Agustin del Pradoagustin.delprado@bc3researchAgustin del [email protected]...
Transcript of Agustin del Pradoagustin.delprado@bc3researchAgustin del [email protected]...
Agustin del Prado [email protected] Centre for Climate Change (BC3)http://www.bc3research.org/en/agustin_del_prado.html@AgusBC3
Regional challenges to the UK sheep sector (including impacts on Greenhouse Gas emissions from sheep
systems)
1
Innovations to improve sustainability in the sheep and goat sector. An iSAGE training course and an iSAGE workshop. Wood Hall Hotel & Spa, Linton, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK
With help from BC3, Phil Stocker (NSA), Cled Thomas (EEAP) and Georgios Arsenos (AUTH)
Is it sensible to consider all GHG together?
6
“To stabilise global temperatures, emissions of long-lived gases like CO2 must be reduced to net-zero. Emissions of short-lived gases like methane must be stabilised, but need not reach net-zero”.
GHG emissions from UK Sheep
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mt
CO
2-e
/yr
sheep-enteric-CH4 sheep-manure-CH4 sheep-N2O
source: UK GHG inventory
CH4 emissions from UK Sheep
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Mt
CO
2-e
/yr
sheep-enteric-CH4 sheep-manure-CH4
0.7% annual reduction (averaged)
14
Aggregated CH4 from sheep(GWP*)
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
Mt
CO
2-w
e/yr
(ag
greg
ated
)
year
(GWP*)
Series2
cooling
warming
Based on Cain et al. (2019)
15
Potential pathways for biogenic sheepCH4 in the UK
SCENARIOS Annualreduction
Short-term reductionin period (2005-2030)
Medium-termreduction in period (2005-2050)
No change (2018-) 0% 0% 0%
Small reduction 0.3% 5% 11%
Medium reduction 0.5% 7% 16%
Ambitious reduction 1% 13% 29%
Very ambitiousreduction
2% 24% 49%
Small increase -0.3% 3% 9%
Medium increase -0.5% 5% 16%
Warming effect: Pathways with CH4
reduction
16
-8.E-05
-6.E-05
-4.E-05
-2.E-05
0.E+00
20
05
20
08
20
11
20
14
20
17
20
20
20
23
20
26
20
29
20
32
20
35
20
38
20
41
20
44
20
47
20
50
war
min
g (K
)
year
no change since 2018 change -0.3% change -0.5%
change -1% change -2%
-0.3%-0.5%
-1%
-2%
Based on Cain et al. (2019)
cooling
17
-4.E-05
-2.E-05
0.E+00
2.E-052
00
5
20
08
20
11
20
14
20
17
20
20
20
23
20
26
20
29
20
32
20
35
20
38
20
41
20
44
20
47
20
50
war
min
g (K
)
year
increase 0.3% increase 0.5%"
warming
0.3%
0.5%
Based on Cain et al. (2019)
cooling
Warming effect: Pathways with CH4
increase
18
0E+00
2E-05
4E-05
6E-05
8E-05
1E-04
1E-04
1E-042
00
5
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
20
31
20
33
20
35
20
37
20
39
20
41
20
43
20
45
20
47
20
49
war
min
g (K
)
year
no change since 2018 change -0.3%
change -0.5% change -1%
change -2% change 2%
Warming!!
Warming effect: if Pathways wererefered to fosil CO2 emissions
Novel mitigation measures (CH4)
In vitro (Kinley et al., 2016; Vucko et al., 2017; Maia et al., 2017)In vivo: UC Davis (US)
Duin et al. (2016) Proc Natl Acad Sci 31;113(22):6172-7
Seaweed
3-nitrooxypropanol (NOP)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Feed bought
carcass sold(tonnes)
CO2-e
NH3-N
NOx-N
NO3-N leach
BASELINE ROA-gene
Innovations-ROA allele (increases prolificacy)
21
Modelled with
Del Prado et al. (2019)
Important to include SOC sequestration
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
FSI.1 FSI.2 FSI.3 LSI.4 LSI.5 LSI.6 LSE.7 LSE.8 LSE.9 LSE.10 LSE.11 LSE.12
kg
CO
2eq
/kg
FP
CM
SOC ( grasslands)
Other inputs (pesticides
Energy (oil +electricity)
Mineral fertilizers
Feed purchased
Indirect emissionssoil (N2O)
Direct emissionssoil (N2O)
Manuremanagement
Entericfermentation CH4
2.61.9
1.7
2.6 1.32.4
2.6
0.7
0.2 2.2
1.5
4.1
Batalla et al. (2015)
Ca
rbo
nse
qu
estr
ati
on
Grass-fed sheep Systems
22
CH4 uncertainties-sinks
25
Aprox 4 Tg CH4 yr−1 uptake in grassland soils during 1981-2010.
(This is aprox. 2% of all GHG livestock estimate from FAO, globally)
Take homes• La intensificación mediante mejora en la eficiencia del
animal no conlleva necesariamente una menor huella de C ,ni una mejora en la rentabilidad de la explotación.
• Esta mejora en la productividad puede estar motivando (directa o indirectamente) una mayor incidencia negativa en la longevidad y fertilidad de los animales.
• Es importante que se valore el potencial de la producción ganadera en rumiantes respecto a su capacidad de producir proteina animal a partir de biomasa que no compite en la cadena alimentaria humana.
• Sheep and goats in the UK have caused no additional warming to the atmosphere
• Farmers can mitigate GHG with differentinterventions in the farm
• Main strategy should be to keep and movetowards high Production standards
26
Innovations to improve sustainability in the sheep and goat sector. An iSAGE training course and an iSAGE workshop. Wood Hall Hotel & Spa, Linton, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK
ThanksAgustin del Prado [email protected] Centre for Climate Change (BC3)http://www.bc3research.org/en/agustin_del_prado.html@AgusBC3
With help from BC3 team, Phil Stocker (NSA), Cled Thomas (EEAP) and Georgios Arsenos (AUTH)