant breed). In a case study covering villages in three South

African provinces, Thomas et al. (2007) found that during dry spells farmers tended to reduce their

investment in crops or even stop planting and focus instead on livestock management.

While these practices provide multiple benefits in most cases, there are some tradeoffs involved with

respect to emissions, productivity and food security in the short term before long-term benefits can

be reaped. Consequently, poor subsistence farmers may not be willing or able to accept the short-

term losses associated with some of these practices despite the long-term benefits.

Summary of CSA practices and technologies for mixed farming systems

Management

objective

Practices/technologies Impact

on food

security

Effectiveness as an

adaptation strategy

Effectiveness as an

mitigation strategy

Main constraints to adoption

Cro

p a

nd

gra

zin

g la

nd

man

age

me

nt

Improved crop

varieties

conventional breeding e.g. dual purpose

crops, high yielding crops,

+++ +++ Uncertain High investment costs; high prices of improved

varieties, high input costs e.g. fertilizer

Modern biotechnology and genetic

engineering e.g. genetically modified

stress tolerant crops

++ ++ Uncertain High investment costs, concerns with long-term

potential impacts e.g. loss of crop biodiversity, health

concerns, limited enabling environment to support

transfer of technology

Crop residue

management

No-till/minimum tillage; cover cropping;

mulching

+++ +++ ++ Competing demands for crop residue biomass

Nutrient

management

Composting; appropriate fertilizer and

manure use; precision farming;

+++ ++ ++ Cost, limited access to technology and information

Soil management Crop rotations, fallowing (green

manures), inter-cropping with

leguminous plants, conservation tillage

+++ +++ ++ Minimal gains over short term e.g. short term

decreases in production due to reduced cropping

intensity

Grazing management Adjust stocking densities to feed

availability

+++ +++ +++ Risk aversion of farmers

Rotational grazing ++ +++ +++

Wat

er

man

age

me

nt Water use efficiency

and management

Supplemental irrigation/ water

harvesting

++ ++ Requires investment in infrastructure, extension,

capacity building

Irrigation techniques to maximize water

use (amount, timing, technology)

++ ++

Modification of cropping calendar ++ ++ Lack of information on seasonal climatic forecast

trends, scenarios

Live

sto

c

k

man

age

me

nt Improved feed

management

Improving feed quality: diet

supplementation; improved grass

species; low cost fodder conservation

+++ +++ +++ High costs

technologies (e.g. baling, silage)

Altering integration

within the system

Alteration of animal species/breeds;

ratio of crop-livestock, crop-pasture

++ +++ ++ Lack of information on seasonal climatic forecast

trends, scenarios

Livestock

management

Improved breeds and species e.g. heat-

tolerant breeds

++ ++ ++ Productivity trade-off: more heat-tolerant livestock

breeds generally have lower levels of productivity

Infrastructure adaptation measures e.g.

housing, shade

++ +++ +

Manure management Anaerobic digesters for biogas and

fertilizer

+++ +++ +++ High investment costs

Composting, improved manure handling

and storage e.g. covering manure heaps,

application techniques e.g. rapid

incorporation

++ + ++

Mitigation/ adaptation potential: + = low; ++ = medium; and +++= high

3.2.3 Landless systems

Climate smart options are also available to for intensive systems (Gill et al., 2009; UNFCCC 2008),

mostly related to manure management (pig, dairy, and feedlots) and enteric fermentation (dairy and

feedlots). These systems being generally more standardised than mixed and grazing systems, a

shorter list of options apply to a wide share of the global livestock production.

Summary of CSA practices and technologies for landless systems

Practices/technologies Impact on food security

Effectiveness as adaptation strategy

Effectiveness as mitigation strategy

Main constraints to adoptions

Anaerobic digesters for biogas and

fertilizer

+++ +++ +++ Investment costs

Composting, improved manure handling

and storage e.g. covering manure heaps,

application techniques e.g. rapid

incorporation

++ + ++

Temperature control systems ++ +++ - High investment and operating costs

Disease surveillance ++ +++ +

Energy use efficiency + +++ Subsidized energy costs

Improved waste management.

Most methane emissions from manure derive from swine, beef cattle feedlots, and dairies, where

production is concentrated on large operations, and manure is stored under anaerobic conditions.

Methane mitigation options involve the capture of methane by covered manure storage facilities

(biogas collectors). Captured methane can be flared or used to provide a source of energy for electric

generators, heating, or lighting (which can offset CO2 emissions from fossil fuels).

Anaerobic digestion allows CH4 emissions from animal storage to be reduced while at the same time

producing biogas that can substitute for fossil fuel energy. The technology has shown to be highly

profitable in warm climates (Gerber et al., 2008). Recent developments in energy policy have also

enhanced its economic profitability in countries such as Germany and Denmark (AEBIOM, 2009).

Manure application practices are also available to reduce N2O emissions. Improved livestock diets as

well as feed additives can substantially reduce CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure

storage (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Energy-saving practices have also shown to be quite effective in

reducing the dependence of intensive systems on fossil-fuel energy.

Improved feed conversion.

Although not taking place on the production unit, carbon dioxide emissions associated with feed

production, and especially soybean, are also substantial (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Improved feed

conversion ratios have already substantially reduced the amount of feed required per unit of animal

product, but there is substantial variation between production units and countries and further

genetic and management improvement can be expected. Reducing the amount of feed required per

unit of output (beef, milk, etc.) has the potential to both reduce the production of greenhouse gasses

and to increase farm profits. Feed efficiency can be increased by developing breeds that are faster

growing, and that have improved hardiness, weight gain, or milk production. Feed efficiency can also

be increased by improving herd health through improved veterinary services, preventive health

programs, or improved water quality.

Sourcing low emission feed

Shifting to feed resources with low carbon footprint is another way to reduce emissions, especially

for concentrated pig and poultry production systems. Examples of low emission feeds include feed

crops produced through conservation agriculture practices or originated from cropping areas not

recently gained against forest or natural pasture. They also include crop by-products and co-products

from the agri-food industry.

Improving energy use efficiency

Landless systems rely generally on greater amounts of fossil fuel energy than mixed and grazing

systems (Gerber et al., 2011, FAO, 2009). Improving energy use efficiency is an effective way to

reduce production costs and cut on emissions. Dairy farms are often mentioned as having a great

potential for energy use efficiency gains. Energy is used in the milking process, and for cooling and

storing milk, heating water, lighting and ventilation. Cooling milk generally accounts for most of the

electrical energy consumption on a dairy farm in OECD region. Milk is harvested from a cow at

around 35 to 37.5 degrees Celsius. To maintain high milk quality, including low bacteria counts, the

raw milk temperature needs to be lowered quickly to 3 to 4 degrees. Refrigeration systems are

usually energy intensive. Heat exchangers cooled by well water, variable-speed drives on the milk

pump, refrigeration heat recovery units and scroll compressors are all energy conservation

technologies that can reduce the energy consumed in the cooling system and thus reduce emissions

– especially in countries were the energy sector is emission intensive.

4 Conclusion

Livestock can make a large contribution to climate smart food supply systems. The sector offers

substantial potential for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation options are available

along the entire supply chain and are mostly associated with feed production, enteric fermentation

and manure management. Livestock’s role in adaptation practices relate to organic matter and

nutrient management (soil restoration) and income diversification. At the same time, livestock makes

a key contribution to food security, especially in marginal lands where it represents a unique source

of energy, protein and micro nutrients. This contribution could be strengthened, particularly among

populations characterised by low consumption levels.

While this chapter highlighted tradeoffs between adaptation, mitigation and food security for some

practices, most offer synergies. Several CSA practices are readily available for implementation, such

as sylvopastoral systems, grassland restoration and management, manure management (recycling

and biodigestion), and crop livestock integration. Barriers to adoptions are most often related to

limited information and access technology and capital. This calls for extension work and financing

mechanisms, such as access to credit and payment for environmental services.

Research effort is also required to identify further suites of mitigation and adaptation practices

adapted to specific production systems and environments, e.g. combined interventions at feed,

genetic and manure management levels. The potential aggregated effects that farming system

changes may have at regional level of on food security and natural resource use also need to be

better understood.

This chapter also illustrated the relevance of system and supply chain approaches. This is especially

true in the case of the livestock, given the strong interrelationships with crop (feed and manure

management) and the broader environment. Addressing mitigation or adaptation issues requires to

pay attention to spillovers and feedbacks along the chain.

BOX1: Range management for mitigation and adaptation, in the 3 Rivers region of Northern China Background The restoration of degraded grasslands through sustainable grazing management (SGM) practices including reductions in grazing pressure on overstocked sites, the sowing of improved pastures and better pasture management, can lock more carbon in soils and biomass, reduce CH4 emissions per unit product by increasing livestock productivity and reduce the release of N2O. These measures can also increase the water-holding capacity of the soil and grassland biodiversity. More widespread adoption of SGM practices is currently hindered, in part, by high costs associated with accessing carbon markets by individual producers. Accessing the carbon market is currently an expensive and complex process, requiring substantial upfront investment in household surveys, financial and biophysical analysis, and land use planning, before farmers can start selling credits. The Three Rivers Sustainable Grazing Project The Three Rivers Sustainable Grazing Project is a pilot project situated in the Qinghai province of China, aims to address these challenges. In this project, which covers 271 yak and sheep herding households, with a total of 22,615 hectares of lightly to severely degraded grazing land, households will select a combination of grazing intensity, grass cultivation and animal husbandry management options, to restore degraded grazing land, and thereby sequester soil carbon, enhance productivity, resilience and smallholder herder livelihoods. The average annual emission reduction in the first 10 years of the project is estimated to be 63,000 tCO2eq per year (with 98% of this from soil C sequestration). And a significant share of the project’s management activities will be financed through the crediting and sale of carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market. Key lessons, constraints and selection criteria Technical mitigation and adaptation potential The primary selection criteria for this project was its high carbon sequestration potential, which was linked to the high prevalence of degraded grazing land (38% of the land heavily/severely degraded), large soil carbon losses, and commensurately large potential for reversing these losses through simple and cost effective restoration measures. For instance, the average annual sequestration potential per hectare averaged over the entire project is is estimated to be in excess of 3 t/CO2eq. This compares with IPCC estimates of 0.11 to 0.81 CO2eq for grasslands globally (Smith et al., 2007). Further, grassland restoration also improves soil moisture and nutrient retention in soils enhancing resilience to climate change. Productivity and economic returns In addition to identifying high technical mitigation and adaptation potentials, further assessments revealed that restoration of the site’s degraded grazing lands would also significantly enhance the productive potential of the project site. This is crucial for the project’s success, as it greatly increases the likelihood of voluntary herder enrolment in the project, and ensures that mitigation and rural development objectives are well aligned. Economic returns to herders are further enhanced by the introduction improved feeding, winter housing and the development of processing activities and marketing associations. Carbon crediting methodology and applicability While the project activities are able to enhance the long-term productivity and profitability of the system, carbon finance is a critical to help cover the costs associated with investments grass planting, fencing and animal housing, as well as losses in income from during the first years of the project, as stocking rates are temporarily reduced to allow the recovery of degraded areas. A key step to accessing carbon market finance is the development of carbon accounting methodology which is affordable, but also sufficiently accurate for the carbon market. This important constraint is being addressed thanks to the development of a grassland carbon accounting methodology, which is

currently under validation by the Verified Carbon Standard. Instead of relying solely on direct measurement, which is often prohibitively costly, this methodology permits the use of carefully calibrated biogeochemical models, combined with the monitoring management activities to estimate soil carbon pool changes. This important innovation significantly reduces the costs associated with measurement and verification, greatly facilitating access to carbon markets. A number applicability criteria are required for projects to be eligible for generating carbon credits under with this methodology, perhaps most important are the prevalence of degraded and/or degrading grassland under baseline conditions and evidence that the project will not lead to land use change. The demonstration of additionality is also critical, and requires evidence of the continuation of the pre-project land use scenario in the baseline situation. While developed as part of the Three Rivers project, the methodology will be applicable to sustainable grazing projects throughout the world. Institutional constraints In addition to biophysical, economic, measurement and verification barriers, institutional constraints also need to be considered. These barriers include institutions for monitoring and enforcement of sustainable grazing management practices and institutions for marketing of livestock products with which to make adoption of sustainable grazing management practices a more profitable option for herders. A lack of enforcement of laws requiring that holders of grassland user rights adopt sustainable stocking levels is common throughout China’s main grassland areas. Thus it is important that the project strengthen existing community mechanisms for monitoring restoration and sustainable use of grasslands. The project will also support the communities to establish community based organizations (Livestock Product Marketing Associations) to assist in accessing higher price sales markets. These institutional innovations will strengthen the communities’ capacities to implement and monitor sustainable development in the longer-term. Summary of climate smart indicator rankings

Indicators Ranking (-5 to +5)

Food security +2

Productivity +2

Livelihoods +3

Adaptation/resilience +3

CC Mitigation +5

Water use/retention +2

Biodiversity +2

References

Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes

B, Sirotenko O. Agriculture. In Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA, editors. Climate

Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to theFourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2007.

Box 2: Silvo-pastoral systems in central and south America

In a Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded project, CATIE worked with FAO, Nitlapan

(Nicaragua), CIPAV (Colombia) and the World Bank to evaluate the impacts of payment for

environmental services (PES) on adoption of silvo-pastoral systems. From 2003 to 2006, cattle

farmers from Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, received between US$2000 and US$2400 per

farm, representing 10 to 15% of net income to implement the programme silvo-pastoral systems.

This resulted in a 60% reduction in degraded pastures in the three countries, and the area of silvo-

pastoral land use (e.g. improved pastures with high density trees, fodder banks and live fences)

increased significantly. The environmental benefits associated with the project included a 71%

increase in carbon sequestered (from 27.7 million tonnes of CO2-eq. in 2003 to 47.6 million tonnes

CO2-eq. in 2006). Milk production and farm income also increased, by more than 10 to 115%

respectively. Herbicide use dropped by 60%, and the practice of using fire to manage pasture is now

less frequent. FAO, 2010

BOX 3: Spatial planning and recovery of nutrient and energy from animal manure - insights from Thailand.

In rapidly growing economies, a surging intensive livestock sector is associated with severe

environmental impacts. Policies to address environmental issues related to intensive livestock

production have been progressively improved over the past three decades in OECD countries.

Seldom efforts have however been made to transfer this experience to rapidly growing economies,

characterised by a bourgeoning intensive livestock sector, weak institutional frameworks and general

lack of environmental policies.

Experience from Thailand shows that improving spatial distribution is a cost effective way to foster

better manure management practices among animal farmers. It creates the economic conditions for

the recycling of manure as an input to other production activities. The policy recommendation drawn

from this analysis is the need for policy makers to pay stronger attention to the spatial distribution of

livestock production. Policy instruments should particularly be put in place to ensure that animal

densities are such that manure can be recycled within a reasonable distance from its production. This

would result in reduced animal concentrations in areas with low nutrient absorption capacity, such

as peri-urban areas.

The consequence, is a simultaneous increase of farm profit and a reduction of pollution emission.

Sole reliance on regional planning does however not allow reduction of emissions to acceptable

levels except for in specific cases. It can therefore be considered a basic, low cost measure, to be

coupled with development and enforcement of regulations and communication tools.

The adoption of bio-digestion can increase farm profit by 10 to 20 percent and help reducing

environmental impact.

These observations suggested that a cost-efficient reduction of pollution from intensive waste

production requires a combination of better spatial distribution of livestock production and pollution

control measures.

References Climate change and the growth of the livestock sector in developing countries Philip K Thornton 1* and Pierre J Gerber 2 Livestock and the environment: addressing the consequences of livestock sector growth Carolyn Opio, Pierre Gerber and Henning Steinfeld Advances in Animal Biosciences, volume 2, issue 03, pp. 601-607.

Livestock and climate change, challenges and options

Ben Henderson*, Pierre Gerber and Carolyn Opio CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2011 6, No. 016 FAO. 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in food security. Rome, FAO. Policy options in addressing livestock’s contribution to climate change

Pierre Gerber, Nigel Key, Fabienne Portet and Henning Steinfeld

THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Livestock in the balance 2009

Bannink, A, M.C.J. Smits, E. Kebreab, J.A.N. Mills, J.L. Ellis, A. Klop, J. France and J. Dijkstra (2010). Simulating the effects of

grassland management and grass ensiling on methane emission from lactating cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 148:55-

72.

Barrett CB, Carter MR, McPeak J, Mude A (2008). Altering poverty dynamics with index

608 insurance: Northern Kenya’s HSNP+. BASIS Brief 2008-08. University of Wisconsin,

609 Madison. www.basis.wisc.edu/live/amabrief08-08.pdf

Bentley D, Hegarty R (2008). Managing livestock enterprises in Australia’s extensive rangelands for greenhouse gas and

environmental outcomes: a pastoral company perspective. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 48: 60-64.

Bryan E, Ringler C, Okaba B, Koo J, Herrero M and Silvestri S (2011). Agricultural Land Management: Capturing Synergies

between Climate Change Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Agricultural Productivity – Insights from Kenya.

Report to the World Bank. Report 3b of the project “Adaptation of Smallholder Agriculture to Climate Change in Kenya”,

116 p.

Conant RT, Paustian K. Potential (2002). Soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global

Biogeochemical Cycles. 16: 1143.

Eagle A.J., L.P. Olander, L.R. Henry, K. Haugen-Kozyra, N. Millar and G.P. Robertson (2012). Greenhouse gas mitigation

potential of agricultural land management in the United States. A synthesis of literature. Report NI R 10-04, Third Edition.

Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.

Hellmuth ME, Moorhead A, Thomson M, Williams J (2007). Climate risk management in

662 Africa: Learning from practice. Climate and Society Issue #1. The International Research

663 Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), Palisades, NY.

Hoffmann (2008), Hoffman, M.T. & Vogel, C. 2008. Climate change

impacts on African rangelands. Rangelands, 30:

12–17.

Kaimowitz, David and Angelsen, Arild(2008) 'Will Livestock Intensification Help Save Latin America'sTropical Forests?', Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 27: 1, 6 — 24

Morton J.F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS 104: 19680-19685.

Mude A (2009). Index-based livestock insurance for northern Kenya's arid and semi-arid

723 lands: the Marsabit pilot. Project document, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, 14 pp.

Rolfe J (2010). Economics of reducing grazing emissions from beef cattle in extensive grazing systems in Queensland. The

Rangeland Journal. 32: 197-204.

Skees JR, Enkh-Amgalan A (2002). Examining the feasibility of livestock insurance in

767 Mongolia. Policy Research Working Paper 2886, World Bank, Washington DC.

Smith, P. D. Martino, Z. Cai., D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko,

M. Howden, T. McAllister, G. Pan, V. Romanenkov, U. Schneider, S. Towprayoon, M. Wattenbach and J. Smith (2008).

Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363: 789-813.

Sperling L (1987). The adoption of camels by Samburu cattle herders. Nomadic Peoples 23,

776 1-18.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2008). Human Development Report

792 2007/2008: Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York, USA.

Waghorn, G. C., and R. S. Hegarty. 2011. Lowering ruminant methane emissions through improved feed conversion

efficiency. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166–167:291–301.

Wall, R. and E. Morgan (2009). Veterinary parasitology and climate change. Veterinary Parasitology 163: 263-263.

Wright, A. D. G., and A. V. Klieve. 2011. Does the complexity of the rumen microbial ecology preclude methane mitigation?

Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166– 167:248– 253.

Van Keulen, H. and H. Schiere (2004). Crop-Livestock Systems: Old Wine in New Bottles? In New Directions for a Diverse

Planet. Proceedings of the 4th

International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September-October 2004.

FAO (2010). Climate-Smart Agriculture‘: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation.

Report prepared for The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security, and Climate Change. Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations: Rome.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R. and Reid, R.S. (2008). Systems Dynamics and the spatial distribution of methane

emissions from African domestic ruminants to 2030. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 126: 122-137

Thornton, P.K. and Herrero, M. (2010). Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and

pasture management in the tropics. PNAS

Clements, R., J. Haggar, A. Quezada, and J. Torres (2011). Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation – Agriculture Sector.

X. Zhu (Ed.). UNEP Risø Centre, Roskilde, 2011

Vilela, L., Martha, Jr. G.B, Macedo, M.C.M., Marcho, R.L., Guimares, R., Pulrolnik, K., Maciel, G.A. (2011) Sistemas de

integrao lavoura-pecuria na regio do Cerrado. Pesquisa Agropecuria Brasileira, 46:1127-1138

Descheemaeker, K., Amede, T., Haileslassie, A. (2010). Improving water productivity in mixed crop-livestock farming

systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural water management, 97, 579-586

Thornton, P.K., van de Steeg, J., Notenbaert, A., Herrero, M. (2009). The impacts of climate

change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know

and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems 101: 113-127.

Thomas, D. S. G., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., Hewitson, B. (2007). Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer

responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Climatic Change, 83 (3): 301–322.

Blummel, M., Anandan, S., Prasad, C.S. (2009). Potential and limitations of byproduct based

feeding system to mitigate green house gases for improved livestock productivity. In: Proceedings

of 13th

biennial conference of Animal Nutrition Society of India, pp. 68–74. Bangalore.

FAO. (2012). Crop residue based densified total mixed ration – A user-friendly approach to utilise food crop

by-products for ruminant production, by T.K. Walli, M.R. Garg & Harinder P.S. Makkar. FAO Animal

Production and Health Paper No. 172. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2728e/i2728e00.pdf

Pascal, S. & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current

technologies. Science, 305:968-972

FAO. (2011). Land and water options for climate change adaptation and mitigation in agriculture. Thematic background

paper for The state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) - Managing systems at risk.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

New Agriculturalist (2012). Fodder innovations to help Indian dairy farmers. http://www.new-

ag.info/en/developments/devItem.php?a=2535

Lal, R. (_). Soil and water management options for adaptation to climate change.

Lenné, J. M. and Thomas, D. (2005). Addressing poverty through crop-livestock integration: the contribution of past

research to future challenges. In: Integrating livestock-crop systems to meet the challenges of globalization, eds. P.

Rowlinson, C. Wachirapakorn, P. Pakdee, and M. Wanapat, AHAT/BSAS International Conference, Nov 14-18, Khon Kaen,

Thailand, pp. 13-26.