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 – there’ll 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 • 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: What’s the best way of using the land for most output at least GHG cost? • Energy: not discussed • What are the second order impacts? • What is the opportunity cost – could these inputs be used in other ways?

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 they’re 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 isn’t 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