REPORTTOTHEINTERNATIONALMEATSECRETARIAT

THEENVIRONMENTALIMPACTOFMEATPRODUCTIONSYSTEMS

Authors:
NigelScollan,AberystwythUniversity,Aberystwyth
DominicMoran,ScottishAgriculturalCollege,Edinburgh
EunJoongKim,AberystwythUniversity,Aberystwyth
CledwynThomas,EAAP,Rome(Coordinator)

Versionstatus:Final

Date02July2010

Contents
PageNo.
IntroductionandBackground....................................................................................................3
AimsandStructureoftheReview.............................................................................................3
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................4
MainReport.............................................................................................................................10
1.Theroleoflivestocksystemsinsustainableagriculture..................................................10
1.1Livestockproduction,systemsandfeedresources....................................................10
1.2Theglobaleconomicsignificanceoflivestockproduction.........................................14
1.3Livestockfarminginsustainableagriculture..............................................................16
1.4Effectsoflivestockfarmingonlandscapemanagement,biodiversity,soil
conservationandfunctioningagriecosystems................................................................17
1.5Wateruse...................................................................................................................19
2.Themeatandlivestockindustryandclimatechange......................................................22
2.1Sourcesofgreenhousegasemissionsfromlivestock................................................22
2.2Contributionofthemeatandlivestockindustrytoglobalandregionalgreenhouse
gasemissions....................................................................................................................23
2.3TherelativecontributionofcomponentsintheproductioncycletoGHGemissions.
..........................................................................................................................................26
2.4Nationalinventoriesanduncertaintyinagriculturalsectoremissions......................29
3.Contributionofthemeatandlivestockindustrytogreenhousegasmitigation.............33
3.1Opportunitiestomitigateemissionsusingtechnicalefficiency................................33
3.2Socioeconomicconsequencesofmitigations...........................................................45
3.3Adaptationstrategiestoclimatechangeanditsunintendedimpacts......................46
4.Supplyanddemandsideperspectives.............................................................................48
4.1Productionside...........................................................................................................48
5.Conclusions(towardsaroadmapforthemeatindustry)...............................................55
5.1RoleofIMS..................................................................................................................55
5.2Researchanddevelopmentimplications...................................................................57
6.References........................................................................................................................60

REPORTTOTHEINTERNATIONALMEATSECRETARIAT
THEENVIRONMENTALIMPACTOFMEATPRODUCTIONSYSTEMS

IntroductionandBackground
Globaldemandforfoodisexpectedtoincreaseby70%by2050(FAO,2009)asaresultof
populationgrowth.Tomeetthisdemandtheglobalproductionofmeatisprojectedtomore
thandoublefrom229milliontonnesin1999/2001to470milliontonnesin2050.Thisstrong
growth in meat production is driven by the increased demand for animal products as
increasingsectorsofthepopulationbecomemoreaffluent.Thusthebulkofthegrowthin
meat is predicted to occur in developing countries, with China, India and Brazil already
representingtwothirdsofcurrentmeatproduction.
Food supply must increase sustainably to meet this demand and in this respect, could
severely be constrained by climate change impacts (Godfray et al., 2010). Agriculture is a
majorcontributortogreenhousegasemissions,principallyfrommethaneandnitrousoxide.
FAO(Steinfeldetal.,2006)haveestimatedthatlivestockproductioncontributedbetween
15%and24%ofglobalgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.
As countries enact policies to curb GHG emissions, the livestock sector will be a key
component of these policy strategies. Understanding how policy frameworks addressing
climatechangewillaffectthemeatchainisthusurgentsinceanextensivepublicdebateis
already taking place. It is vital that this debate is informed by sound science to provide
evidencebasedpublicpoliciesandconsumptionrecommendations.

AimsandStructureoftheReview
Theaimofthereviewistoproduceanoverviewoftheimpactsthatthemeatandlivestock
industry,andinparticulartheredmeatindustry,willhaveontheenvironment.Giventhe
majorconcernsandcurrentuncertainties,thereviewwillfocusonclimatechangeimpacts
and will examine key environmental indicators affected by meat supply, while reviewing
some of the relevant demand side questions that may inevitably influence production
patterns.Thiswillbeachievedbyconsidering;

Theroleoflivestocksystemsinsustainableagriculture

Themeatandlivestockindustryandclimatechange

The contribution of the meat and livestock industry to greenhouse gas mitigation
(i.e.emissionsreduction)

Supplyanddemandsideperspectives

Thereportfocusesontheglobalimpactoflivestockindustrybutrecognisesthatthereare
majorregionaldifferences.
3

ExecutiveSummary
Theroleoflivestocksystemsinsustainableagriculture
Livestockproductionhasrapidlyrespondedtothegrowingdemandformeat,particularlyin
developing countries. Over the last 20 years, this has been largely achieved through
increased livestock numbers rather than enhanced output per animal (yield). However
majoradvancesinproductivityhaveoccurredinsomepig,poultryanddairycattlesystems
but more rarely in beef and sheep. This global trend obscures major advances in
productivityinsomecountries.Futuretrendsshowanincreaseddemandformeatmainlyin
transition and developing countries associated with improved affluence. Production is
expected to double to 470 million tonnes by 2050 mainly from pigs and poultry primarily
centredinthesecountries.
Livestockproductiontypicallyrepresentsasignificantproportion(around40%ofincomeor
GDP)earnedbyagricultureandemploysaround1.3billionpeopledirectlyandindirectly.In
lessdevelopedcountrieslivestockareconsideredasamultifunctionalassetthatiscentralto
thelivelihoodsandwellbeingofsomeofthepoorestsocietiesonearth.
Traditionally,agricultureandhencelivestocksystemshavebeenabletoignoresomeofthe
external consequences of production. But the positive benefits to the environment have
also been ignored. This is changing and many governments are now also linking
sustainability concepts to national and global food security objectives. Also in many
countries, consumer awareness is now becoming the principal driver of decision making
amongpowerfulretailers
Livestockagricultureistheworldslargestuseoflandresources,andengagesveryclosely
withlandscapemanagement,biodiversity,soilconservationandtheholisticfunctioningof
agriecosystems. Within these, the major environmental impacts are on land degradation,
water depletion and pollution and biodiversity. These impacts are however dependent on
the system of production and its intensity. Extensive systems can make positive
contributionstolandscapeandbiodiversityandefficientmanuremanagementcanimprove
nutrient supply to soils from pig systems. Conversely, when mismanaged or through
pressureonland,livestockcanhavemarkedadverseenvironmentalimpacts.
Water will become an increasing constraint to development. Current estimates of
consumption by livestock need to be treated with caution. Countries need urgently to
conductauditsusingrobustmethodologytoprovideaccurateassessmentsofwateruseby
theindustryandmethodstoimproveefficiency.

MeatandLivestockindustryandclimatechange
Thedebateonenvironmentalimpacthasrecentlybeendominatedbydiscussionontherole
ofagricultureinclimatechange.Livestockproductionisimplicatedasasignificantsourceof
greenhousegasGHG(methane(CH4)andnitrousoxide(N2O))andthroughchangesinland
4

use, and there is a growing policy imperative to consider ways to internalise the costs of
these emissions. There is considerable debate about the magnitude of emissions, with
values above and below the estimates of FAO (18% 0f total global anthropomorphic GHG
emissions).Howevertherangeofuncertaintydoesnotobviatetheneedforthesectortobe
proactiveinthedebateinderivingimprovedmeasurementsandprovidingsolutionsthatare
practicalandachievablebytheindustry.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stipulates national inventory
methods to record agricultural sector emissions and implicitly the share of different
subsectors in the sector total (as part of the Kyoto commitments). This does not include
developing countries and second, while livestock is a category for reporting, meat
productionperseisnot.
Estimates of emissions from the agriculture sector, in contrast with other industries, are
subject to much uncertainty. Simple generic coefficients applicable to all animals are
commonly used which takes no account of differences in production efficiency between
speciesandsystems.Currentemissionfactorsarereportedashavinganuncertaintyof30
50%. IPCC reporting will likely improve in terms of modelling sophistication to deal with
countryandsystemspecificestimates.Itisimportantthatuniforminventoryproceduresare
adoptedinallcountriesinordertoavoiddisplacementofemissions,e.g.reductionsinone
countrysimplybeingoffsetinanotherwithnooverallnetglobalreduction.
Withinthelivestocksector,thebalanceofemissionsisrelatedtoproductionsystemswith
ruminant systems dominated by CH4 from enteric fermentation and in pigs by N2O from
manures. Also as ruminant systems become more intensive the balance shifts from CH4
towardsN2O.MostoftheemissionsofbothCH4andN2Oariseonfarm,withonly3%from
meatprocessing,5%fortransportationand12%fortheconsumercomponent.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the main approach for summarising environmental
informationaboutproductlifecyclesandtoidentifycriticalcontrolpoints.HoweverLCAcan
be complex because of the wide variation in livestock systems and also the system
boundariesmustbeclearlydefinedandsystemscomparedonalikeforlikebasis.LCAshow
thattheproductionof1kgofbeefusesthemostlandandenergyandhasthehighestglobal
warmingpotentialfollowedby1kgofpork,chickeneggsandmilk.

Contributionofthemeatandlivestockindustrytogreenhousegasmitigation
Emissions per unit product can be decreased either by (1) increasing the efficiency of the
livestock production system itself or (2) directly by targeting the source of the emissions.
ThefirstrouteemphasisesthattheopportunitiestodecreaseGHGemissionsfromlivestock
andthosetoincreaseproductivityarecloselyrelated.
Genetic improvement of livestock is a particularly cost effective technology, producing
permanentandcumulativechangesinperformance.Alsochangingthedietofruminantscan
5

reduce methane output by a variety of means. These techniques are readily available but
they all have, to a greater or lesser extent, disadvantages which limit their use. Other
examples include use of growth promoters, avoiding excess N in the diet, and such
strategieshavethepotentialnotonlytoreduceemissionsbutalsotoenhanceleantissue
growth. Pasture based systems present particular challenges to nutritional management
strategies to reduce N losses. However, recent changes in plant breeding objectives have
thepotentialtoreduceGHGemission.Alsosoilorganiccarbon(SOC)sequestrationbythe
worldspermanentpasturescouldpotentiallyoffsetupto4%oftheglobalgreenhousegas
emissions.
Inintensivesystems,particularlypigandpoultry,engineeringandproducttechnologyoffer
the likely routes to mitigation. Technologies include onfarm anaerobic digestion (AD)
pressureswingadsorption(PSA)fromlivestockmaintainedinpurposedesignedbuildings.In
pig units, frequent removal of slurry from below slattedfloor storage pits to an outside,
coveredstorewillreducetheoverallammoniaemissionaswillmoreefficientmethods of
manureapplication.
Thereareclearlyalargenumberofstrategiesthathavethepotentialtoreduceemissions.
Currentlyhowevertherearelimitationsandrestrictionsontheuseofcertainmaterials(e.g.
growthpromoters)andtechnologies(GM)incertainpartsoftheworld.Furthermoremany
ofthesetechnologiesarenotalwaysappropriatetosystemsindevelopingcountriesandto
extensive grazing systems which contribute to methaneemissions. The high costs hamper
expansion of the technology and in particular represent a considerable constraint in
developingcountries.Lowcostandappropriatetechnologiesmusttobesoughttoaddress
the emissions that will inevitably arise from rapid expansion of meat production in these
countries.
GHG emissions associated with meat processing are small at about 3%. A key area of
progressisthroughtheuseofloweremissionenergysources,includingnaturalgasuseof
biomassburners.WastewaterprocessingisfocusedonreducingCH4emissionsvialessuse
ofanaerobicpondsystemsanduseoflandtodistributewastewater.Theadoptionofenergy
efficiency measures within processing and distribution (and indeed on farm) to reduce
energydemandthroughauditingsystemsisimportant.
There is a need to achieve emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner by
choosing the measures that bring about reductions in emissions at lowest unit costs (per
tonneofCO2e) 1 .Theuseofmarginalabatementcostcurves(MACCs),hasshownthatsome
measuresareactuallywinwin.Theseincludebreedingtoimproveproductivityandfertility,

Thereleaseofgreenhousegasesfromagriculture(predominantlynitrousoxide,methaneandcarbon
dioxide)istypicallyexpressedintermsofacommonglobalwarmingpotentialunitofcarbondioxide
equivalent(CO2e).

the use of ionophores as feed additives and the efficient use of Nitrogen applications to
crops.

Supplyanddemandsideperspectives
There are three different approaches to policy on emissions control voluntary, command
andcontrol,andmarketbasedinstruments.Marketbasedapproachesareamoreflexible
form of regulation. The two most commonly discussed instruments are an emissions
(pollution)taxandpollutionpermittradingsystems(capandtradesystem).Apermitsystem
intheoryguaranteesanoverallpollutionlimitintermsoftheinitialcapandthisprovides
greater certainty in terms of the environmental target. The introduction of cap and trade
systemsisageneralobjectiveinseveralpartsoftheworld.
Themovetodecouplesupportfromdirectproductionandmoveittowardsthesupportof
environmental objectives offers some potential for government leverage or cross
compliance to include emissions reduction objectives. The use of subsidy schemes to
incentivisemitigationactivitywillbecomemoreprevalentintheEUandislikelytoincludea
widersuiteofmitigationmeasures.
Increasinglyanumberofdemandsidefactorsarehavinganinfluenceonthefutureofmeat
production.Specifically,increasingawarenessofenvironmentalandhumanhealthimpacts
ofdietarychoiceisbecomingmoremainstream.Retailersarekeentoadoptapositionon
lifecyclecosts,apositionthatcanalsosecurethemacompetitiveadvantage.Butthereis
concernabouttherapidgrowthoflifecycleclaimsforcarbonemissionsofsomeproducts.
At least 16 different methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint of food products
have been developed since 2007, but as yet there is no international agreement on the
singlebestmethod.
Arguably there is a case for attributing emissions on a consumption basis. Consumption
based accounting places responsibility at the source of original demand for goods or
services. This changes the question from How many GHG emissions are produced in our
country? to What quantity of GHG emissions is our country responsible for through our
consumption? It also highlights the logic of individual carbon budgets but this prospect
althoughethicallycompellingthoughpoliticallyunattractive.

Towardsaroadmapforthemeatindustry
Therisingglobaldemandformeatproductsandtheneedoffoodsecuritypresentseveral
challengesfortheindustry.Specifically,

theneedtocontinuetodeliverproductivitygains

improvingenvironmentalsustainability
7

securethelivelihoodsofthoseinthelivestockindustryindevelopingcountries

managinganimalandhumanhealthrisks.

Addressingtheseaspectswillhelptheindustrycontinuetoplayanimportantroleinglobal
foodsecurityandrurallivelihoods.
Equallyitisessentialthattheindustryengagecloselywithstakeholdersandpolicymakersto
emphasise the multiple roles of livestock in maintaining landscape and biodiversity, food
securityandlivelihoods,particularlyofthepoorandtoachievetargetstodeliverecosystem
goodsandservicesincludingenvironmentalprotection.Theindustryneedstorecognisethat
livestocksystemscanbothdamageandbenefittheenvironment.
ItisimportantthatIMSsupportthefollowinginitiativestoachievethisaim
1) To derive more precise methods in calculating national GHG inventories. The
extension of inventories to developing countries not currently signatories to the
protocols.InthesamewayIMSshouldpressforstandardisationofLCAmethodology
toovercometheconfusionthatcurrentlyexists.
2) Thelivestockindustryhaslargepotentialtocontributetoclimatechangemitigation.
TheIMSshouldworkwithrelevantstakeholdersatnationalandinternationallevels
torealisethispotentialandtoenhancecapabilitiestomonitorandreportemissions
fromlivestockproduction.Thisisparticularlyimportantindevelopingcountriesand
in those countries which are predicted to show the greatest growth in production.
IMS should consider joining Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA)
Projecttohelpachievetheseobjectives,
http://www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/en/.
3) The sector is characterised by a variety of production practices that offer the
potential for low cost mitigation (i.e. GHG reduction). For example, improving
production efficiency on farm is an important route to reducing GHG emissions.
Indeed there is considerable scope for improvements in productivity that deliver
winwinsintermsofreducedproductionscostsandloweremissions.Itisimportant
forthesectortoidentifythesemeasuresandforthemtobecomebestpractice.IMS
shouldactivelypromotethesemeasures.
4) Itisimportantforthesectortoembracethechallengeofemissionsreduction,which
offers as many opportunities as threats. For example, beyond scope for efficiency
improvement, there is a considerable market potential in the development and
exploitationofnewtechnologies
5) The livestock industry impacts both positively and negatively on social,
environmental and public health targets. Given the significance of the livestock
sector to agriculture as a whole, the IMS should play a leading role in securing an
8

internationalframeworkfordevelopmentofthelivestocksectorwithamajorfocus
onsustainability.
6) Ultimately,GHGemissionsarelikelytobeaddressedbysomeformofcarbonprice,
which in turn facilitates the use of marketbased instrument like trading. IMS
therefore needs to develop a position in relation to carbon pricing. Irrespective of
the policy instruments chosen by government, retailers are likely to pursue niche
opportunitiesinlowcarbonproduct.Retaildemandmeansthatitwillbeincreasingly
importantforproducerstodemonstratecertifiedemissionsreductions
7) A similar constraint is likely to emerge in terms of adapting to climate change and
specifically the use of water resources. While the volume of water used in
productioniscontested,thepriceofwaterisinmostcasesbelowthecostofsupply
(includingitsenvironmentalcost).IMSmightthereforeconsidertheimplicationsof
alternativewaterpricingregimes
8) A considerable amount of government and privatelyfunded research and
development is now focussed on the delivery of low emissions livestock systems.
Adaptation technologies and policy related research are also of high priority. The
Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, with thus far some 30
countriesworkingcollaborativelyonproducingmorefoodwithfeweremissionswas
launchedinCopenhagenin2010.TheIMSshouldencouragemembersthroughtheir
respectivecountriestoinputtoensurethatlivestockemissionsarecentreplacein
theAlliancesworkprogramme.
FinallytheimperativeofcontinuingapublicdebateisparamountandIMSshouldbeclosely
involved in ensuring that the research agenda meets the needs of industry and to ensure
thatthepublicdebateisbasedonsoundscience.

MainReport

1.Theroleoflivestocksystemsinsustainableagriculture
1.1Livestockproduction,systemsandfeedresources
1.1.1Trendsinproduction
Livestock production has rapidly responded to growing demand for meat, particularly in
developingcountries(Table1.1).MostnotablearetheincreasesinChinaandBrazil,6and
4, respectively. The majority of the increase in meat production has been from
monogastrics, firstly poultry and secondly pig meat. Increases from ruminant production
have been small. In 2007, globally, pig and poultry meat accounted for 73% of total
production,whilecattleandsheepandgoatsaccountedfor22and5%,respectively(Table
1.2).
Table 1.1 Production of livestock products by region, 1980 and 2007 (million tonnes)
(adaptedFAO,2009)
Region/Country
Group/Country

DevelopedCountries

DevelopingCountries

World

Meat

Milk

Eggs

1980

88.6

48.1

136.7

2007

110.2

175.5

285.7

1980

350.6

114.9

465.5

2007

357.8

313.5

671.3

1980

17.9

9.5

27.4

2007

18.9

48.9

67.8

Table 1.2 Production of main categories of meat for 2007 (million tonnes; values in
parenthesisarepercentageoftotalproductionforthatspecies;adaptedfromFAO,2009)

Pigs

Poultry

Cattle

Sheepand
Goats

Total

Developed
Countries

39.5(36)

37.0(34)

29.4(27)

3.2(3)

109.1

Developing
Countries

76.0(45)

49.8(29)

32.5(19)

10.8(6)

169.1

World

115.5(42)

86.8(31)

61.9(22)

14.0(5)

278.2

FAO(2009)notedincreasedlivestockproductionoccurredasaresultof(1)increase
inanimalnumbersand/or(2)increasedoutputperanimal.Globally,overthelast20
years, the increase in production has on average been associated more with
10

increasedlivestocknumbersthanincreasedoutputperanimal(yield).Howeveritis
clear that there have been considerable technical improvements in livestock
productionsystems.Advancesingenetics,nutrition,healthanddiseaseandhousing
haveplayedamajorroleinhelpingtodriveproductiongrowthandefficiency,with
majorprogressinpoultrymeatproduction,eggsporkmeatanddairyindustriesbut
lesssoinbeefandsheep.Howevertheseimprovementsinefficiencygainedmainly
in developed countries have been matched by apparent reductions in gross
efficiencyindevelopingcountriesasresultofincreasesinanimalnumberstoachieve
theincreasesinproduction.

1.1.2Livestockspeciesandproductionsystems
Livestockproductionsystemsdifferwidelyinscaleandintensityacrosstheworldandreflect
differencesinavailableresources(i.e.land,feed,water),socioeconomicsandtradition.FAO
(2009) defines livestock production systems into grazing (both extensive and intensive),
mixedfarmingsystems(irrigatedandrainfed)andindustrialsystems(orlandlesssystems)
(seeTable1.3).

Table1.3Globallivestockpopulationandproductionbysystem,average20012003

Grazing

Population(millionhead)
Cattleand
406
buffaloes
Sheepand
590
goats
Pigs

Production(milliontonnes)
Beef
14.6
Mutton
3.8
Pork
0.8
Poultrymeat
1.2
Milk
71.5
Eggs
0.5

Rainfed
mixed

641

Irrigated
mixed

450

Industrial

Total

29

1526

632

546

1777

29.3
4.0
12.5
8.0
319.2
5.6

12.9
4.0
29.1
11.7
203.7
17.1

3.9
0.1
52.8
52.8

35.7

941*

60.7
11.9
95.2
73.7
594.4
35.7

(FAO,2009afterSteinfeldetal.,2006;
(*fromFAOSTAT2008http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancorFAO)

Grazingsystemsaccountfor26% oftheearthsicefreelandmass(Steinfeldetal.,
2006) and typically use land that is unsuitable for cropping (i.e. semiarid and arid
areas). As noted by Pitesky et al. (2009) such areas include land cleared from
11

rainforests contributing to soil erosion and further deforestation. Intensive grazing

systemsfoundintemperateareasaresupportedbytheproductionofhigherquality
foragesandcarryhigheranimalnumbers.Mixedfarmingsystemsarethoseinwhich
arableandlivestockproductionarejointactivitiesonfarmandaredefinedbyFAO
(2009)asthosesystemsinwhich10%ofdrymatterconsumptionbyanimalscomes
fromarablebyproductsorwheremorethan10%oftotalvalueofproductioncomes
fromnonlivestockfarming.Theyincludebothrainfedmixedfarmingsystemsand
irrigatedmixedfarmingsystems

Industrial systems are defined as those in which less than 10% of the dry matter
consumption is farm produced and include for example intensive beef cattle, pigs
and poultry fed on cereal grain and industrial byproducts purchased outside the
farm.Thesesystemsaccountforapproximately75%,40%and65%ofpoultrymeat,
pigmeatandeggs,respectively.

1.1.3Feedresourcesforlivestock
Domesticated livestock convert forages, arable crops and associated byproducts into
desirable human foods of high nutritional value (particularly in relation to high quality
proteinandmicronutrients)andplayingakeyroleinfoodsecurity.Howevermanylivestock
diets include ingredients such as cereal grains which could be eaten directly by man. This
has opened up a debate on the competition between livestock and humans for land and
otherresourcestoproducecrops.

TheabilityofruminantstoutilisehumaninediblematerialhasbeenusedbyGillet
al. (2010) to represent efficiencies of livestock production systems quantifying not
only the contribution animal products make to food supply, but to the nutrients
supplied by food, namely protein and energy (Table 1.4). In terms of both total
energyefficiencyandtotalefficiencyofproteinproduction,inallcasesinputsexceed
outputs. Beef production systems are markedly less efficient than monogastric
systems but when expressed in terms of humanedible return, outputs exceed
inputs.Thus,althoughmonogastriclivestockaremoreefficientintermsoftotalfood
resourceusethanruminants,whendietsarebasedofforagesandcropbyproducts,
thenthesesystemscanbenetcontributorsofhumanediblefood.

Cereal grains are a major source of nutrition for pig and poultry and to some extent beef
anddairycattleinintensivesystems.TheFAO(Steinfeldetal.,2006)estimatedthatglobally
livestock use some 33% of the cereals produced. Oilseeds and their byproducts (cake or
meals)arekeyingredientsofthelivestockdiets(seeTable1.5).

12

Table 1.4 Comparative efficiencies of different livestock production systems in the USA
(adaptedGilletal.,2010)

Energy
Protein
1

Totalefficiency
Humanedible
Totalefficiency1 Humanedible
efficiency2
efficiency2
Milk
0.25
1.07
0.21
2.08
Beef
0.07
0.65
0.08
1.19
Pigs
0.21
0.3
0.19
0.29
Poultrymeat 0.19
0.28
0.31
0.62
1

Totalefficiencycalculatedasoutputsofhumanedibleenergyandproteindividedbytotalenergyandprotein
inputs
2
Humanedibleefficiencycalculatedasoutputsofhumanedibleenergyandproteindividedbyhumanedible
inputs.

Due to their nutritional importance to livestock, oilseed byproducts are often more
valuablethantheextractedoil(i.e.soyaoilvs.soyabeanmeal).Awiderangeofbyproducts
fromotheragriculturalsectorsandfoodindustryarealsousedasanimalfeed.Theseinclude
molasses,sugarbeetpulp,bran,distillersgrain,brewersgrain,vegetableandfruitresidues
(mainlyprocessed),fat,bakerymeal,strawetc.

Thecompetitionbetweenhuman,biofuelandlivestockneeds,combinedwithsevere
weatherevents,hasalreadyimpactedonglobalstocksofsomestaplefoodscausing
spikes in food prices (such as those seen during 2008). These spikes will become
more frequent if rising demand cannot be consistently matched by supply (IFPRI,
2009). These changes are also reflected in prices of byproducts as feed
manufacturerssubstitutecerealswithmorefibrousmaterialsandfats.

Table1.5Useoffeedconcentratein2005(milliontonnes;FAO,2009)

Commoditygroup
Grains
Brans
Pulses
Oilcrops
Oilcake
Rootsandtubers
Fishmeal
Total

Feedconcentrateusein2005(milliontonnes)
Developing
Developedcountries
countries
284.2
457.7
71.2
34.5
6.8
7.3
13.4
14.3
90.5
101.7
57.8
30.8
3.8
1.1
602.7
647.4

13

World
741.9
105.7
14.2
27.6
214.9
142.0
3.8
1250.1

1.2Theglobaleconomicsignificanceoflivestockproduction
TheagriculturalsectorrepresentsavaryingproportionofGDP(nationalincome)indifferent
countrieswithatypicaltrendtowardsashrinkingcontributionasnationalincomerises.For
example, the contribution in less developed low income countries can be high (e.g. 42%
Ethiopia)relativetoeconomiesintransition(approximately10%inThailand15%China)to
lessthan10%indevelopedeconomies(6%Brazilandlessthan2%intheUS,lessthan1%in
theUK;WorldResourcesInstitute,2007).

As noted by FAO (Steinfeld et al., 2006) livestock production typically represents a

significantproportion(around40%ofglobalincome(orGDP))earnedbyagriculture.
Itemployedaround1.3billionpeopleinavarietyofdirectandindirectjobs.Inless
developed countries, livestock are considered as a multifunctional asset that is
central to the livelihoods and wellbeing of some of the poorest societies on earth
(Randolph et al., 2007). These functions include a source of income and savings, a
sourceoffoodandfibreandenergyandinputsoffertiliser.Indevelopedcountries
livestock are less vital for livelihoods, but are considered as an ecologically and
culturally significant part of multifunctional farming landscapes. As such, livestock
systems are part of an agricultural mosaic that has elements of a public good for
whichcitizensareoftenwillingtopay(Cooperetal.,2009).Theseattributesoftendo
notshowupinconventionalmeasuresofeconomiccontribution,buttheymustbe
consideredasoffsettingsomeofthenegativeexternalitiesfromthesector.

The economic significance of livestock production is mirrored by shifting consumer

demand worldwide with significant growth in emerging economies, experiencing
combinationsofrisingpopulation,incomesandurbanisation(ThorntonandHerrero,
2010).ThisisparticularlythecaseinChinaandIndia,whichaccountfor38%ofthe
world's population. A major uncertainty in global projections is related to what is
likely to happen in these two countries, as it may have considerable impacts
elsewhere. The different scenarios about meat demand in these countries are
conditional on policy responses on food security, biofuels and climate change
adaptation. Nevertheless increased meateating has followed rising affluence in
many parts of the world. China's levels doubled between 1990 and 2002. Back in
1961,theChineseconsumedamere3.6kgperperson,whilein2002theyreached
52.4kgeach;halfoftheworld'sporkisnowconsumedinChina.TheUSandtheUK
are among the few countries whose meat consumption levels have remained
relatively stable. Surprisingly, it is not the US that has the largest consumption
(124.8kg),buttheDanesat145.9kgperpersonin2002.

AnoverviewofconsumptiontrendsisshowninTable1.6takenfromThorntonand
Herrero (2010). Form the same source, Figure 1.1 shows the relationship between
percapitaincomesandmeatconsumption.

14

Table1.6Pastandprojectedtrendsinconsumptionofmeatandmilkindevelopingand
developedcountries(ThorntonandHerrero,2010).

Annualpercapitaconsumption
Totalconsumption

Developing

Developed

Meat(kg)

Milk(kg)

Meat(Mt)

Milk(Mt)

1980
1990
2002
2015
2030
2050

1980
1990
2002
2015
2030
2050

14
18
28
32
38
44

73
80
78
83
89
94

34
38
44
55
67
78

195
200
202
203
209
216

47
73
137
184
252
326

86
100
102
112
121
126

114
152
222
323
452
585

228
251
265
273
284
295

Figure1.1Therelationshipbetweenmeatconsumptionandpercapitaincomein2002.
National per capita income based on purchasing power parity (PPP) (Thornton and
Herrero,2010).

15

Changing patterns of demand are taking place within an increasingly liberalised global
trading system that drives a wedge between the location of environmental damages
associatedwithproductionandthefinalconsumptionoflivestockproducts.

1.3Livestockfarminginsustainableagriculture
As an industry, agriculture is essentially a manmade adjunct to natural ecosystems. Pre
industrial forms of farming employed closed loop systems out of necessity, reusing bi
productsandwastesasinputsoffeedandfertiliser.Industrialisationledtotheseparationof
many production functions, and the separation of production and consumption. It has
displaced many traditional practices providing the ability to buyin inputs adding the
potentialforoveruseoffertilisersandpesticides.

Traditionally, agriculture has also been able to ignore some of the external
consequences of production and excess input use. These impacts to air and water
have not been priced, nor has the responsibility for pollution been netted back to
thesource.Theadventofthepolluterpaysprinciplesuggeststhatfarming,likeany
other industry, will need to account more fully for its external impacts. That is,
productionshouldreflectbothfinancialcostsplusthecostsaccruingtootherparts
ofsociety.Alsothepositiveimpactsforwhichcitizensareoftenwillingtopayneed
to be taken into account. These attributes often do not show up in conventional
measuresofeconomiccontribution,buttheymustbeconsideredasoffsettingsome
ofthenegativeexternalitiesfromthesector.

Thedefinitionofsustainableagricultureiscontestedandcanbeextendedtoinclude
a range of biological, socioeconomic and philosophical criteria. Many governments
are also linking sustainability concepts to national and global food security
objectives.Fromtheforegoingdiscussion,onedefinitionisproductionsystemsthat
minimiseinputuse(i.e.resourceefficiency) 2 ,andinwhichproducerstopaythefull
cost of externalities they generate. Different forms of agriculture can claim to
approximatetheseconditions,althoughthereiscurrentlynocomprehensivewayfor
internalisingexternalcosts.Instead,systemstendtobedefinedbytheinputsused,
withorganicandintegratedfarmingsystemsmostcloselyapproximatingtraditional
systems.

However growing concern about global warming and water pollution are leading
manygovernmentstorealisethatagriculturecanneverbecomesustainablewithout
some form of regulatory or incentive mechanisms that demonstrate external costs
andreturnthesetofarmdecisionmakers.Suchregulatorydevicesincludevoluntary,
commandandcontrolormarketbasedinstrumentssuchasgreentaxes(oninputs
oroutputs)andtradablepollutionpermits(seesection4).Whilealltheseactonthe

Resourceefficiencyisnormallydefinedintermsofmaximisingoutputperunitofinput.

16

production side,itisalsopossible forsustainablepracticestobeincentivisedfrom

thedemandside.Inmanycountriesconsumerawarenessisbecomingtheprincipal
driver of decision making among powerful retailers. This driver is particularly
relevant to meat and livestock production, a sector that has suffered some bad
publicity, first associated with animal health and welfare, but more recently as a
resultofgreenhousegasemissions.Increasingaccesstoinformationonproduction
practicesallowsconsumerstobemorediscerningaboutwhethertoconsumemeat
and to demand niche products that demonstrate the attributes that they wish to
purchase.Retailersareadeptatmeasuringthisdemandandcreatingcorresponding
productniches.

1.4Effectsoflivestockfarmingonlandscapemanagement,biodiversity,soilconservation
andfunctioningagriecosystems
FAO (Steinfeld et al., 2006; 2009) reported that livestock agriculture is the worlds largest
useoflandresources,withgrazingandlanddedicatedtocropsforfeedrepresenting~80%
of all agricultural land. Livestock thus engages very closely with landscape management,
biodiversity,soilconservationandtheholisticfunctioningofagriecosystems.

Livestockfarminginteractswithagriculturalecosystemsinacomplexmannerandis
heavilyinfluencedbythegeographicallocation,availabilityofnaturalresources(i.e.
local feeds) and management practices. Extensive livestock systems typically make
useoflocalresourcesandplayanimportantroleinmaintainingandenhancingplant
species biodiversity in unique habitats. For example in some regions, following
restructuring of European payments for farming, producers have been reducing
animalnumbersintheuplandswithnegativeimpactonbiodiversity.Conversely,in
mixed livestockcropping systems livestock contribute manures as an important
inputtothecropproductionandcontributesvitalnutrientstothesoilandhencea
positiveenvironmentalimpact.Manuresimprovesoilqualityandfertilityandthere
isevidencethatsoilfertilisedwithmanureismorebiologicallyactiveandofhigher
fertility than those fertilised by mineral fertilisers. Manure can also assist in
enhancing the carbon storage potential of the soil helping to remove carbon from
theatmosphere(Soussanaetal.,2010)

However, the growing demand for livestock products has resulted in increased
intensification or industrialisation of livestock production resulting in a
disconnectbetweenproductionandlocallyavailablefeedresources.

Such intensive systems are frequently characterised by increased concentration of

manureproductswhichputspressureontheabilityofthelocalenvironmenttodeal
withsuchmaterial.
17

InrelationtopasturelandsFAO(2009)reportedthreemajortrends
o valuable ecosystems i.e. forests are being converted to pastureland for
grazing;
o pasturelandisbeingconvertedtootheruses(cropping,urbanisation)and
o degradation, mainly as a result of overgrazing, is resulting in soil erosion,
degradation of vegetation, release of soil carbon, reduction in biodiversity
andimpairedwatercycles.

Existing pasture land can, on average, be considered to be at capacity and hence any
increasesinanimalnumbersinthesesystemswillplacefurtherpressureonthedegradation
offorests.Ofcoursetherearelargeregionalvariationswithsomeareasundergrazedwhilst
othersarecausingextremepressuresonvaluableecosystemsandsoilresources.
ThemajorenvironmentalimpactsofdifferentproductionsystemsweresummarisedbyFAO
(2009; see Table 1.7). These include impact on land degradation, water depletion and
pollutionandbiodiversity.
Thistableisinevitablyanoverviewbutisvaluableinshowingthatsystemscanhavearange
ofimpactsfrompositivetonegative.However,thisglobalperspectivehideslargeregional
and system variations. Grazing systems that are properly managed make an important
contribution to maintaining habitats and landscape whilst pastures that are heavily
overstocked result in degradation. Similarly the manures from intensive pig production
systems have the potential to improve soil fertility (and do so in many regions) whilst in
others, the pressures on land use are so intense as to cause major pollution problems in
termsofbothwaterandair.
Thegrowthindemandforlivestockproducts(seesection1.2)willexacerbatepressureson
natural resources and the environment, demanding approaches thatwill permit increased
productionwhileloweringenvironmentalburdenhencedeliveringincreasedsustainability.
Traditional systems can reduce environmental impact and indeed have some major
positiveenvironmentalbenefitsbuttheinevitablelowmeatoutputsfromthesesystemswill
notmeetthepredictedgrowthindemand.

18


TABLE1.7Majorenvironmentalimpactsofdifferentproductionsystems 3
(AdaptedfromFAO,2009)
RUMINANTSPECIES
MONOGASTRICS

(Cattle,Sheep,etc.)
(Pigs,Poultry)

Extensive
grazing 4

Intensive Traditional
systems 5 systems 6

Industrial
systems

LANDDEGRADATION

Expansionintonaturalhabitat

ns

ns

Overgrazing(vegetationchange,soil
compaction)

ns

ns

ns

Intensivefeedproduction(soilerosion)

ns

ns

Soilfertilisation

++

WATERDEPLETIONANDPOLLUTION

Alterationofwatercycle

ns

ns

Pollutionwithnutrients,pathogensand
drugresidues

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

Lossofdomesticanimalgeneticdiversity ns

ns

Ecosystemmaintenance

ns

ns

ns

BIODIVERSITY
Habitatdestructionfromfeedcrop
productionandanimalwastes
Habitatpollutionfromfeedcrop
productionandanimalwastes

++

1.5Wateruse
Thelikelihoodofextremeeventssuchasdroughtscombinedwithincreasedhumanneeds
as populations expand have highlighted the importance of water use in agriculture.
ChapagainandHoeskstra(2004)havecalculatedthatagricultureaccountsfor86%ofglobal
waterconsumption.Mostofthisisrainwaterusedfortheproductionofcrops.
OneindicationoftherelativewaterrequirementperunitofproductisprovidedinFigure
1.2.Thehighvalueattributedtobeefisnotable.Howeverthisfigure,althoughextensively
quoted,ishighlysimplisticandneedstobeinterpretedwithcare.Itassumesanindustrial

Observedrelationshipsundercommonmanagementpractices.
Extensivegrazingsystemsforruminantsarepredominantlybasedonnaturalgrasslandsinmarginalenvironments.
5
Intensivesystemsforruminantsaregenerallybasedonimprovedgrasslands(usingirrigation,fertilizers,improvedvarietiesand
pesticides),withsupplementaryfeedingorconfinedfeedingofgrainandsilage.
6
Traditionalsystemsformonograstricsincludemixedfarmingsystemsorbackyardscavengingsystems.
Note:ns=notsignificant

19

beef production system, where it takes on average three years before the animal is
slaughteredtoproduceabout200kgofbonelessbeef.

Figure1.2Wateruseforagriculturalproducts(litresperkg)

Importantly of the total requirement (15,500 litres) for beef only 155 litres is used
for drinking, cleaning and post farm gate processing. The remainder (99.9%) is
accounted for by crop evapotranspiration fed by rainfall or irrigation for crops for
animal feed and forage/ grassland. Apart from irrigation, rainwater which falls on
grassland would do so irrespective whether the land was grazed by livestock and
arguablycouldbediscountedfromtherequirement.Inthisrespectrecentmodelling
studiesinAustralia(Petersetal.,2010)showthatthemajorhydrologicalflowsinthe
system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds
representsmallcomponentsofthetotalwaterinputstotheagriculturalenterprise,
and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned
pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to
produceredmeatinsouthernAustraliaisinregion18to540litres/kgHSCW.

Itisimportantthatindividualcountriesnowundertakearigorousanalysisofwater
useinmeatsystemsbasedonsoundprinciples.

Irrespectiveoftheveracityofthefiguresquotedandtheneedtodefinethesystems
ofproduction,itisimportanttoqualifythesignificanceofthisindicator.Importantly,
the use of water imposes different predominately local external costs relative to
greenhouse gas emissions, which are a global problem. Clearly irrigation schemes
canhavewideregionalimpacts(andabout30%ofruminantsareinmixedirrigated
systems Table 1.3 in section 1) but in general water demand only matters in
contexts where water is locally scarce and where there is no system in place for
water users to pay the full costs of water supply, including some element of the
environmental cost of supply. As it happens, many countries are moving towards
20

such forms of water tariff structure, and so water demand may be less significant
thanitfirstappears.Thisabilitytousetariffstointernalisethecostsofwateruseisa
key difference between water and greenhouse gases. For the latter, the potential
damagecostsaretrulyglobalratherthanlocal,andthereiscurrentlynoequivalent
pricing arrangement for emissions. The meat processing industry is already
responding by reducing water usage but this should not compromise the need to
meet high hygiene standards. The policy imperatives of water use are further
discussedinsection4.

21

2.Themeatandlivestockindustryandclimatechange
2.1Sourcesofgreenhousegasemissionsfromlivestock
The classical studies by Tyndall in the 19th century illustrated that CO2 in the atmosphere
increasesheatretentionandthushighlightedtheimportanceofgreenhousegases(GHG)in
climate change. The critical issue is the increasing ratio of production to consumption of
GHG related to human activity resulting in unprecedentedly high levels of GHG in the
atmosphere (IPCC, 2007). There is however a continuing debate on the role of human
(anthropomorphic) activity on climate change in relation to the large fluxes in non
anthropomorphiccomponents(principallywatervapour).Thisdebateisoutofthescopeof
the present review which adopts the premise that human activity including livestock
productionisacomponentofclimatechange.ItisnoteworthyinthisrespectthatAnderegg
etal.(2010)recentlyreportedthatsome98%ofclimatescientistswhopublishresearchon
the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet. Further, the
researchers who were convinced of the human impact on climate change had published
twice as many papers as their sceptical counterparts, and were cited in other people's
researchtwotothreetimesmoreoften.

CO2 equivalents represent the total impact of GHG in the atmosphere on heat
retentionandtheGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)foraparticularGHGistheratio
ofheattrappedbyoneunitmassoftheGHGtothatofoneunitmassofCO2overa
specificperiodoftime.TheGWPofCO2is1whiletheGWPformethane(CH4)and
nitrousoxide(N2O)are23and296theGWPofCO2(IPCC,2001).Methaneand
nitrousoxidearetheprincipaloutputsoflivestocksystemsthatimpactonGHG.

emissionsarisedirectlyandindirectly
o Directemissionsrefertothosedirectlyproducedbytheanimalfromenteric
fermentationoffibrebyruminants,manureandurineexcretion.
o Indirect emissions include those from feed crops used for animal feed,
emissionsfrommanureapplication,CO2emissionsfromfertiliserproduction
for feed and CO2 emissions from processing and transportation of
refrigerated livestock products (IPCC, 1997). Other important indirect
emissions include emissions from land to livestock including deforestation,
desertificationandreleaseofcarbonfromcultivatedsoils.

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with different stages in the animal food
chainproductioncycleareshowninTable2.1.

22

Table2.1Livestocklifecyclestageandassociatedemissions(Garnett,2007)
Lifecycle
Processcreatingemissions
stage
Productionof Productionofnitrogenousand
animal
otherfertilisers,agricultural
machinery,pesticidesetc
Housing,
maintenance,
machinery
Digestion
(ruminants)
Waste
products
Slaughtering,
processing,
waste
treatment
Transport,
storage,
packaging
Domestic
consumption
Waste
disposal

Typeofemissions

Heating,lightingetc

N2Oemissionsfrom
grazingland,fertiliser
production;CO2from
fertiliserproduction
CO2

Entericfermentation

CH4

Manureandurine

CH4andN2O

Machinery,cooking,cooling,
chilling,lighting,leatherand
woolproduction,renderingand
incineration
Transport,chilling,lighting,
packagingmaterials

CO2andrefrigerant
emissions

Refrigerationandcooking

CO2andrefrigerant
emissions
CO2,CH4andN2O

Transport,composting,
anaerobicdigestionand
incineration

CO2andrefrigerant
emissions

2.2Contributionofthemeatandlivestockindustrytoglobalandregionalgreenhousegas
emissions
While meat production is implicated in a number of environmental costs (Subak, 1999;
World Bank, 2010), controversy about the greenhouse gas impact of meat production
dominatesthedebateontheenvironmentalimpactoflivestock.
The United Nations Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997, seeks to limit the GHG produced by
humansandthelegallybindingagreementmakescommitmentsforthereductionin6GHG
(carbondioxide,methane,nitrousoxide,hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbonsandsulphur
hexafluoride).InsomecountriesthiscommitmenttoreducingGHGisnowpartofalow
carboneconomyframework.

The FAO (Steinfeld et al., 2006) estimated the contribution of anthropogenic GHG
emissions from the livestock sector as 7100 Tg CO2eq per year, equating to
approximately 18% of total global anthropogenic GHG emission. It was estimated
that livestock accounted for 9, 3540 and 65% of the total anthropogenic GHG
emittedCO2,CH4andN2O,respectively.
23

ThereismuchongoingdebateabouttheaccuracyoftheFAOestimatesandabout
the quantity of emissions that should be legitimately attributed to livestock
production.Beyondthetwomaingases,thereportattributesaconsiderablelevelof
carbonreleasefromlandusechange(esp.tropicaldeforestation)totheconversion
oflandforlivestockfeeds.

TheFAOreporthasbeendiscussedwidely,withfurthercontributionsfromGoodland
and Ahang (2009), actually suggesting that the estimates are conservative (they
estimatethatlivestockemissionscouldbeashighas51%ofglobalemissions).This
report has in turn been widely criticised for some of its scientific assumptions, for
example the way it treats animal respiration. Pitesky et al. (2009) offer another
critique of FAO and suggest that US livestock emissions are much lower as a
percentage of the US emissions total than the global estimate. This observation
highlightstheobviousfactthatlivestockemissionsconstituteadifferentproportion
of national emissions depending on the importance of the sector relative to other
emittingsectors.Forexample,intheUKin2008,agriculturalemissionswereabout
42 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents 7 out of a national total of around
650 million tonnes (i.e. about 8%). Of these emissions, about half came from
livestock, predominantly from ruminants on a variety of intensive and extensive
systems.Wecanexpectthisfiguretodifferincountrieswhereagricultureaccounts
foragreatershareofthenationaleconomy.Inparticulartheprecisecontributionof
eachcountrywillvaryaccordingtoproductionsystem,wastemanagementsystems
andimportantlytheextentoflandusechange.

Notethattheforegoingdiscussionrelatestolivestockemissionsasaccountedforin
national inventory methods (for recording emissions) as stipulated by the
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)forreportingpurposesonKyoto
commitments. This inventory process requires the recording of agricultural sector
emissionsandimplicitlytheshareofdifferentsubsectorsinthesectortotal.

There are two important observations to make on this point. The first is that this
mandatoryreportingonlyappliestocountriesthataresignatorytotheProtocol;so
calledAnnexI&IIcountries.Nonannexcountriesincludingalldevelopingcountries
havenosuchobligationtoundertakeaninventoryandthismeansthatwehaveno
standardapproachtoquantifyingtheemissionsformanytransitionanddeveloping
countries.Thisisvitallyimportantinthecontextthatmuchofthefuturegrowthin
meatproductionisprojectedtooccurintheseverycountries.

Second,whilelivestockisacategoryforreporting,meatproductionperseisnot.As
such, national inventory figures can only tell us a part of the story on the
contributionofmeatproductiontoglobalemissions.Toderivethisfigurerequiresus

Carbondioxideequivalent(CO2e)isthecommonunitofaccountforsummarisingthevolumeofall
greenhousegasesi.e.awayofconvertingmethaneandnitrousoxideintounitsofcarbon

24

tospecifythewholeproductionchainandtocounttheemissionsateachstageupto
or just before the final purchase by the consumer. A more extreme accounting
methodology would involve a life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA as applied to meat
productionisconsideredlater.

Even the most conservative estimates in these papers indicate that the livestock
sector, and implicitly meat production and consumption trends, represents a
challenge to the global agenda on greenhouse gas mitigation and agricultures
contributiontoglobalreductions.Thesectorisunlikelytogounnoticedintheeffort
todrivedownemissionsinmanycountries.

These studies also highlight a number of important points that allow the sector to
understand the different strands of the debate and how different policy
interventionsindevelopedversusdevelopingcountriesmaybenecessary.Theyalso
clearly point out that livestock product life cycles (see section 2.3.2) need to be
clearlyscrutinisedinordertoidentifytherelevantpointofobligation 8 foremissions,
whichcanbelocatedwithinorbeyondthefarmgate.Aparticularpointofinterest
concern the emissions liability for feed inputs, which will often be generated in
countries other than where they are actually consumed by livestock. This issue is
important because it indicates where emissions reductions must occur and who
should potentially bear the costs of reducing emissions. This in turn provides an
indicationofwhereeffectiveandefficientemissionssavinginvestmentsneedtobe
targeted(e.g.onfarmversusprocessingortransportation) 9 .Thisaspectisdiscussed
inthenextsection.

Reports on the current emissions intensity of production are also paralleled by

studies on the growth of meat consumption and the associated emissions
implications.AttemptsbyRosegrant(1999),Steinfeldetal.(2006)andFiala(2008)
provideusefulattemptstosynthesisrelevantvariablesintermsofchangingtastes,
demandelasticitiesandproductiontechnologies.Buttheassumptionsnecessaryfor
forecasting demand are highly uncertain and therefore the resulting quantities (of
meat demanded) and emissions projections must be treated with caution. These
papers have been paralleled by others that have attempted to forecast changes in
tastesandconsumptionpatternsandinevitablepatternsoflanduseandemissions
(Rosegrantetal.,1999)andFiala,2009).

Thepointofobligationisjargonforthepointintheproductionprocesswhereemissionsarise.Thisislikely
tobethepointatwhichanygovernmentregulationislikelytofocus.
9
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/meat_vs_miles.php?page=1

25

2.3TherelativecontributionofcomponentsintheproductioncycletoGHGemissions.
Clearlyglobalestimatesobscureregionalandcountryvariations.Also,aspointedoutabove,
thereisaneedtounderstandandquantifyemissionsacrossthemeatproductioncycle.
The extent of the contribution from the main sources of GHG from livestock systems is
indicated in Figure 2.1 (adapted FAO, 2009). Hence, (1) methane emissions from enteric
fermentation and manures, (2) N2O from manures and (3) land use and landuse change
relatedtolivestockproduction(includingdeforestation)arethemajorsourcesoflivestock
relatedGHGemissions.Importantly,themajorityofemissionsrelatetowithincomparedto
postfarmgate.

Figure2.1Majorsourcesoflivestockrelatedgreenhousegasemissions
Entericfermenationand
respiration
Animalmanure
Livestockrelatedlanduse
changes
Desertication
Cutivatedsoilslivestock
related
Feedproduction
Onfarmfossilfueluse
Postharvestemissions

Therelativelysmallproportionofemissionspostfarmgateisemphasisedinarecent
reportontheGHGfootprintforexportedNewZealandlamb(Ledgardetal.,2010)
Thetotalcarbonfootprintwas1.9 kgCO2equivalentsfora100gportionofmeat.
This was segmented into 80% for onfarm stage, 3% for meat processing, 5%
transportationand12%fortheconsumercomponent(Figure2.2).

26

Figure2.2KeycomponentsoftheGHGfootprintofNewZealandexportedlamb(Ledgard
etal.,2010)

On-farm
Transport
Processing
Consumption

Emissionswillalsobeinfluencedbythespeciesoflivestockusedintheproduction
system. Table 2.2 below provides an indication of the contribution by species
according to part in the chain. The impact of the different species is examined in
greaterdetaillaterinthisreportinthesectiononLifeCycleAssessment.

Table2.2Chaincomponentemissionsandcontributionbyspecies
PartinFood
Chain

Landuseand
landuse
change
Feed
production3
Animal
production4
Manure
management
Processing
andtransport

Estimatedemissions1
Gigatonnes

2.50

Estimatedcontributionbyspecies2

%oftotal
Cattleand
livestocksector buffaloes
emissions
36
+++

Pigs

Poultry

Small
ruminants

ns

0.40

++

++

ns

1.90

25

++++

++

2.20

31

++

+++

ns

ns

0.03

+++

ns

estimatedquantityofgreenhousegasemissionsexpressedasCO2equivalents
+=lowestand+++=highest,nsnosignificantimpact
3
excludeschangesinsoilandplantcarbonstocks
4
includesentericmethane,machineryandbuildings
2

27

ItisevidentfromTable2.2thatemissionsassociatedwithlargeruminantsarelikely
to be greater than from pigs and poultry and that these emissions from large
ruminantsareprimarilyrelatedtolanduseandlandusechangeandtodirectanimal
emissions(i.e.methane).

The balance between the major contributors to livestock GHG emissions will vary
with not only with species but also within species by type and efficiency of the
productionsystem,soils,climate,inputstosystem,impactonlanddegradationetc.
For example, emissions from extensive beef production are dominated by enteric
fermentation (i.e. methane) whereas more intensive feedlot systems are more
influenced by land use and landuse change related livestock production arising
fromfeedproduction.Emissionsfrompigproductionsystemsarelargelyrelatedto
manuremanagement(N2O)andfeedproduction.Thisbalanceinimpactsbetween
livestockspeciesandintensityofproductionisdepictedintable2.3below.

Table2.3Greenhousegasemissionsimpactsofdifferentproductionsystems 10
(AdaptedfromFAO,2009)

RUMINANTSPECIES
MONOGASTRICS

(Cattle,Sheep,etc.)
(Pigs,Poultry)

Extensive
grazing 11

Intensive
Traditional
systems
systems 13
12

Industrial
systems

GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS

ns

ns

CO2 emissions from land use and land

use change for grazing and feedcrop
production
CO2 emissions from energy and input
ns
use
Carbonsequestrationinrangelands

++

ns

ns

ns

Methaneemissionsfromdigestion

ns

ns

Nitrousoxidefrommanure

ns

Negative,+positive,nsnotsignificant

Clearly in monogastrics low input, extensive systems (Traditional) have lower

impactsbutinruminantspeciesthisisnotthecasewhereintensification,provided
thereisefficientmanuremanagement,canreduceemissions.

10

Observedrelationshipsundercommonmanagementpractices.
Extensivegrazingsystemsforruminantsarepredominantlybasedonnaturalgrasslandsinmarginalenvironments.
12
Intensivesystemsforruminantsaregenerallybasedonimprovedgrasslands(usingirrigation,fertilizers,improvedvarietiesand
pesticides),withsupplementaryfeedingorconfinedfeedingofgrainandsilage.
13
Traditionalsystemsformonograstricsincludemixedfarmingsystemsorbackyardscavengingsystems.
Note:ns=notsignificant

11

28

Emissions will also be influenced by feed resources imported into the system. As
highlighted in section 1.1.3, feed resources and their impacts on GHG emissions
ofteninteractwiththeproductionsystem(i.e.monogastricv.ruminantorintensive
vs. extensive production system or organic vs. nonorganic). The interaction
betweenfeedandGHGemissionsisoftenextendedtoincludeadebateonfoodv.
feed, and in particular do livestock reduce availability of food for human
consumption.InthiscontextGarnett(2009)posedtwokeyquestionswithregardto
feedresourcesinrelationtoGHGemissions:
1) What is the GHG opportunity cost of using land to feed animals rather than
feedingpeople?
2) IsitnotlessGHGintensiveforhungrypeopletoeatcerealsdirectlysincemuch
oftheenergyvalueislostduringconversionfromplanttoanimalsmatter?

Theanswerstothesequestionsarecomplexandarethesubjectofmuchdebate.
The relationship between feed demand and food security is multifaceted
involving both physical and economic dimensions (FAO, 2009). As discussed in
section1.1.3,inputstolivestocksystemsexceedoutputs,andthemovetomore
intensiveconcentratebaseddietshasexacerbatedthisissue.Increasingdemand
for cereal, oilseeds, and their byproducts to maintain and enhance livestock
productionislikelytoincreaseGHGemissionsduetoenergyandfertilisercosts
and loss of carbon sequestration due to additional land use. In terms of GHG
reduction,maximisingproductivityfrompasturelandandincreasedusageofby
productsareimportantstrategiesindevelopingfuturefeedingsystems.Itmust
alsobenotedthatinmanycountriesmuchofthecerealproducedforlivestock
feedings is reject or produced from land that would not be suitable to
producingcerealsandotherfoodssuitableasfoodforman.

Estimates of the global contribution of livestock systems to GHG emissions inevitably

obscure the considerable variation between regions and countries resulting from
differences in for example the type and efficiency of production systems, the balance
betweenruminantsandmonogastrics,theextentoflanddegradationandthefeedresource
usedintheproductionprocess.IfwearetounderstandandreduceGHGfrommeatchains
weneedmorepreciseestimatesofemissionsatcountrylevelandthenatsystemlevelto
identifythecriticalcontrolpoints.

2.4Nationalinventoriesanduncertaintyinagriculturalsectoremissions
While agriculture, including livestock, is implicated as a significant source of industrial
emissions,itisimportanttobeclearthatthemeasurementofemissionsfromthissectoris
characterisedbymuchuncertaintythatdistinguishesitfromothersectorstypifiedbyfewer
industrial units and a common, relatively wellunderstood set of mitigation technologies
29

(e.g. the energy or transportation). In comparison, agriculture and land use are more
atomistic, heterogeneous and regionally diverse. These factors can alter the mitigation
potentialsofmeasuresimplementedindifferentregionsandonamyriadofdifferentfarm
types,whicharealmostbydefinition,biologicallyunique.

2.3.1NationalInventories

UnderTier1UNFCCCreporting,GHGemissiondataarecompiledusingdefaultemission
factorsforthevariouslivestockcategoriesandtheirmanures.Thisapproacheffectively
uses livestock population numbers multiplied by a standard factor, does not
differentiate between standard practices, new or innovative processes, and takes no
account of any mitigation practice designed to reduce GHG emissions. The emission
factors currently used have been generated from published data (see IPCC, 2006). For
exampleIPCC(2006)quote8kgCH4/head/yearforsheepindevelopedcountriesand57
kgCH4/head/yearforothercattleinWesternEurope.

As with other sectors, the effectiveness of measures is influenced by interactions

between measures and their environment. This means that precise measurement of
emissionsfromallsystemsiscomplexandsomeformofapproximationisrequired.This
approximation is reflected in the fixed emissions factors recommended by the IPCC to
characterise sector emissions for national inventory reporting. Inventory reporting is
mandatoryforcompliancewithKyotocommitments.Atpresent,signatorygovernments
areonlyrequiredtouseTier1coefficientswhicharegenericcoefficientsapplicableto
all animals. Thus, a countrys livestock emissions are simply derived from the
multiplication of the livestock population by the emissions (per animal) coefficient. It
follows that a country can reduce its emissions directly by reducing its livestock
populations.ButTier1emissionsarenotdiscriminatingenoughtorecordmoresubtleor
indirectroutestoreduceemissionse.g.viaproductivityimprovementsusingbreedingor
reducingdiseaseincidence.ThismeansthatusingTier1reporting,countriesmaynotbe
credited with legitimate mitigation actions. This issue has led to a push for more
sophisticatedanddetailedemissionsreportingmethodsatTier2and3.

ThereisalargeamountofimprecisionassociatedwiththeagriculturalGHGinventory,
with the current emission factors reported as having an uncertainty of 3050%. In
order to reduce this uncertainty, and to help determine the effects of efforts to
mitigation approaches (see later sections), those involved in evolving national
inventoriesaremovingtomoresophisticatedTier2/Tier3accountingmethods,which
use disaggregated emission factors linked with farm business activity data. These tiers
canbemorecountryspecificintheiruseofbiophysicalmodellingtodevelopemissions
estimatesthataremorespecifictofarmtypesandwhichcanencompassotherindirect
mitigationmeasures.
30

The importance of farm types is highlighted by EdwardsJones et al. (2009). They

demonstratedlargevariationintotalGHGemissionswithinandbetweenthetwoWelsh
mixed sheep/cattle farms (Table 2.4). The difference in emissions between farms
primarilyrelatedtonitrousoxidesemittedfromtheorganicsoilsoncasestudyfarm2.

Table2.4TotalGHGemissionsinkgCO2eq/ha/yearontwomixedsheep/cattlefarms.

Total

Casestudyfarm1
Min.
Max.
368.1
3725.8

Mid.
1215.1

Casestudyfarm2
Min.
Max.
789.4
9305.7

Mid.
3091.3

All emissions calculated using a range of values reported in the literature. The minimum (min.), maximum
(max.)andmiddlevalue(mid)oftheserangeswereusedtorepresentthebestcase,worstcaseandaverage
scenario.(AdaptedfromEdwardJonesetal.,2009)

Modelsatcountrylevelneedtoabletoaccountforsuchdifferencestobemeaningful.In
addition, understanding the sources of this variation (including how to measure and
more accurately estimate emissions on farm) is essential to underpin development of
effective and robust methodologies to footprint individual farm businesses. Improved
emission factors will also assist in delivering greater precision in assessments of the
impact of measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from livestock (Gill et al.,
2010). There is as general expectation that IPCC reporting will improve in terms of
modelling sophistication and there is a good deal of flexibility as to how governments
canadoptresearchimprovementstoimprovetheirowninventories.Manygovernments
arecurrentlyreviewingtheirinventoryprocesseswiththisaim.

2.3.2Overviewofmeatandlivestocksectorlifecycleanalysis
Emissions can be measured at the level of the animal or field but the farm is the unit of
obligationforlikelypolicyinstrumentse.g.voluntaryprogrammesortradingschemes.But
there is also much interest in how emissions information can be presented as relevant to
final products to consumers. Clear information on the emissions intensity of a product
allows final consumers some discretion over their product attributes. Arguably it is
consumerchoicethatactsasthemostsignificantsignaltoretailersandproducesuppliers
andprocessors.Importantlythereisaneedtoidentifycriticalpointswithinthesystemsand
optionsforchangetobeconsidered.

Life cycle assessment is the main approach for summarising environmental

information about product life cycles. Two types of environmental impacts are
typically considered: use of resources such as land or fossil fuels, and emissions of
pollutantssuchasammoniaormethane.

31

LCAisnormallycalculatedtorelateemissionsperfunctionalunite.g.perkgmeat
produced or litre of milk. But it is also possible to communicate resource use
equivalents in other ways. For example the concept of an ecological footprint is
often used to express the ecological sink (i.e. land area) equivalent necessary to
offset a unit of greenhouse emissions. LCA can be very complicated since it is
possibletorearanimalsinarangeofconditionsandprocessingsystemscaninvolve
differentenergyrequirements(andthusemissionsimplications)intermsofhousing
andtransportation.Caremustthereforebetakenwhencomparingsystemsonalike
forlikebasis.Forexample,itisimportanttobeclearaboutthesystemboundaryof
anLCAstudybeforemakingcomparisons.

Atleast16differentLCAmethodologiesforcalculatingthecarbonfootprintoffood
products have been developed since 2007, but as yet there is no international
agreementonthesinglebestmethod.Thisneedstoberesolved.

AlargenumberoflivestockproductLCAstudieshavebeenundertakenandaresummarised
by de Vries and de Boer (2010) (see table 2.5). These show that the production of 1kg of
beefusesthemostlandandenergyandhasthehighestglobalwarmingpotential(interms
ofthelifecycleemissionofallgreenhousegases).Thisisfollowedby1kgofpork,chicken
eggs and milk. Differences in impacts between pork, chicken and beef can be explained
mainlybythreefactors:utilisationofnutrientsandenergyinfeed,differencesinentericCH4
emissionsbetweencattle,pigsandchickenanddifferencesinreproductionrates.Arecent
study by FAO (2010) shows that the dairy sector accounts for around 4% of all global
anthropogenic GHG emissions including both emissions associated with the production,
processing and transportation of milk products as well as emissions related to meat
producedfromanimalsoriginatingfromthedairysystem(FAO,2010).

Table2.5Globalwarmingpotential(kgCO2e/kg)andlanduse(m2/kg)requiredtoproduce
livestockproducts(deVriesanddeBoer,2010)

Emissions
Landrequirement
kgCO2e/kg
m2/kg

Pork
3.910
8.912.1
Chicken
3.76.9
8.19.9
Beef
1432
2749
Milk
0.841.3
1.12.0
Eggs
3.94.9
4.56.2

32

3.Contributionofthemeatandlivestockindustrytogreenhousegasmitigation
3.1Opportunitiestomitigateemissionsusingtechnicalefficiency
Mitigation strategies must target the key areas of emissions and these differ according to
production system. In ruminant systems the main problem is methane whilst in
monogastrics it is the loss of nitrogen compounds from manures to the environment that
representsthemainchallenge.Although80%orsooftheGHGemissionsoccuronthefarm,
itisimportanttoconsiderstrategiesthatapplythroughoutthechain.Thissectionreviews
optionsthatareavailabletotheindustrytohelpminimiseGHGemissions.Notalloptions
aremutuallyexclusiveandthatpracticesthatminimiseoneemissionmayleadtoemission
of another. The balance of mitigation options available to individuals that leads to overall
bestpracticedependsonlocalclimate,soiltype,farminfrastructureandotherfactors.

3.1.1IncreasedanimalefficiencyBeef,pigs&sheep
Production efficiency on farm is an important route to reducing GHG emissions and also
reducestheeconomiccostsandhenceisawinwinstrategyaddressesGHGandeconomics.
Theindustryhasmadelargeprogressinimprovingproductionefficiencyoverthelastfifty
years as knowledge on genetics, feeding, animal health and welfare have increased. This
emphasisesthattheopportunitiestodecreaseGHGemissionsfromlivestockandthoseto
increaseproductivityarecloselyrelated.Themitigationpotentialisdependentonthebase
level of productivity and is evidently greater in developing countries. Improving genetics,
healthandfertilityallcontributetoreducedanimalnumbersperkgproduct(Figure3.1).
Theemissionsperunitproductcanbedecreasedeitherby(1)increasingtheefficiencyof
thelivestockproductionsystemitself(forexamplebygenetics,health,fertilityor(2)directly
by targeting the source of the emissions, for example by feeding or use of novel
technologiestoreducemethanefromruminants.Asanexample,dietswithahigherlevels
ofconcentratesandlipid(suchaslinseedoil)mayenhanceoutputandlowerGHGemissions
such as CH4, it is imperative that such changes in diet do not give further impetus to
clearance of land to produce these feedstuff contributing to CO2 emissions from land use
change(Figure3.1;Garnett,2009;Gilletal.,2010).

33

Figure 3.1 Avenues to improve productivity and reduce GHG emissions from livestock
(AdaptedfromGilletal.2010)

Inthefollowingsectionstheoptionstomitigatewillbeexaminedinmoredetailinorderto
understand their potential and also some of the problems associated with their
implementation.

IncreasingEfficiency
Geneticsandbreeding(bothanimalandplant)
Plantandanimalbreedingtechnologieshavemademajorprogressoverthelast50yearsin
underpinning productivity gains. Genetic improvement of livestock is a particularly cost
effectivetechnology,producingpermanentandcumulativechangesinperformance.There
are 3 routes through which genetic improvement can help to reduce emissions per kg
productinlivestock:
1.Improvedproductivityandefficiencyintheanimal;
2.Reducingwastage(e.g.involuntaryculling,emptyreproductivecycles)attheherd
orflocklevel;and
3.Directresponsetoselectiononemissions,iforwhenthesearemeasurable.

Selectiongoalsinruminantshavelargelyfocussedonproductioncharacteristicsandless
onhealth,reproduction,longevitytraits(Cartaetal.,2009;MigliorandSewalem,2009;
Oram and Lodge, 2003; Zamaratskaia and Squires, 2009). Selecting for traits such as
34

higher fertility or increased longevity of ewes / suckler cows, would results in fewer
replacement breeding beef cows or ewes being needed, thereby reducing livestock
numbers in total. Importantly, these robustness traits will not only contribute to
reducing numbers of animals required be unitof product but will become increasingly
important to adaptation strategies. Also in forage crops, past activities have
concentrated on improving yield but recent efforts have focused on improved
nutritionalcharacteristics(e.g.aminoacidbalance,watersolublecarbohydratecontent,
fibre). These will have subsequent benefits on nutrient utilisation by the animal (see
later).

Uptakeofimprovedgeneticsishighinthepoultry,dairy,andpigindustries,assistedby
the highly integrated breeding and rearing systems, infrastructures and the use of
artificial insemination. Jones et al. (2008) have estimated that in pigs for example,
geneticchangeshaveresultedinreductionsinemissionsofmethane,nitrousoxideand
ammonia(perunitproduct)ofabout0.75%p.a.Ratesarehigherinpoultryatbetween1
and1.5%p.a.Theauthorsconsiderthatthisrateofimprovementwillcontinueoverthe
nextyearsandmayaccelerateifmoleculargenetictoolsareadaptedmorewidely.

In contrast to dairy cattle and monogastrics, the use of improved genotypes has
generallybeenlowinbeefandsheepsystems,particularlyinextensivesystems.Thisis
duetoconstraintsoflackofresources,smallscaleandpoorlyintegratedsystems/lack
ofinfrastructurehavehampereduptakeparticularlyinmanydevelopingcountries.

Thereareofcourseexceptions.ForexampleinNewZealandsheepsystems,compared
to 1990, farms in 2009 produced slightly more lamb meat by weight, but from a 43%
smaller national flock. It was estimated that this reduced the GHG footprint of New
Zealand lamb by about 22%. Productivity improvements were achieved through new
farmmanagementtechniquesandgeneticsthatallowmoreewestohavetwinortriplet
lambsandbyincreasingtheaverageweightofthoselambs.

Major advances in growth rate and efficiency have also been made in some beef
systems by using sires of high mature body weight. Analyses of the data by Hyslop
(2008) showed that there were significant breed differences suggesting that breeds of
cattle with high mature body weights produced fewer emissions per unit output than
thetraditionalsmallerbreeds(Hyslop,2008).Therearemanyotherexamples.

Considerableopportunitydoesthereforeexistforsheepandbeefcattlesectorstomake
use of improved genetics but it is vital that constraints of uptake are overcome
particularly in developing countries where much of the growth in demand and
productionispredictedtooccur.

Reducedresidualfeedintake(consumptionoffoodabovethatrequiredforproduction)
is heritable and breeding programmes are placing more emphasis on this trait to help
achieve a permanent reduction in CH4 output (Alford et al., 2006). Also, individual
35

ruminants can have innately reduced CH4 outputs, possibly associated with rumen
protozoal populations, and may be of use in breeding programmes (Hegarty et al.,
2008). Alford et al. (2006) estimated breeding for lower residual feed intake in beef
cattle could reduce annual CH4 outputs by 3.1% on a national (Australia) basis, or to
muchgreaterreductions(uptonearly16%)onanindividualfarmbasisovera25year
period.

Theuseofgrowthpromotinghormones
Growthpromotingimplantshavebeenusedintheproductionofcattleandsheepforover
40 years. They can contribute to reducing emissions by enhancing the rate of live weight
gain,grossefficiencyandinsomecasesimprovingnitrogenefficiency,allowinganimalsto
befinishedmorequickly,reducingtheamountoftimeonfarmwheretheyproduceCH4and
contributetoN2Oemissions.

Implants include natural hormones oestradiol 17, testosterone and progesterone,

and artificial analogues trenbolone and zeranol and more recently rBST (growth
hormone).Preston(1999)calculatedthatimplantsimprovegrowthratebybetween
+10 to 30%, feed efficiency by +5 to 15% and carcass leanness by+5 to 8%.
Importantlytheseresponseareadditivetoincreasesinperformanceandefficiency
achievedbyanimalbreeding.

Thereisnoevidencethatthesematerialsimpactonhumanhealth.Despitethis,the
useofrBSTandotherhormonesiscurrentlynotallowedunderEUregulations.

Nutritionalmanagementdirectlytoreducemethaneandnitrogenemissions
Methane
In ruminants, dietary carbohydrates once introduced into the rumen are broken down to
smallermoleculesresultingmainlyintheproductionofacetic,propionicandbutyricacids,
carbondioxideandhydrogenviatheintermediatepyruvate.Ruminalmethanogensconvert
thecarbondioxideandhydrogentomethane,providingakeyhydrogensinkfortherumen
ecosystem. The proportion of these volatile fatty acids has a direct influence on the
production of methane as acetate and butyrate promote methane production, while
propionateformationcanbeconsideredasacompetitivepathwayforhydrogenuseinthe
rumen. Changing the diet of ruminants can reduce methane output (Martin et al., 2010).
Thiscanbeachievedby:

ReplacingroughagewithconcentrateCH4decreaseswithconcentratefeedingasa
result of a change in fermented substrate from fibre to starch and a decline in
ruminalpH
36

Changingcarbohydratetypeforexamplesolublesugarshavegreaterimpactthan
starches

Adding lipid to the diet can result in a 5% reduction in methane output (per kg
intake)foreach1%inclusionoffat

Theuseionophoressuchasmonensinalterrumenfermentationtoreducemethane
output

Pasture improvement by improving the digestibility of pasture and increasing the

supplyofenergy:protein

Legumeinclusion

Organicacidssuchasfumarateandacrylate

Althoughthesetechniquesarereadilyavailabletheyallhave,toagreaterorlesserextent,
disadvantageswhichlimittheiruse.Forexample:

The simple expedient of increasing the dietary proportion of concentrates high in

starch(cerealgrains)despitehavingtheaddedadvantageofalsoincreasinggainand
gross efficiency can reduce farm profitability when prices are high and clearly
exacerbatetheconflictbetweenhumanandanimalneeds.Alsotheresponseisnot
linear.Methanelossesappearrelativelyconstantfordietscontainingupto30%to
40%concentrateandthendecreaserapidlytolowvaluesfordietscontaining80%to
90%concentrateandsuchhighlevelscaninduceacidosisandillhealth.

Inclusionoffatscanreducefeedintakeandneedtobelimitedtoatotaldietaryfat
contentof6%.

Althoughmonensinhasbeenshowntobeeffectiveintheshorttermthereissome
evidenceofreducedresponseovertimeandinanyeventcannotcurrentlybeused
intheEU.

Nitrogencompounds

In relation to NOx compounds, avoiding excess N in the diet, correctly balancing

protein with energy requirements, and/or making dietary N more available for
digestion allows the concentration of these nutrients in the diet to be reduced
withoutadverselyaffectinganimalperformance.Thesemethodsreducetheamount
of N excreted, either directly to fields under grazing or via manure, and thereby
minimise additions to the pools of N that are sources of diffuse pollution (NO3
leaching,N2OandNH3emissions;NiderkornandBaumont,2009).

37

Suchstrategieshavethepotentialnotonlytoreduceemissionsbutalsotoenhance
lean tissue growth. New applied feeding systems allow much more precise
characterisation of the fate of nitrogen in both ruminants and monogastric diets.
Furthermore the use of such dynamic models of digestive function can be used to
derivestrategiestoreducelossestotheenvironment.Majoradvancesinrationing
anddietaryformulationsbeingmadeindairycowsandmonogastricsbutagainthe
translationofthisknowledgeintopracticalbeefandsheepsystemsislacking.

With major developments in agricultural practice and requirements to reduce

emissions it is vital that the nutrient requirements for livestock are updated on a
regularbasis.Inthemanycountries(includingUS,UK)therearenownomechanisms
and little funding to incorporate the new nutritional information into rationing
systems.

Pasture based systems present particular challenges to nutritional management

strategiestoreducenitrogenlossestotheenvironment.Intensivegrazingcanresult
in high loss of nitrate (via urine) into drainage water. Difficulties in estimating
herbageintakeinfarmconditionsplusmonitoringofmarkedfluctuationsinprotein
contentalsomakeaccuraterationingdifficult.

However, recent changes in plant breeding objectives (e.g. for increased water
soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations in perennial ryegrass) offers the
potential to reduce GHG emissions from animals at grazing by reducing the
proportionofdietaryNthatisexcretedinurine.AnincreasedWSCconcentrationin
ryegrass correlated with reduced proportions of urine N excretion (Miller et al.,
2001). This is likely to impact then on N2O emissions from urine patches in grazed
land.

For pigs and poultry, considerable steps have already been made through the use
syntheticaminoacids(althoughnotinorganicunits)tomeetrequirements.Thereis
limited scope for further reducing the N content of pig and poultry diets without
reducingproductiveoutput(Kerretal.,2006;Nahm,2002;Veensetal.,2009).There
are concerns that reducing nutrient inputs may also have adverse effects on
reproductive performance and carcass quality. The scope to use more digestible
materialsinbroilerdietsislimitedasmostdietsalreadyhighdigestibilityfeeds.

Animalhealthanddisease
Animalhealthanddiseasesimpactonsocietyintwoways(1)socioeconomicand(2)human
health risks (FAO, 2009). Socioeconomic effects include livestock productivity losses,
market disruptions and livelihood risks. Human health risks include pandemic disease,
endemicdiseaseandfoodbourneillnesses.

38

Increasesinairtemperatureand/orhumidityhavethepotentialtoaffectconceptionrates
ofdomesticanimalsnotadaptedtothoseconditions.Thisisparticularlythecaseforcattle,
in which the primary breeding season occurs in the spring and summer months. Also, the
onset of a thermal challenge to livestock often results in voluntary declines in physical
activitywithassociateddeclinesineatingandgrazingactivity
Otherkeypointsare:

Animal disease risks are increasing as a result of rapid expansion and structural
changes in the livestock industry, clustering of intensive livestock production
facilities near urban population centres and the movement of animals, people and
pathogensbetweenintensiveandtraditionalsystems(FAO,2009).

Climatechangeisalteringpatternsoflivestockdiseaseoccurrences,sincepathogens
and the vectors that carry them enter new ecological zones (Randolph, 2010; van
Dijketal.,2010).

Stakeholderandpolicymakersmustbeengagedinthedesignandimplementationof
programmestopreventandcontrolanimaldiseaseandimprovefoodsafety.

From a productivity perspective, improving the health of animals to increase

longevity,reduceturnoverrate(therebyreducingthenumberoffollowersrequired),
and ensure that animals are producing as efficiently as possible. In addition to
reduced opportunistic losses during production, healthier animals would reduce
carcasecondemnationduetodisease.

Studies have been initiated to study the spread of animal diseases and pests from low to
midlatitudes due to warming, a continuance of trends already under way. For instance,
modelsprojectthatbluetongue,affectingmostlysheep,occasionallygoatanddeer,would
spreadfromthetropicstomidlatitudes(vanWuijckhuiseetal.,2006).Likewise,Whiteetal.
(2003) simulated under climate change increased vulnerability of beef production to the
cattletick(Boophilusmicroplus).

3.1.2Engineeringandproducttechnology
Anaerobicdigestionoflivestockmanurestocapturemethaneemissions

Anaerobic digestion of organic materials by microbial populations in a sealed

container results in the formation of CH4, CO2, hydrogen and digestate. Onfarm
anaerobicdigestion(AD)ofmanuresandslurrieshasmuchpotentialtoreduceCH4
emissions from manure storage and spreading. Biogas can be used for heating
and/orelectricityproduction,andthereforesubstitutesforfossilfuels.Theresidual
liquor can be used a liquid fertiliser, and the residual fibrous material as a soil
conditioner, helping to reduce use of artificial fertiliser. Methane emissions from
slurrystoragecanbesignificantlyreduced(estimatedatupto90%)bythismethod
39

compared with conventional slurry storage. There is also considerable potential to

utilisefoodwasteinthesamesystem.

High costs of installing and running the AD equipment hamper expansion of the
technology,butinsomecountries,forexampleGermany,uptakeisgoodwithgroups
offarmsworkingtogetherwithacentralisedADfacility.

These technologies are clearly less applicable to ruminant systems which have a
largecomponentofgrazing.Importantlythehighcostsofcurrentsystemsrepresent
a considerable constraint in developing countries and low cost and appropriate
technologiesneedtobesought.

Methaneandammoniacapturefromlivestockhousing
New technologies and management procedures to handle manure collection, storage and
disposal offer potential to reduce methane and ammonia from housed livestock and in
particular represent the key route for reducing emissions from monogastric systems and
intensiveindoorruminantsystems.Someexamplesoftechnologiesare:

Development of fully housed intensive systems and capture of enteric methane

emissions from ruminant livestock. Methane could be captured by pressure swing
adsorption (PSA) from livestock maintained in purpose designed buildings. PSA is
used to purify methane from landfill gas. However, the technology would require
significant development to capture the methane housed livestock as the
concentrations of methane involved are much lower than those associated with
landfill. The energy required to power ventilation and PSA extraction equipment
would need to be compared with the emissions reduced/energy created from
methanecapture.Dragositsetal.(2008)haveestimatedthatfullyhousedintensive
dairy compared with conventional intensive systems would reduce emissions of
nitrousoxide.ThiscouldbelinkedtouseofanaerobicdigestiontocaptureCH4from
theassociatedmanure.

Exhaustairfrommechanicallyventilatedpigandpoultryhousingmaybetreatedby
acid scrubbers or biotrickling filters to remove ammonia. While this method does
not reduce the ammonia emission from floor/slurry surfaces within the house, it
removesammoniafromtheexhaustairstream,therebyreducingtheemissionfrom
thehouseintothewiderenvironment.Thedischargewaterfromtheairscrubberor
biotricklingfiltercanbeusedasaninorganicfertiliser,subjecttowasteregulations.
Technologyismostappropriatetonewpurposebuiltfacilitiesandwhereadoptedin
the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, reduction efficiencies of 7095% in the
animalhousehavebeencited(Aarninketal.,2007).

In pig units, frequent removal of slurry from below slattedfloor storage pits to an
outside,coveredstorewillreducetheoverallammoniaemission(thisismandatory
40

insomecountries(e.g.Denmark).However,thiswillresultingreaterammoniumN
contentoftheslurryinstorageandhenceappropriatemitigationmethodsmustbe
used to minimise emissions from slurry storage and land spreading. Similar
technologiesexistforpoultryunits.

Ammonia emissions from pig units may be influenced by floor type in the unit.
Employingapartsolidfloorandslattedfloorslurrystorage(i.e.50:50)comparedto
a fully slated design may help to reduce ammonia emissions (Chambers and
Nicholson,2005).Themethodisdependentonreducingtheoverallemittingsurface
areaofslurry.

Installation of ventilation/drying systems to reduce the moisture content of laying

hen manure (in deeppit or on belts) or poultry litter within the house. Drying will
inhibithydrolysisoftheuricacid(readilyavailableN)contentofthemanure,slowing
theformationofammoniumandtherebyreducingammoniaemission.

Constraintstotheuseofmitigationstrategiesonfarm
Thereareclearlyalargenumberofstrategiesthathavethepotentialtoreduceemissions.
Genetic progress represents a sustainable solution that will form the base for other
technologies and it is vital that the progress made in dairy cattle, pigs and poultry is also
transferred into beef and sheep systems. Currently however there are limitations and
restrictionsontheuseofcertainmaterials(e.g.growthpromoters)andtechnologies(GM)
in certain parts of the world. Furthermore many of these technologies are not always
appropriate to systems in developing countries and to extensive grazing systems which
contribute to methane emissions. For this reason it seems unlikely that the use of these
mitigations alone is sufficiently large in the ruminant sector to meet the challenges
associated with a doubling in demand for meat products. This inevitable leads to the
conclusionthatthisgrowthmustbemetprimarilythroughpigandpoultrysystemsorthere
needstoastepchangeinthetechnologiesavailable.Theprospectsforthiswillbediscussed
later.
Thehighcostsofinstallingandrunningequipmenttoreduceemissionsthroughanaerobic
digestion,ventilation,slurryremovalhamperexpansionofthetechnologyandinparticular
represent a considerable constraint in developing countries and thus low cost and
appropriate technologies must to be sought to address the emissions that will inevitably
arisefromrapidexpansionofmeatproductioninthesecountries.
Thekeyobjectiveistoderivewinwinsolutionsthatnotonlyreduceemissionsbutalso
improveprofitalongthechain.Approachestoderivingsuchsolutionswillbediscussedlater.

41

Innovationsinprocessingandtransportationandconsumerstages
Processing, transportation and consumer stages collectively may represent around20% of
theGHGofmeatandhenceareimportantissuestoconsider.

Emissionsassociatedwithmeatprocessingaresmall,forexample3%inthecarbon
footprint of New Zealand lamb (Figure 2.2 in section 2). Emissions relate to use of
fossilfuelstogeneratehotwaterandsteam(seeFigure3.2).Electricityisessential
for running machinery, lighting, wastewater treatment, chilling and freezing meat
andmeatproducts.Emissionsarealsofoundviawastewaterandintestinalcontents.

Figure3.2MeatprocessingGHGFootprintNZLamb(Ledgardetal.2010)

The industry is very focused on maximising efficiency which delivers benefits in

reducingGHGemissions.Akeyareaofprogressisthroughtheuseofloweremission
energy sources, including natural gas use of biomass burners. Wastewater
processing is focused on reducing CH4 emissions via less use of anaerobic pond
systemsanduseoflandtodistributewastewater.

Energyefficiencymeasureswithinprocessinganddistribution(andindeedonfarm)
to reduce energy demand is important. This may be aided by conducting energy
efficiency audits in abattoirs and implementing recommendations delivers benefits
in reducing GHG emissions; investment in new energy and resource efficient
equipmentandbuildingareimportantstrategies.

Use of fossil fuel in road and oceanic transportation is small but important in
contributingGHGemissions,forexample5%inthecarbonfootprintofNewZealand
lamb(Figure2.2insection2).Manufacturersofroadvehiclesandoceanicshipping
work closely with meat processors to develop more efficient transportation,
includingchillingunits.
42

Use of less and fully biodegradable packaging to replace fossil fuel derived plastics
willreducefootprint.

The consumer components of GHG emissions associated with meat footprint is

significant,forexample12%inthecarbonfootprintofNewZealandlamb(excluding
roadtransporttoshop.Methodofcookinghasalargeimpactonfootprintdueto
use of fossil fuel in the process. Microwave cooking is very efficient. Reducing
packaging for meat and meat products and reducing waste in the household are
importanttargets.

Actionstoimproveefficiencyattheprocessingstage,transportationandconsumer
stages collectively would reduce production requirements and therefore GHG
emissionscommensuratewithreducedlivestocknumbers.

3.1.3NewtechnologiestomitigateGHGemissions
As discussed continuing to focus on improving production efficiency is essential to reduce
GHGemissionsfromlivestock.However,muchresearchisinprogresswhichwillimpacton
livestockemissionsinthemediumlongtermandsomeoftheseevolvingtechnologiesare
highlightedbelow.

Methods to reduce methane emission in ruminants can be resummarised as 1)

reduction H+ production in the rumen during microbial digestion, 2) alternative H+
sink following fermentation and 3) manipulation of microbial population in the
rumen (i.e. methanogens and/or protozoa). Other methods include immunisation
against specific methanogens in the rumen (Williams et al., 2009) however, the
outcomestillremainsunclear.

Studies on plant composition can play a key role in mitigating ruminal GHGs.
Preliminary findings have indicated that the methane generated from the ruminal
degradationofforagecanbemodifiedbysimplestepssuchasthechoiceofcultivar
andseasonofharvest,demonstratingtheabilitytoreroutemetabolismofhydrogen
throughamoredesirablenetworkofprocesses(Lovettetal.,2006).Benefitsfrom
alteringplantcompositionhavealsobeennotedonruminalnitrogenutilisationwith
benefitsintermsofreducedurinarynitrogenexcretion(Milleretal.,2001).

StudiesinNewZealandhaveexaminedtheapplicationofnitrificationinhibitors(i.e.
dicyandiamide and 3,4dimethylpyrazole) to control the release emissions of N2O
fromurinepatchesofanimalsatpasture(Luoetal.,2010).Thetechnologyshows
considerablepotentialbutisexpensive.

43

3.1.4Mitigationthroughmanureandsoilmanagementandalternativelanduse

Agriculturalemissionsfromsoilsaremainlyasaresultofdirectdepositsofmanure
andurinefromgrazinganimals,andapplicationofmanuresandfertilisers.Reduction
ofN2OemissionsfocusesonefficientuseofNfertilisersandmanuretoreducethe
amounts of unused N in the soil. Three main approaches which could be
implementednowtoreduceN2Oinclude(1)donotexceedcropNrequirements(2)
make full allowance for manure N supply (3) spread manure at appropriate
times/conditions.

OtheroptionsconsideredforreducingN2Oemissions,whichmaybecomerelevantin
the future include: (1) use of nitrification inhibitors, (2) use of crop varieties with
improvedNuseefficiency(3)useofcontrolledreleasefertilisers,(4)useofbiological
fixation to provide N inputs i.e. leguminous crops; (5) use of reduced/zero tillage
particularly in to clay/medium soils in arable production; (6) change from solid
manuretoslurrysystems(7)takestockoffwetgroundtoreducecompactionand
anaerobicconditions.

Soilcarbonstorageisaveryimportantissuetoconsider.Worldwidethesoilorganic
carbon (SOC) sequestration potential is estimated to be 0.01 to 0.3 gigatons C per
yearon3.7billionhaofpermanentpasture(Lal,2004).ThusSOCsequestrationby
the worlds permanent pastures could potentially offset up to 4% of the global
greenhousegasemissions.CurrentestimatesofthemeancarbonsinkinEuropean
grasslandsrangefrom35to65gCO2C m2yr1(Schulzeetal.,2009;Soussanaetal.,
2010).

Smith et al. (2008) and Gill et al. (2010) highlighted the main concepts in land
management to mitigate GHG emissions. The key principles are to avoid loss of
carbon from soil and to carefully manage the application of nutrients as fertilisers
and manure to help maximise uptake by plants. They identified restoration of
organic soils, management of cropland and grassland as having high potential to
mitigateGHGemissions.Typeofsoiliscloselylinkedwiththeamountofcarbonit
contains and hence there is large variability across land types. There is a need to
quantifythebenefitsofalteredlandusepracticesandsoilmanagementpracticeson
soilcarbonstorageandemissionsforexample(1)useofreducedtillage,(2)arable
reversiontopasture,(3)peatlandsrestorationandmanagement.

Convertinggrasslandsandarablelandtofirst(e.g.bioethanolfromgrains)orsecond
(eg Miscanthus) generation bioenergy crops is seen as a potential mitigation
measure.Inthelongruncurrentfirstgenerationbiofuelsproductiononcultivated
land is not plausible as the worlds limited arable land resources are essential to
meet future food demand. Grasslands potentially suitable for biofuels feedstock
production are located in developing countries. Livestock grazing is an important
current use of these land resources. It was recently estimated that conversion of
44

about1520%oftheavailablegrasslandstoproductionoflignocellulosicfeedstocks
would be sufficient to fulfil current biofuels target share in world transport fuels.
However, such a large shift in land use would cause large risks of soil carbon
emissions and biodiversity losses (Fischer et al., 2010a; Fischer et al., 2010b;
Soussanaetal.,2010).

AfforestationisconsideredtohavepotentialtocontributetoGHGsequestration,but
itisconsideredtohavemostpotentialtocontributetolongertermtargets(Blujdea
etal.,2010).However,woodlandwouldalsodeliverotherbenefitsintermsofnew
habitatcreation,biodiversityfloodmanagementandrecreationalactivities.

3.2Socioeconomicconsequencesofmitigations
As governments commit to ambitious targets for reducing emissions all sources including
agriculturalproductionarecomingunderincreasingscrutiny.Intermsofmeatproduction,
it is important to reemphasise that the majority of emissions will take place at the
production end of the life cycle and specifically within the farm gate where livestock are
reared.

Inpolicytermstherearenumerousmeasuresthatcanbeusedtoreduceemissions.
The most draconian measure would involve reducing livestock numbers, but many
countries realise that curtailing domestic production is of little global benefit if
domestic demand is simply sourced from imports. Another option is to recognise
the need to reduce consumption, but this message is difficult to affect since it
dependsoninfluencingconsumerbehaviours(seesection4)

Beyond these approaches, the main abatement options from the livestock sector,
independent of grazing/pasture management, are through the efficiencies with
whichruminantanimalsutilisetheirdietandmanuremanagement.Thesehavebeen
discussedintheprevioussection.

National mitigation plans need to consider effective and efficient mitigation

potential across a range of sectors. While the measures detailed in the previous
sectionhavethepotentialtobeeffectivethereisaneedtoconsidermeasuresthat
canbeimplementedatlowestoverallcosttoproducersandtowidersociety.

Governmentrecognisestheneedtoachieveemissionsreductionsinaneconomically
efficientmanner.Intheorythismeansthatsomeattemptshouldbemadetochoose
the measures that bring about reductions in emissions at lowest unit costs (per
tonne of CO2e). In other words, the cheapest units of greenhouse gas should be
abatedfirst.Thissuggestsarequirementforinformationonmitigationschedulesor
marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs), which show the relative cost of
greenhouse gas mitigation by alternative mitigation methods and technologies.
Government regulators can then use these curves as a tool for giving advice to
45

producers and for setting carbon budgets. The MACCs can also be used by
governmenttonegotiatewithemittingsectorsandtodevelopapolicyroutemapfor
affectingemissionsreductionstomeetproposedbudgets.
Figure3.2AmarginalabatementcostscheduleforUKagriculture

In the livestock sector, more is now known about such efficient abatement schedules
(Moran et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2007). For example, Moran et al. (2008) demonstrate a
MACC for the UK (Figure 3.2) that illustrates the costeffectiveness of some livestock
measuresrelativetootheragriculturalinterventions.Infact,theanalysisfortheUKappears
to suggest that some measures are actually winwin, in terms of potentially saving the
farmerinfinancialtermsandreducingemissions.Infigure3.2thisappearstobethecase
for several livestock measures including some breeding options and ionospheres (dietary
additives),whicharecurrentlysubjecttoanEUban.Whiletheeffectivesofsomemeasures
require further research, it is clear that an important agenda for the livestock sector is to
promotetheapplicationandadoptionofthesemeasures.

3.3Adaptationstrategiestoclimatechangeanditsunintendedimpacts

Whilethefocusinthisreportispredominantlyonlivestockemissionsandliabilities,
it is important to note that the sector will also be attempting to understand its
adaptationneedsinthefaceofprojectedglobalwarmingscenarios.Thesescenarios
vary considerably around the world with projected warming translating into
46

The adaptation agenda is far less certain than the mitigation (i.e. emissions
reduction) agenda, which is largely externally determined by treaty obligations. In
contrast, industries and sectors must take a private voluntary decision to invest in
adaptations based on the information about the likely effect of warming and
extremeeventsontheirbusiness.Atthecurrenttime,manycountriesandsectors
are seeking to understand the implications of warming data and the suite of
potential adaptations that can be made at low cost and in the face of much
uncertaintyaboutthereturnstoinvestment.Inmanycountries,governmenthasa
roletoclarifyandsupplythisinformationtoindustryinatimelymanner,butitisnot
thegovernmentroletointerventioninprivatedecisionsonadaptation.Onlywhere
adaptationbymanyproducerscouldleadtoadversepublicgoodoutcomesisitlikely
that government may intervene. For example, if all producers in a certain country
decide to house their livestock, then there may be a concern over disease
transmissionroutesandorthemanagementofslurry.Insuchcircumstancesthena
government (or public) response to private adaptation may be to introduce some
accompanying regulation on disease vaccination or manure handling or storage
facilitiesoranaerobicdigestionofmanures/slurry.

In many countries these roles have yet to be clearly defined. Indeed, there is a
reluctance to pursue adaptation investment without better local scale climate
information. To some extent, agriculture has always adapted autonomously to
climatic variations and there is some sense that it will continue to adapt without
major shifts in investment being necessary. But there is much uncertainty and a
precautionary approach is being adopted in many countries to understand the
possibleadaptationsthatcouldbenecessaryunderalternativewarmingscenarios.In
the livestock sector these adaptations tend to include water storage facilities,
housingandtransportventilationforanimals,vaccinationandhealthchecksinthe
face of new parasite and disease vectors. Different intervention strategies are
requiredtoconfrontlocalvariationsindownscaledclimateforecasts,andthereisa
roleforIMStohelpidentifyinventoriesoflowcostadaptationoptionsonaregional
basis. There is also much ongoing research into the links between mitigation in
production systems and adaptation. In other words, it is important that low
emissionssystemsshouldalsoberesilienttoclimaticvariation.

47

4.Supplyanddemandsideperspectives
So far the focus has been on the range of biophysical measures available to mitigate
productionrelated emissions from the sector. There is a corresponding range of policy
optionsthatcanaffectproductionpractices,butitisalsoimportantforIMStotakeawider
policyperspectivethatincludespotentialpoliciesthatinfluenceconsumerbehaviours.The
following sections provide a brief overview of relevant production and consumption side
issuesandpolicyoptionsthathavebeensuggestedforthesector.

4.1Productionside
Asnotedinsection2.1GHGemissionsfromfarmsystemsarelocatedthroughoutthesupply
chain, with evidence suggesting that the majority of impacts arising from within the farm
gate.Section3showsthattherearearangeofmitigationmeasurespotentiallyapplicable
(i.e. technically effective and economically efficient) at the farm scale. Indeed some
measuresarewinwinintermsofimprovingfinancialprofitabilityofthefarmandreducing
emissions.Othermeasureswillimplyextrafarmcosts.Butmeasuresmaynotbeadopted
for a variety of reasons, including the fact that producers are simply unaware of the
damagingimpactsoftheirproductionmethods.
A question arises as to how government might seek to improve the adoptions of these
measures,eitherwinwinoradditionalcosts.Therearethreedifferentapproachestopolicy
on emissions. In essence, the basic policy distinction is between voluntary, command and
control, and marketbased instruments for emissions control. Policy is currently
predominantly focussed on the first two approaches. But there is some recognition that
marketbasedapproacheshaveagreaterroletoplay.

4.1.1Voluntarycodesofpractice
Asthenamesuggests,codesofpracticearegenerallynonbindingvoluntaryactionssetout
asproductionbestpracticeforfarmerstofollow.Voluntarycodesaregenerallyagreedby
industrystakeholdersinconsultationwithstatutorygovernmentagencieswhoaretaskedto
regulateenvironmentalemissions.Adviceispresentedassimplifiedmessagesonfarmand
processing practices, often extended through national advisory services. Farmers and
producersarefreetoadoptmessagesastheyseefitandthereisnoimmediatesanctionto
nonadoption.

It is generally felt that voluntary agreements on emissions are preferable to direct

government intervention, which is often perceived as an extra cost or red tape.
Indeed the sequence is that voluntary approaches are a preferable first step in
regulatory terms a way to avoid overall compliance costs between industry and
government (in terms of monitoring and enforcement). Voluntary approaches are
48

often a precursor to more interventionist measures where compliance targets or

pollutionoutcomesaredeemedunsatisfactory.

InScotlandforexample,arangeofcomplexfarmemissionsreductionactivitieshas
beenreduceddowntoasimplifiedfivepointplan 14 .

4.1.2Commandandcontrol
Command and control measures (C&C) are a more mandatory form of regulation on
pollutioncontrolemissionsandgoodmanagementpractice.

Incontrast tovoluntaryapproaches,farmersaresimplyrequiredbylawtocomply
with certain specified activities. The efficiency properties are less favourable than
under voluntary codes, since the latter allow farmers themselves to use their
knowledgetoimplementpollutionreductions.InaC&Cscenariothislocalspecialist
knowledge is supplanted by government dictate, which can only apply blanket
regulationsacrossalltypeofproducersirrespectiveoftheirinherentefficiencyand
potentialcostsofcompliance.

Whilestandardregulationsaresometimesnecessary(e.g.commonhealthstandards
or animals), this form of regulation is deemed more of an interference and is
generallylesseconomicallyefficient.Sometimes,whengovernmentswantcertainty
inoutcomes,orforaperceivedevenhandedpolicyapproach,thereisnoalternative
toaC&CapproachExamplesincludedischargeorabstractionpermits(e.g.forwater)
federalregulationsanduniformstandards.

4.1.3Marketbasedinstrumentsandapproaches
In contrast to C&C approaches, marketbased approaches are more flexible form of
regulation that combines elements of mandatory compliance with attempts to exploit
differences compliance cost (among producers) to seek an outcome (e.g. emissions
reductions)atoverallleastcosttosociety.Thatis,emissionslimitationsareset,andthose
thatcancomplymorecheaplywithanemissionsreduction,doso.Thetwomostcommonly
discussedinstrumentsareanemissionstaxandpollutionpermittradingsystems.Thelatter
issometimescalledacapandtradesystem.

A pollution tax system is the most obvious market based instrument, which
implementsthepolluterpaysprinciple.Intheory,aproducerisrequiredtopayatax
on each additional unit of pollution over an initial allowance or threshold. The
producerisfreetodecideontherelativemeritsofpayingthetax,versusincurring
internal cost of avoiding the emission (and thus avoiding the tax liability). For the

14
http://www.sac.ac.uk/climatechange/farmingforabetterclimate/fiveactions/
49

marginal (or next) unit of emissions, the decision is whether paying the tax is less
costly than spending money to avoid the emission. If so, then the producer will
continue to emit, but government will collect revenue that can be used for
environmentalpurposesorevenrecycledintoindustryinitiatives.

Pollution taxes like this are rarely used, though much discussed. This is partly
becauseofthepracticalitiesinvolvedinmonitoringemissionsandcollectingthetax.
Forhisreasonpollutionpermitstendtoregardedasamorefeasiblealternative.

Permit or trading systems typically define an upper limit on the level of pollution
emissions in a country or region (a bubble or a cap). Within that cap, polluting
industriesarerequiredtoholdalimitednumberofpreallocatedpermitsthatallow
themtoemitanamountofpollutiondefinedbythepermit.Thesumofthepermits
issued to industries will be equal to the volume of the cap, which can be
progressivelyreducedinsize,whichinturnmeansthatprogressivelyfewerpermits
canbeheldbyindustrieswithinthecap.TheseIndustrieshavetoholdthepermits
corresponding to their emissions requirements. Alternatively they can choose to
trade permits if they need more or require fewer. The ability to trade means that
participants can consider the relative costs of reducing emissions relative to the
value of holding or selling the permit corresponding to the emission. Thus, the
permitsystemhasthesamecostefficiencyincentiveasapollutiontax.

Therearedifferentwaysofinitiallyallocatingpermitsthathavedifferencingimpacts
on the sectors implicated. The most prominent trading scheme is the European
EmissionTradingScheme(ETS).Agricultureiscurrentlynotincludedinthescheme
andasyet,nosystemhasbeenintroducedintheagriculturalsector.However,there
ismuchdiscussionaboutthepracticalandpoliticalfeasibilityofintroducingapermit
schemeinthelivestocksectororamongstfertiliserproducers.

A key distinction between a pollution tax or an emissions permit, is that the

emissionsoutcomeisnotguaranteedunderthetax.Inotherwords,anemittercan
simply choose to pay the tax and emit. In contrast, a permit system in theory
guaranteesanoverallpollutionlimitintermsoftheinitialcap.Thisprovidesgreater
certaintyintermsoftheenvironmentaltarget.

Theintroductionofcapandtradesystemsisageneralobjectiveinseveralpartsof
the world. Notwithstanding the problems during the current global economic
slowdown 15 ,tradingschemesareregardedasagenerallyapplicableinstrumentfor
emissionscontrol.

15

Therecessionhasledtothehurriedsaleofmanyallocatedpermits,whichhasultimatelydepressedthe
carbonprice.Thisinturnhasledmanyenvironmentaliststoconcludethatifthispriceissolow,itcannotact
asanincentivetoinvestmentbyindustry.Thishasledtoasomewhatmisguidedconclusionthatcapandtrade
schemesaretooerraticandcannotworkwelltopromoteproenvironmentalinvestments.

50

What does this mean for meat production? The answer depends on how
governments decide to regulate emissions from the livestock sector. As previously
mentioned, agriculture is not included within the format traded sector 16 although
mostgovernmentsareconsideringthefeasibility.Inthemeantimelargelyvoluntary
codes and rising pressure on the demand side, i.e. from retailers in response to
considerablepressure.

4.1.4Otherpolicyleverssectorsupportschemes
Globally livestock production takesplace within a diversityof policy contexts. In the post
(second world) war period, to a greater orlesserextent, OECD governments have offered
directandindirectfinancialsupporttoproductionintheformofinputsubsidiesoroutput
supports(e.g.milkquotas).

Butglobaltradeliberalisationanddomesticbudgetarypressureshaveledtoamove
to decouple support from direct production, and move it towards the support of
environmental objectives e.g. to subsidising environmental public goods and
penalisingdamagingexternalities(Cooperetal.,2009).

This switch in incentives offers some potential for government leverage or cross
compliancetoincludeemissionsreductionobjectives.Thisisalsoanopportunityfor
producerstoreceivepaymentspendingtheadoptionofgoodpracticesinrelationto
emissions.Inthelivestocksectorthiscanincludetheuseandmanagementofwaste
andslurry.

The use of subsidy schemes to incentivise mitigation activity will become more
prevalentandislikelytoincludeawidersuiteofmitigationmeasures.Forexample,
states in the European Union will develop payment regimes under the new Rural
DevelopmentRegulation.Undertheseschemesfarmerswillreceivepaymentforthe
productionofrenewableenergy(whichincludesADfromfarmwaste).Stateshave
discretiontodevelopotherpaymentschemesforthesector.Thesediscussionsare
ongoingacrosstheEU.

4.1.5Ancillarypolicyoptionse.g.animalhealthfullcostpricingofwateruse.
BeyondGHGemissionslivestockproductionalsogivesrisetootherpotentialenvironmental
impacts,forexample,diseasetransmissionanddischargeofdiffusepollutiontowaterand
impactsassociatedwithwaterabstraction.Oftenthereisapreexistingpolicyfocussedon
theseobjectives,whichcandeliversimultaneousbenefitsintermsofreducinggreenhouse
gasemissions.

16

i.e.withintheETS

51

Forexample,itisnowwidelyacceptedthatanimaldiseasecontrolmeasurescanbe
an effective strategy for greenhouse gas control. Sick animals are basically less
productive,leadingtohigheremissionsperunitofanimalproduct.Manycountries
have national strategies for control and surveillance, but there has been little
attempttoquantifyemissionscobenefits.ThisisapotentialareaofworkwhereIMS
couldtakealead.

Waterpolicyoffersanothersignificantinterfaceonemissionsreduction.Specifically
intermsofmanagingdiffusepollutionandwaterabstractionformeatproduction.In
theEU,variousprovisionsmadeaspartoftheWaterFrameworkDirective(WFD),to
control diffuse pollution have included stocking rates in vulnerable watersheds. In
the case of the WFD, GHG emissions reductions have been a cobenefit of water
policyratherthanaprincipalobjective.

Waterabstractionismoreproblematic,specificallytheoverabstractioninareasof
low rainfall or ground water recharge. As seen in section 1.6 this leads to specific
problems. Regulating abstraction becomes more important in these environments
anditispossibletousedirectcommandandcontrolpolicy,orincombinationwith
improvedpricingofwater.Inmanycountriesfarmingdoesnotpaythefullcostof
water supply and this effective subsidization of water use is implicated in skewing
production decisions towards activities that have a high water use. The converse
policy prescription is that higher water prices (to reflect supply and environmental
costs)wouldalsoaffectareductioninemissions.

4.2Consumption/demandside:
Aspreviouslynoted,themajorityofthelivestockdebatehasconcentratedontheexternal
impacts of production. Management of these impacts has been the responsibility of
producers responding to government regulatory policy or international reporting
requirements (for greenhouse gas emissions). Increasingly however, a number of demand
side factors are having an influence on the future of meat production. Specifically,
increasing awareness of environmental and human health impacts of dietary choice is
becomingmoremainstreaminmanyOECDcountries.

4.2.1Theincreaseduseoflivestockproductlabellingtodemonstrateexternalcosts

The climate change debate has increased awareness of the role of livestock
productioninlandusechangeand(rightlyorwrongly)deforestation.Theemphasis
onlifecyclecostsisanindicationthatretailersarekeentobeseentakingaposition
onthisstory;apositionthatcanalsosecurethemacompetitiveadvantageinterms
of product attributes that can be differentiated and clearly signalled to relevant
52

consumer segments. At the present time, there is an array of product labels that
provideinformationonthenutritionalcontentoffood,theproductionsystem(e.g.
organicorlowinput),whichinturnprovidesanindicatorofwelfarecharacteristics
ofproduction.Somemanufacturersarealsonowincludinginformationonacarbon
footprint of specific products, which is derived from a life cycle assessment (see
section2.3.2).

The use of carbon labelling is currently outside any statutory regulatory

requirements. For example, organic and local origins are tightly governed by
differentinternationalstandards.Therehasrecentlybeensomeconcernaboutthe
rapidgrowthoflifecycleclaimsforcarbonemissionsofsomeproducts,andthishas
led to the emergence of codes of good practice (The Carbon Trust, 2008) that are
likelytobeharmonisedandeventuallyevolveintoaninternationalstandard.Atleast
16 different methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint of food products
havebeendevelopedsince2007,butasyetthereisnointernationalagreementon
thesinglebestmethod.Therearespecificimplicationsforproductionandtradethat
needtoberesolvedbeforeanymandatoryproductsystemcanbeputinplace.This
isadebateinwhichtheIMSshouldbeengaged.

There are also potential consequences if consumers in developed economies

respond by avoiding products from developing countries. The introduction of
carbonlabelling could have particularly serious, and often unfair, implications for
developingcountrieswhichexportlivestockproducts.Amongotherreasons(RELU,
2009) they tend to be distant from their markets and depend on longdistance
transport. Some products from developing countries suffer from low and variable
yields,sotheircarbonfootprint,expressedasperunitweight,ishigh.

Steps could be taken to reduce the overall carbon footprint of foods produced by
developing countries, thus reducing their disadvantages. It is also necessary to
develop more precise and accurate databases of land use and emission factors for
developingcountries.

4.2.1Personalcarbonallowances

Thedevelopmentofcarbonlabelsrepresentsaprogressivesharingofresponsibility
for emissions between producers and consumers. There is some debate that
suggests that in fact it is the consumption of goods that is responsible for
environmental damage, and that we should be counting emissions related to
consumptionratherthanproduction.

Ascurrentlyconfigured,internationalobligationsonemissionsreductionsarebased
on the IPCC emissions arising in the production of goods and services. In a world
where we trade goods and services, including food products, there is a spatial
53

distinctiontobemadebetweentheproductionandultimateconsumption.Arguably
thereisacaseforattributingemissionsonaconsumptionbasis(Helmetal.,2007).
Consumptionbased accounting places responsibility at the source of original
demand for goods or services. In this system, responsibility for all upstream
extractionofresourcesandgenerationofemissionsisattachedtothefinalproduct
atitspointofsaleorconsumption.Ifthatfinalproductissoldorconsumedinthe
U.K.,responsibilityforallassociatedemissionsresideswiththeU.K.Thischangesthe
questionfromHowmanyGHGemissionsareproducedinourcountry?toWhat
quantityofGHGemissionsisourcountryresponsibleforthroughourconsumption?
Thislogicdoesnotleadinevitablytoascenarioofbioregionalism,butitdoesbegin
tohighlighthowsomecountries(e.g.NewZealand)mightbenefitfromamovetoa
consumptionbasedsystem.Italsohighlightsthelogicofindividualcarbonbudgets.
If countries have to drive down emissions under such a system then the focus will
inevitably be on ways to ration emissions among consumers. Individual carbon
budgetswillinevitablyinfluenceconsumerpurchasedecisionsbetweenhighandlow
carbon products. The prospect of individual budgets is ethically compelling though
politicallyunattractive.

4.2.3Implementationoffat,sugarandsaltallowancesortaxes

Copingwiththeincreasinghealthcostsofobesityandrelatedhealthcomplicationsis
becoming a significant public policy issue in many countries. Broadly speaking the
responsesaredividedbetweenpotentialregulationsonproducts(i.e.fat,sugarand
saltcontent)andmessagesprovidedtoconsumersondietaryrecommendationsand
more general behavioural change. Evidence on the effectiveness of these
approachesismixed.Amoreradicaloptionistodesigntaxesbasedonfatcontent

Arangeofregulatorybarriersarebeingnegotiatedonrelationtolabellingandthe
prospectoftaxationoffoodcontentisadistantprospect.Thishasnotpreventeda
seriesofinterestingstudieschartingouttheenvironmentalconsequenceofaworld
where consumers make the right choices over dietary content or where taxes are
implemented

54

5.Conclusions(towardsaroadmapforthemeatindustry)
5.1RoleofIMS
Livestock farming is a very important and dynamic part of the agricultural economy. The
rising global demand for meat products presents several challenges for the industry.
Specifically
1) The need to continue to deliver productivity (efficiency) gains, particularly in
countriespredictedtoaccountformuchoffuturegrowth
2) Improvingenvironmentalsustainability,
3) Managinganimalandhumanhealthrisks.

Addressingtheseaspectswillhelptheindustrycontinuetoplayanimportantroleinglobal
food security and rural livelihoods. Livestock production and in particular more intensive
production systems have placed increasing pressures on land, biodiversity, air, and water
quality.Actionisneededtoensurethatthelivestockindustryplaysaroleasaproviderof
ecosystem goods and services including environmental protection. The IMS should work
withstakeholdersacrossthemeatsupplychainandpolicymakerstotheindustrytodeliver
of these vital targets. Equally it is essential that the industry engage closely with
policymakers to emphasise the multiple roles of livestock in maintaining landscape and
biodiversity,foodsecurityandlivelihoods,particularlyofthepoor.
InrelationtoGHGemissions,itisimportantthatIMSsupportthedevelopmentanduseof
moreprecisemethodsincalculatingnationalinventoriesandtheextensionofinventoriesto
developing countries not currently signatories. In the same way IMS should press for
standardisationofLCAmethodologytoovercometheconfusionthatcurrentlyexists.
Itisnowwidelyacceptedthatanimaldiseasecontrolmeasurescanbeaneffectivestrategy
for greenhouse gas control. Sick animals are basically less productive, leading to higher
emissions per unit of animal product. Many countries have national strategies for control
andsurveillance,buttherehasbeenlittleattempttoquantifyemissionscobenefits.Thisis
apotentialareaofworkwhereIMScouldtakealead.
The livestock industry has large potential to contribute to climate change mitigation. The
IMSshouldworkwithrelevantstakeholderstohelprealizethispotential.Thismustoccurat
nationalandinternationallevelsandshouldincludeenhancingcapabilitiestomonitorand
reportemissionsfromlivestockproductionandensuringeffectiveknowledgeandcapacity
for transferring technologies to mitigate emissions is delivered and then employed by
livestockproducers(andotherkeyactorsacrossthemeatsupplychain).Thisisparticularly
importantindevelopingcountries.Itisessentialthatresearchanddevelopmentisurgently
pursuedtodelivereffectivenovelmitigationstrategies.
55

Thesectorischaracterisedbyavarietyofproductionpracticesthatofferthepotentialfor
low cost mitigation (i.e. GHG reduction). Indeed there is considerable scope for
improvements in productivity that deliver winwins in terms of reduced productions costs
andloweremissions.Itisimportantforthesectortoidentifythesemeasuresandforthem
to become best practice. IMS should actively promote these win win solutions to its
members.
IMSshouldconsiderjoiningMitigationofClimateChangeinAgriculture(MICCA)Projectto
help achieve these objectives http://www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/en/. Mitigation
strategiesmusttargetonthekeyareasandthesedifferaccordingtoproductionsystem.In
ruminant systems the main problem is methane whilst in monogastrics it is the loss of
nitrogencompoundstotheenvironmentthatrepresentsthemainchallenge.
ImprovingproductionefficiencyonfarmisanimportantroutetoreducingGHGemissions.
Thisispotentiallyawinwinsituationandmustbeactivelypromoted.Thelivestockindustry
hasmadelargegainsinproductionefficiencyoverthelast50years,particularlyinthepig
andpoultry(anddairy)sectors,concomitantlydeliveringreductionsinGHGemissions.The
emissions per unit product can be decreased either by (1) increasing the efficiency of the
livestockproductionsystemitselfor(2)directlybytargetingthesourceoftheemissions,for
example by feeding or use of novel technologies to reduce methane from ruminants. The
mitigationpotentialisdependentonthebaselevelofproductivityandisevidentlygreater
in developing countries. Improving genetics, health and fertility all contribute to reduced
animalnumbersperkgproduct.
The main methods for emission reduction that have been developed and are or may be
implementedimmediatelyinclude:

Increasing productivity per animal by improving nutrition and use of improved

genetics

Increasing fertility to reduce number of followers required (both these first two
optionsarebasedonimprovingproductiontraitsthroughgeneticimprovement)

Improving the health and disease status of animals to increase longevity, reduce
turnoverrate(therebyreducingthenumberoffollowersrequired),andensurethat
animalsareproducingasefficientlyaspossible

Engineeringsolutionsbasedonanaerobicdigestion

Moreefficientmanureandfertilizermanagement

Actionstoimproveefficiencyandreducewasteattheprocessingstage,transportationand
consumer stages collectively must be actively pursued. Reductions at these phases would
alsohelptoreduceproductionrequirementsandthereforeGHGemissionscommensurate
withreducedlivestocknumbers.

56

Livestock producers should consider the overall balance of GHG emissions at farm level.
Considerable opportunity exists to offset emissions from livestock by associated land use
opportunitiesincludinginvestmentstoconvertwastetoenergy(anaerobicdigestion),which
iseligibleforfinancialsupportinmanycountries.
Thelivestockindustryimpactsbothpositivelyandnegativelyonsocial,environmentaland
publichealthtargets.Giventhesignificanceofthelivestocksectortoagricultureasawhole,
theIMSshouldplayaleadingroleinsecuringaninternationalframeworkfordevelopment
of the livestock sector with a major focus on sustainability. In this respect it will be
importanttorecognisethatmuchofthefuturegrowthintheindustrywillbeintransition
and in developing countries. IMS needs to ensure that this growth is achieved primarily
throughincreasedefficiencyratherthanthroughincreasednumberofanimals.

5.2Researchanddevelopmentimplications
Itisclearthatthelivestocksectoroffersconsiderable,mitigationpotentialpendingfurther
research on some mitigation measures. A considerable amount of government and
privatelyfunded research and development is focussed on the delivery of low emissions
livestock systems. These include the development of alternative feeds, vaccines, food
additives,selectivebreedingandgeneticmanipulationoftheanimal.Muchofthisresearch
isfocussedonmultipleobjectives(i.e.avoidinglossofyield)andtheuseofinnovationand
R&Dpolicy.
The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, with thus far some 30
countries working collaboratively on producing more food with fewer emissions was
launched in Copenhagen in 2010. The GRA will focus on research, development, and
extensionoftechnologiesandpracticestogrowmorefood(andmoreclimateresilientfood
systems) without growing greenhouse gas emissions. This will be accomplished through
partnerships among researchers in participating countries with the purpose of developing
new knowledge and technologies that can be transferred to farmers and other land and
resource managers around the globe. Anticipated products of the worldwide scientific
collaboration include costeffective and accurate ways of measuring greenhouse gas
emissions and carbon stored in soil; new farming practices that reduce emissions and
increase carbon storage in farmland in different countries; and farming methods that
sustainyieldswhilehelpingtomitigateclimatechange.
TheIMSshouldencouragemembersthroughtheirrespectivecountriestoinputtoensure
thatlivestockemissionsarecentreplaceintheAlliancesworkprogramme.

57

Someofthekeyquestionsthatneedtobeansweredthroughresearchare
1) How the sector can make the transition to progressively stringent emissions
reductionrequirements
2) Understandingproductlifecycleemissionsbeyondthefarmgate
3) Understandinghowtheindustrymightfunctionwithinamoregeneralcarbonpricing
andtradingregime
4) Howcanwebestadapttoaglobalwarmingof2or4C
5) Howcanweavoidundesirablesideeffectsofmitigationmeasuresontheadaptive
capacityoflivestocksystemstoclimatechange?
6) How can we avoid undesirable sideeffects of adaptation measures on net
greenhousegasemissionsofthelivestocksector?
7) Whatistheclimatechangevulnerabilityofthelivestocksectorunderbaselineand
stabilization scenarios, both in terms of production losses and increased GHG
emissions and in terms of socioeconomic vulnerability, especially for smallholders
andpastoralistsindevelopingregions?

Keyfutureareasofresearchonemissionreductiontechnologiesare

NovelforagestoreduceNandCexcretionfromtheanimal,theuseofgrasslegume
mixturestooptimisesymbioticallyfixedNandreduceuseofinorganicNfertilisersin
pasturebasedsystems;

Forintensiveanimalproductionsystems:1)improvedmanuremanagement,2)use
ofnewcropsinmonogastricdietsand3)useofdietaryadditivesinruminantdiets.

An operational carbon methodology for grassland C sequestration as affected by

landmanagementandlandusewillbedeveloped;

Understanding rumen microbial populations in relation to variations in CH4

emissions.

Novelmitigationstrategieswillbeidentified,includingforentericCH4roleofanimal
genetics, immunological control, novel feeds and for N2O use of nitrification
inhibitors.

Adaptation technologies are in comparison with mitigation option underresearched.

Prioritiesare

Adaptationofsowngrasslandsbyincreaseduseofspeciesrichmixtures,oflegumes
and of adapted forage species and/or cultivars (over all climatic conditions of
Europe),
58

Adaptationofpermanentpasturemanagement,bychangesingrazingfrequencyto
favourthemaintenanceofhighdigestibilityspeciesandtoincreasedroughtstress

Adaptation by the use of intercropping with legumes and the use of C3 and C4
speciesoffeedcropmixes(e.g.sorghumvs.corn)

Adaptationtoheatstressbyreductionofbuildingtemperature,facilitationofanimal
heatloss,adaptedfeedingstrategyoffarmsbuildingsandbybreedingforincreased
tolerancetoheat,especiallyfortropicalpigproduction.

Integrated control options to reduce the spread and impacts of gastrointestinal

parasites,especiallyintropicalsmallruminantproductionsystems

Inpolicytermstheprioritiesare

The most promising policy options for combined mitigation and adaptation in
livestocksystemsatregionallevel,andinparticularofpoliciesrequiredtoeasethe
sectorsadaptationtoclimatechange.

Understandingtherelativecosteffectivenessofmitigationandadaptationmeasures

Assessment of the effects of current and planned government policies (e.g. CAP,
European Climate change Programme) on the sectors emissions and resilience to
climatechange.

Thelikelyadjustmentsinthelivestockeconomy(demandandsupplysides)caused
byadaptationandmitigationpoliciesinthemediumtolongterm.

Reaction of consumers to information on dietary additives and selective genetic

modification

Informedpublicdebateonlivestockclimatechangeissues.

59

6.References
Aarnink,A.J.A.,vanHattum,T.,Hol,A.&Zhao,Y.(2007)Reductionoffinedustemissionby
combiscrubber of Big Dutchman. Report No. 66, Animal Sciences Group
Wageningen,NL.ISSN15708616.
Alford,A.R.,Hegarty,R.S.,Parnell,P.F.,Cacho,O.J.,Herd,R.M.&Griffith,G.R.(2006)The
impact of breeding to reduce residual feed intake on enteric methane emissions
fromtheAustralianbeefindustry.AustralianJournalofExperimentalAgriculture,46,
813820.
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J. & Schneider, S. H. (2010) Expert credibility in
climate change. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United
StatesofAmerica,doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
Blujdea,V.,Bird,D.N.&Robledo,C.(2010)Consistencyandcomparabilityofestimationand
accounting of removal by sinks in afforestation/reforestation activities. Mitigation
andAdaptationStrategiesforGlobalChange,15,118.
Carta,A.,Casu,S.&Salaris,S.(2009)Invitedreview:Currentstateofgeneticimprovement
indairysheep.JournalofDairyScience,92,58145833.
Chambers,B.J.&Nicholson,F.A.(2005)Emissionsfrompigsandpoultryfarms.Societyof
Chemistry and Industry Symposium on Ammonia; Approaches, National Emission
CeilingTargets,London.
Chapagain, A. K. & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2004) Water footprints of nations. Volume 1: Main
report.ValueofWaterResearchReportSeriesNo.16.TheNetherlands,UNESCOIHE.
Cooper,T.,Hart,K.&Baldock,D.(2009)TheProvisionofPublicGoodsThroughAgirculture
intheEuropeanUnion,ReprotpreparedforDGAgricultureandRuralDevelopment,
Contract No 30CE0233091/0028. London, Institute for European Environmental
Policy.http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2010/final_pg_report.pdf.
de Vries, M. & de Boer, I. J. M. (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock
products:Areviewoflifecycleassessments.LivestockScience,128,111.
Dragosits,U.,Chadwick,D.R.,delPrado,A.,Scholefield,D.,Mills,J.A.N.,Crompton,L.A.&
Newbold, C. J. (2008) Implications of farmscale methane mitigation measures for
nationalmethaneemissions.INCrighton,K.&Audsley,R.(Eds.)LandManagement
in a Changing Environment (Agriculture and the Environment, VII). p. 168174. SAC
andSEPA.http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/2643/
EdwardsJones,G.,Plassmann,K.&Harris,I.M.(2009)Carbonfootprintingoflambandbeef
production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK.
JournalofAgriculturalScience,147,707719.
FAO(2009)ThestateoffoodandagricultureLivestockinthebalance.Rome,Italy,Food
andAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations.
60

FAO(2010)Greenhousegasemissionsfromthedairysector:Alifecycleassessment.Animal
Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation of The United
Nations.
Fiala, N. (2008) Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas
emissionsfrommeatproduction.EcologicalEconomics,67,412419.
Fischer, G., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H., Berndes, G., Faaij, A., Londo, M. & de Wit, M.
(2010a) Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of cultivated land
andpastures,PartII:Landusescenarios.BiomassandBioenergy,34,173187.
Fischer, G., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H., Lensink, S. M., Londo, M. & de Wit, M. (2010b)
Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of cultivated land and
pastures.PartI:Landproductivitypotentials.BiomassandBioenergy,34,159172.
Garnett, T. (2007) Meat and dairy production & consumption Exploring the livestock
sectorscontributiontotheUKsgreenhousegasemissionsandassessingwhatless
greenhouse gas intensive systems of production and consumption might look like.
UK, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University
ofSurrey.
Garnett, T. (2009) Livestockrelated greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for
policymakers.EnvironmentalScience&Policy,12,491503.
Gill,M.,Smith,P.&Wilkinson,J.M.(2010)Mitigatingclimatechange:theroleofdomestic
livestock.Animal,4,323333.
Godfray,H.C.J.,Beddington,J.R.,Crute,I.R.,Haddad,L.,Lawrence,D.,Muir,J.F.,Pretty,J.,
Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M. & Toulmin, C. (2010) Food security: The challenge of
feeding9billionpeople.Science,327,812818.
Goodland, R. & Anhang, J. (2009) Livestock and climate change: What if the key actors in
climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens? , Worldwatch Institute.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294.
Hegarty,R.S.,Bird,S.H.,Vanselow,B.A.&Woodgate,R.(2008)Effectsoftheabsenceof
protozoa from birth or from weaning on the growth and methane production of
lambs.BritishJournalofNutrition,100,12201227.
Helm, D., Smale, R. & Phillips, J. (2007) Too Good To Be True? The UKs Climate Change
Record.http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/sites/default/files/Carbon_record_2007.pdf.
Hyslop,J.J.(2008)Simulatingtheglobalwarmingpotentialandammoniaemissionsfigures
for a range of suckler herd breeding strategies and beef cattle finishing systems.
Proceedings of the Livestock and Global Climate Change Conference, 1720 May
2008.Hammamet,Tunisia.
IFPRI(2009)ClimateChangeImpactonAgricultureandCostsofAdaptation.INNelson,G.
C.,Rosegrant,M.W.,Koo,J.,Robertson,R.,Sulser,T.,Zhu,T.,Ringler,C.,Msangi,S.,
61

Palazzo,A.,Batka,M.,Magalhaes,M.,ValmonteSantos,R.,Ewing,M.&DavidLee,
D. (Eds.). Washington, D.C., USA, International Food Policy Research Institute.
InternationalFoodPolicyResearchInstitute.
IPCC (1997) The regional impacts of climate change: An assessment of vulnerability. IN
Watson,R.T.,Zinyowera,M.C.&Moss,R.H.(Eds.).UK.CambridgeUniversityPress.
IPCC(2001)Climatechange2001:WorkinggroupII:Impacts,adaptationandvulnerability.
INMcCarthy,J.J.,Canziani,O.F.,Leary,N.A.,Dokken,D.J.&White,K.S.(Eds.).
IPCC(2006)2006IPCCguidelinesfornationalgreenhousegasinventories,preparedbythe
nationalgreenhousegasinventoriesprogramme.INEggelston,S.,Buendia,L.,Miwa,
K.,Ngara,T.&Tanabe,K.(Eds.).Japan.InstituteforGlobalEnvironmentalStrategies.
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IN Parry, M. L.,
Canziani,O.F.,Palutikof,J.P.,vanderLinden,P.J.&Hanson,C.E.(Eds.).Cambridge,
UK, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Jones, H. E., Warkup, C. C., Williams, A. & Audsley, E. (2008) The effect of genetic
improvement on emission from livestock systems. Proceedings of the European
AssociationofAnimalProduction,2427August2008.Vilnius,Lithuania,Session5.6.
Kerr,B.J.,Ziemer,C.J.,Trabue,S.L.,Crouse,J.D.&Parkin,T.B.(2006)Manurecomposition
of swine as affected by dietary protein and cellulose concentrations. Journal of
AnimalScience,84,15841592.
Lal,R.(2004)Carbonsequestrationindrylandecosystems.EnvironmentalManagement,33,
528544.
Ledgard,S.F.,Lieffering,M.,McDevitt,J.,Boyes,M.&Kemp,R.(2010)AGreenhousegas
footprint study for exported New Zealand lamb. AgResearch.
http://www.mia.co.nz/docs/press_releases/greenhouse_gas_footprint_study_for_e
xported_nz_lamb._march_2010.pdf.
Lovett,D.K.,McGilloway,D.,Bortolozzo,A.,Hawkins,M.,Callan,J.,Flynn,B.&O'Mara,F.P.
(2006) In vitro fermentation patterns and methane production as influenced by
cultivarandseasonofharvestofLoliumperenneL.GrassandForageScience,61,9
21.
Luo,J.,deKlein,C.A.M.,Ledgard,S.F.&Saggar,S.(2010)Managementoptionstoreduce
nitrous oxide emissions from intensively grazed pastures: A review. Agriculture
Ecosystems&Environment,136,282291.
Martin, C., Morgavi, D. P. & Doreau, M. (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from
microbetothefarmscale.Animal,4,351365.
Miglior,F.&Sewalem,A.(2009)Areviewonbreedingforfunctionallongevityofdairycow,
WageningenNetherlands,WageningenAcademicPublishers.
62

Miller,L.A.,Moorby,J.M.,Davies,D.R.,Humphreys,M.O.,Scollan,N.D.,MacRae,J.C.&
Theodorou, M. K. (2001) Increased concentration of watersoluble carbohydrate in
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.): milk production from latelactation dairy
cows.GrassandForageScience,56,383394.
Moran,D.,MacLeod,M.,Wall,E.,Eory,V.,Pajot,G.,Matthews,R.,McVittie,A.,Barnes,A.,
Rees, B., Moxey, A., Williams, A. & Smith, P. (2008) UK marginal abatement cost
curvesfortheagricultureandlanduse,landusechangeandforestrysectorsoutto
2022, with qualitative analysis of options to 2050. London, UK, The Committee on
Climate
Change.
http://www.theccc.org.uk/pdfs/SAC
CCC;%20UK%20MACC%20for%20ALULUCF;%20Final%20Report%20200811.pdf.
Nahm, K. H. (2002) Efficient feed nutrient utilization to reduce pollutants in poultry and
swinemanure.CriticalReviewsinEnvironmentalScienceandTechnology,32,116.
Niderkorn,V.&Baumont,R.(2009)Associativeeffectsbetweenforagesonfeedintakeand
digestioninruminants.Animal,3,951960.
Oram, R. & Lodge, G. (2003) Trends in temperate Australian grass breeding and selection.
AustralianJournalofAgriculturalResearch,54,211241.
Peters,G.M.,Wiedemann,S.G.,Rowley,H.V.&Tucker,R.W.(2010)Accountingforwater
useinAustralianredmeatproduction.InternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment,
15,311320.
Pitesky, M. E., Stackhouse, K. R. & Mitloehner, F. M. (2009) Clearing the Air: Livestock's
ContributiontoClimateChange.AdvancesinAgronomy,Vol103.p.140.SanDiego,
ElsevierAcademicPressInc.<GotoISI>://000273139200002
Preston, R. L. (1999) Hormone containing growth promoting implants in farmed livestock.
AdvancedDrugDeliveryReviews,38,123138.
Randolph, S. E. (2010) To what extent has climate change contributed to the recent
epidemiologyoftickbornediseases?VeterinaryParasitology,167,9294.
Randolph,T.F.,Schelling,E.,Grace,D.,Nicholson,C.F.,Leroy,J.L.,Cole,D.C.,Dentment,
M.W.,Omore,A.,Zinsstag,J.&Ruel,M.(2007)InvitedReview:Roleoflivestockin
humannutritionandhealthforpovertyreductionindevelopingcountries.Journalof
AnimalScience,85,27882800.
RELU (2009) Comparative merits of consuming vegetables produced locally and overseas:
Fair and evidencebased carbon labelling. Policy and Practice Notes. No. 11.
http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Edwards
Jones.pdf.
Rosegrant,M.W.,Leach,N.&Gerpacio,R.V.(1999)Alternativefuturesforworldcerealand
meatconsumption.ProceedingsoftheNutritionSociety,58,219234.

63

Schulze,E.D.,Luyssaert,S.,Ciais,P.,Freibauer,A.,Janssens,I.A.,Soussana,J.F.,Smith,P.,
Grace,J.,Levin,I.,Thiruchittampalam,B.,Heimann,M.,Dolman,A.J.,Valentini,R.,
Bousquet, P., Peylin, P., Peters, W., Rodenbeck, C., Etiope, G., Vuichard, N.,
Wattenbach, M., Nabuurs, G. J., Poussi, Z., Nieschulze, J. & Gash, J. H. (2009)
Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe's terrestrial greenhousegas
balance.NatureGeoscience,2,842850.
Smith,P.,Martino,D.,Cai,Z.,Gwary,D.,Janzen,H.,Kumar,P.,McCarl,B.,Oleg,S.,O'Mara,
F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G.,
Romanenkov,V.,Schneider,U.,Towprayoon,S.,Wattenbach,M.&Smith,J.(2008)
Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
SocietyBBiologicalSciences,363,789813.
Smith,P.,Martino,D.,Cai,Z.,Gwary,D.,Janzen,H.,Kumar,P.,McCarl,B.,Oleg,S.,OMara,
F.,Rice,C.,Scholes,B.&Sirotenko,O.(2007)Agriculture.INMetz,B.,Davidson,O.
R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R. & Meyer, L. A. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge,UKandNewYork,NY,USA,
Cambridge
University
Press.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment
report/ar4/wg3/ar4wg3chapter8.pdf.
Soussana, J. F., Tallec, T. & Blanfort, V. (2010) Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of
ruminantproductionsystemsthroughcarbonsequestrationingrasslands.Animal,4,
334350.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C. (2006)
Livestocks long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy, Food and
AgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.
Subak, S. (1999) Global environmental costs of beef production. Ecological Economics, 30,
7991.
TheCarbonTrust(2008)Codeofgoodpracticeforproductgreenhousegasemissionsand
reductionclaims:Guidancetosupporttherobustcommunicationofproductcarbon
footprints.http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/PublicationsLibrary/CTC745.pdf.
Thornton, P. & Herrero, M. (2010) The interlinkages between rapid growth in livestock
production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and
deforestation.PolicyResearchWorkingPaper5178.WorldBank.
vanDijk,J.,Sargison,N.D.,Kenyon,F.&Skuce,P.J.(2010)Climatechangeandinfectious
disease: helminthological challenges to farmed ruminants in temperate regions.
Animal,4,377392.
vanWuijckhuise,L.,Dercksen,D.,Muskens,J.,deBruyn,J.,Scheepers,M.&Vrouenraets,R.
(2006) Bluetongue in the Netherlands; description of the first clinical cases and
differential diagnosis; Common symptoms just a little different and in too many
herds.TijdschriftVoorDiergeneeskunde,131,649654.
64

Veens, T., Namkung, H. & Leeson, S. (2009) Limits to protein in layer diets relative to
mitigatingammoniaemission.AvianBiologyResearch,2,143150.
White, N., Sutherst, R. W., Hall, N. & WhishWilson, P. (2003) The vulnerability of the
Australian beef industry to impacts of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) under
climatechange.ClimaticChange,61,157190.
Williams, Y. J., Popovski, S., Rea, S. M., Skillman, L. C., Toovey, A. F., Northwood, K. S. &
Wright, A. D. G. (2009) A vaccine against rumen methanogens can alter the
composition of archaeal populations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75,
18601866.
World Bank (2010) Minding the stock : bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector
development
http://www
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/19/000
333037_20090519235908/Rendered/PDF/440100ESW0whit10Box0338899B1PUBLIC
1.pdf.
World Resources Institute (2007) EarthTrends: Environmental Information. Available at
http://earthtrends.wri.org. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/ecn1_2005.pdf.
Zamaratskaia,G.&Squires,E.J.(2009)Biochemical,nutritionalandgeneticeffectsonboar
taintinentiremalepigs.Animal,3,15081521.

65