Livestock & Climate Change

Food Climate Research Network

FCRN-LIDC workshop - 12 June 2009

1

This presentation

1. Food and its overall impacts

2. Focus on meat and dairy

3. Reducing livestock GHGs: some options

4. Conclusions

2

1. Overall food related GHG emissions

3

The LCA perspective

Distribution centre

Agriculture

Waste disposal

Retail

Consumption

Home food storage, cooking, dishwashing etc.

Agricultural inputs incl. imported feed, fertiliser, pesticides, seed production etc,

Food processing /manufacturing

Packaging

Packaging inputs

Transport stages

Land use change

Overall food-related contribution to GHG emissions

• EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU GHG emissions• UK FCRN & Govt estimates: both around 19% -• World agriculture contribution:

– 13-14% global emissions (direct) (IPCC 2007)– Plus 6-17% agriculturally induced land use change

• Land use change = soil carbon releases

5

UKL Food GHG impacts – around 19%

As % of UK consumption related GHG emissions est. at 234 MTCe – source Druckman et al 2008 6

Former forest, Matto Grosso Brazil

7

2. Focus on meat and dairy

8

Livestock and its impacts: some estimates

• FAO 2006: 18% global GHG emissions• EU EIPRO: 15% EU emissions (50% food’s impacts) • FCRN: about 8.5% of UK total• Kramer et al. : 50% food’s impacts

– Variation depends on what’s included (eg. LU change) & baseline consumption GHGs

– How the emisssions arise affects nature of solutions – more later

• But there are benefits too

9

Livestock: benefits & disbenefitsBenefits Disbenefits Comment

Nutrition Excellent for protein, calcium, iron, vit B12

Excessive fat; protein can be more than needed

Animal foods not essential; plants can substitute

Non food benefits

Leather, wool, manure, rendered products

Manure can be a pollutant

Quantities needed?

Substitution cost

Eating will always produce an impact

Generally plant foods have lower GHG profile

Carbon storage

Pasture land stores carbon Excessive grazing & land use change releases carbon

Land use change from pasture to crops will generate CO2

Resource efficiency

Livestock can consume grass & byproducts

Supplemented with grains & cereals in intensive systems

Byproducts can be used directly as energy source in AD systems

Geography Some land not suitable for cropping

Arable land used for livestock

Intensified systems are arable hungry

ruminants

Limited by legislation

However.... global trends in demand...

2000 (6 bn people) 2050 (9 bn people)

Total demand – meat (tonnes)

228 459

Total demand – milk (tonnes)

475 883

Source: FAO 2006

...are unsustainable11

Inequality continues: p.c. meat to 2050

Source: FAO 2006

Per cap. milk to 2050

3. Reducing livestock emissions

Technological options

Behaviour change

14

Food’s impacts and the importance of the different gases

15

Methane from

livestock

Nitrous oxide from livestock and crops

Carbon dioxide from fossil energy use*

Carbon dioxide from fossil energy use

Beyond farm gateUp to farm gate

Carbon dioxide from lost carbon sequest-ration *Note: fossil energy

inputs are not huge in themselves but enable scale of production which , for example, turns livestock and its other emissions into a problem

Livestock approx 80% agricultural stage impacts

Livestock’s role here?

Relationship?

What can we do to reduce livestock emissions? The technological options

1. Productivity – same yield, fewer numbers (feed, breed, fertility, lifespan)

2. Manage soil carbon (pasture; min and no till)

3. Manage manure (anaerobic digestion; composting etc)

4. Energy efficiency: on farm energy use

5. BUT: Predicated on feeding cereals and proteins – esp soy biodiversity and land use change implications

16

What about switching to pork and poultry?

• According to LCA, pigs and poultry convert feed to meat more efficiently and have a lower footprint BUT

• Pigs and poultry are ‘landless’ and heavily grain / soy dependent

• Ruminants can help sequester carbon (grazing)• Ruminants consume rough byproducts – resource

efficiency• Pigs can be part of the solution too – but ban on pig

swill - needs to be reconsidered• Pigs and poultry aren’t ‘better’ than ruminants –

different pros and cons

What level of GHG reductions for livestock are technically possible?

• UK/internl estimates of between 13-30% by 2020 have been given (eg. SAC/CCC; milk road map; Cooking up a Storm; Bellarby et al)

• But...

18

Even if tech improvements could cut global livestock impacts by 50% by 2050

• (and this is ambitious)• Reduction in per kg emissions offset by growth in

output – driven by demand• We wouldn’t have a reduction in GHG emissions –

just no increase

• Reduction in consumption needed too (ie. technological improvements and behaviour change)

• But by how much?19

If yr 2000 consumption levels were maintained

• At 9 billion people this would mean: – Meat: 25 kg year (500g/week)– Dairy: 53 kg a year (a litre a week).

• In other words– 2 sausages, 1 small chicken piece and small

pork chop a week– And milk for cereal & tea OR 100 g cheese (3

sandwiches?) a week

Livestock and UK CC targets

• CCC budgets: 42% cut by 2020 and 50% cut by 2050:

• CCC modelling work says potential 13-30% CO2 eq reduction by 2020 and technically 50% by 2050 (agriculture as a whole)

• Assuming UK pop grows 8% by 2020 and 50% by 2050 (UN pop stats)

• To achieve targets UK livestock consumption needs to be cut by:– 2020: 11-36%– 2050: 48%

4. Conclusions

• Livestock impacts significant

• While some livestock production beneficial from GHG and human perspective– Not at current levels...– ...Or given current trends

• Trends show global impacts set to grow

• There are signs that people are waking up to the issue

For example...

• NGOs: FOE, WWF, Green Alliance, CIWF, FEC - all working on the issue

• Govt: DH action; one local authority; lots of Defra research

• Industry:– SAI dairy carbon footprinting– UK dairy industry ‘road map’– UK meat sector – starting road map– Supermarket dairy benchmarking groups

• BUT current industry focus is on efficiency rather than integrating environmental & social concerns

Internationally - the key priorities

• In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050

• What do we need to do so that:– We are all fed adequately– At minimum GHG cost?– Stored carbon is not released?– Biodiversity is protected?– Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??

• Two approaches ...

Approach A: put demand centre stage – max efficiency

• Accept consumption trajectories as inevitable

• Squeeze as much as you can from the land and the animals

• Minimise the damage

• Accept biodiversity losses / potential animal welfare losses and/or run dual systems for niche concerned groups

• Or...

Approach B: Live within ecological constraints

• Make use of what animals are good at - an ‘ecological leftovers’ perspective

• Confine livestock rearing to grazing on land unsuited to other purposes - storing carbon

• Feed genuine byproducts - avoided feed production (overturn ban on pig swill)

• Produce within these constraints

• Consume within these constraints

• Ie. meet needs rather than demand

Thank you

Tara Garnetttaragarnett@blueyonder.co.uk

www.fcrn.org.uk

Food Climate Research Network28