Climate Smart Livestock Farming

Introduction

Welcome to the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) learning module on climate smart livestock farming!

Due to demand, global meat production is expected to more than double, from 229 million tons in 1999/2001 to 465 million tons in 2050, while milk production is expected to increase from 580 to 1,043 million tons (FAO, 2006b).

Livestock make a necessary and important contribution to the global supply of calories and protein. However, to maximize this contribution, livestock must be carefully managed.

Find out why in this module!

By the end of this module, you will not only know what basic models of climate smart livestock farming exist, but you will also have the opportunity to test your knowledge in a quiz and apply it in other activities.

Learning Outcomes

Learning Outcome 1

Knowledge: see a synergy between animal livestock and climate-smart agricultural.
Skills: Connecting and seeing the synergy between energy and climate-smart agricultural.
Competencies: think about traditional and innovative land-based, mixed and landless systems and implement these.

Learning Outcome 2

Knowledge: understand the needs and chances of sound development towards climate smart livestock.
Skills: how to do livestock farming in considerable and necessary scale in your farm and within your added value chain.
Competencies: Be able to start, define and scale your livestock farming according to the type of circumstance you are.

Brainstorming

What does climate smart livestock farming mean to you?

Create a quick mind map by placing the different points. You can add to it later and correct it if necessary.

You can also use a whiteboard and collect the points together.

Per capita consumption of major food items in developing countries

Increasing demanded (cosumed) animal based produce

The factors that have driven the growth in demand for animal products in developing countries (rising incomes, population growth and urbanization) will continue to have an influence in the coming decades.Livestock can increase the world’s edible protein balance by converting inedible protein from feed into forms digestible by humans.
Livestock make a necessary and important contribution to the global supply of calories and protein. However, to maximize this contribution, livestock must be carefully managed.
Climate-smart livestock farming is one that „sustainably increases productivity, enhances resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation) and enhances achievement of national food security and development goals.“

Paracelsus: the dose makes the poison

On the other hand, livestock can also reduce the global edible protein balance by consuming large amounts of edible protein from grains and soybeans and converting it into small amounts of animal protein. The choice of production systems and good management practices are important for optimizing protein yields from livestock.

Livestock production and marketing can help stabilize food supplies and provide individuals and communities with a buffer against economic shocks and natural disasters.

Impact of climate change on livestock

	Grazing system	Non-grazing system
Direct impacts	increased frequency of extreme weather events increased frequency and magnitude of droughts and floods productivity losses (physiological stress] due to temperature increase change in water availability (may increase or decrease, according to region)	change in water availability [may increase or decrease, according to region) increased frequency of extreme weather events [impact less acute than for extensive system]
Indirect impacts	Agro-ecological changes and ecosystem shifts leading to: alteration in fodder quality and quantity change in host-pathogen interaction resulting in an increased incidence of emerging diseases disease epidemics	increased resource prices (e.g. feed, water and energy) disease epidemics increased cost of animal housing (e.g. cooling systems)

Source: FAO: CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Sourcebook; Based on FAO’s current work being done through the Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate Programme

Livestock Farming and Emissions

Livestock farming is a major contributor to climate change as it causes significant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20).
Livestock farming contributes to climate change by emitting greenhouse gases directly (e.g. through enteric fermentation and manure management) or indirectly (e.g. through feed production, conversion of forest to pasture) throughout production (CO2).

There are striking differences in global emission intensities among commodities. For example, on a global scale, the emission intensity of meat and milk, measured by output weight, corresponds on average to 46.2 kg CO2 eqv. per kg of carcass weight (CW), 6.1 kg CO2 eqv./kg CW and 5.4 kg CO2 eqv./kg CW for beef, pork and chicken meat1, respectively, and 2.8 kg CO2 eqv./kg of milk (FAO, 2013a and b, forthcoming).
There is significant variability in emissions across the different regions and continents.
Depending on the management, intensity, performance and scale GHG emissions can be inversely related to productivity. It very much depends on the systematic approach and the entrepreneur.

Livestock Farming and Emissions: Thinking about solution

So what can be done to make livestock farming “climate friendlier“? The solutions could include:

Breeding more productive animals
Improving feeding so that animals produce more protein with less feed and cause fewer emissions
Better manure management (e.g. composting)
Better herd management to increase performance, including better herd health management with reduced use of antibiotics
Better management of grassland (e.g. sowing improved pasture varieties, rotational grazing)

Remember: Depending on the management, intensity, performance and scale GHG emissions can be inversely related to productivity.

Main climate-friendly strategies for the sector

Brainstorming

What kind of climate smart livestock farming concets do you know?

What innovations do you ecpect in nearer future?

Create a quick mind map by placing the different points. You can add to it later and correct it if necessary.

You can also use a whiteboard and collect the points together.

Why not making a +/ – table?

Reactions and Systematic approaches

Land-based systems

While there are several climate-friendly options for land-based grazing systems, their applicability to low-input systems with infrequent human interventions tends to be quite limited.

The main mitigation options for land-based grazing systems are the reduction of enteric CH4 emissions and CO2 sequestration through soil carbon sequestration.

The options for reducing emissions through fertilizer management are much more limited for land-based systems.

Practices and technologies	Impact on food security	Effectiveness: adaptation	Effectiveness: mitigation	Main constraints to adoption
Grazing management	+/-	+	++	technical: especially in extensive systems
Pasture management	+		++	technical and economic in extensive systems
Animal breeding	+	++	++	technical, economic institutional especially in developing countries
Animals and herd management	+	++	+	technical, institutional especially in developing countries
Animal disease and health	++	++	+	technical, institutional especially in developing countries
Supplementary feeding	+	+	++	easy to implement, but costly
Vaccines against rumen archaea	++		+	not immediately available, may have low acceptability in some countries
Warning systems	++	+		technical institutional: especially in developing countries
Weather-indexed insurance		+		technical, economic institutional especially in developing countries
Agroforestry practices	++	++	++	technical and economic

Source: FAO: CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Sourcebook; Based on FAO’s current work being done through the Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate Programme

The climate-friendly options showed in the table can be divided into three categories:

Options with clear synergies between mitigation and adaptation,
Options that only serve mitigation, and
Options that only serve adaptation.

Options with a risk of trade-offs between mitigation, food security and adaptation are also identified.

Grazing management 1

Grazing can be optimized by balancing and adjusting the grazing pressure on the land. This optimization can increase grassland productivity and provide mitigation and adaptation benefits. However, the net impact of optimal grazing is variable and highly dependent on basic grazing practices, plant species, soils, and climatic conditions (Smith et al., 2008).

Perhaps the clearest emission reduction benefit comes from soil carbon sequestration, which occurs when grazing pressure is reduced to halt land degradation or restore degraded land (Conant and Paustian, 2002). However, if grazing pressure is reduced simply by reducing the number of animals, the overall output per hectare may be lower, except in areas where the initial stocking rate is excessively high (Rolfe, 2010).

Grazing management 2

One of the main strategies for increasing the efficiency of grazing management is through rotational grazing, which can be adjusted to the frequency and timing of the livestock’s grazing needs and better matches these needs with the availability of pasture resources. Rotational grazing allows for the maintenance of forages at a relatively earlier growth stage. This enhances the quality and digestibility of the forage, improves the produc- tivity of the system and reduces CH4 emissions per unit of LWG (Eagle et al., 2012). Rotational grazing is more suited to managed pasture systems, where investment costs for fencing and watering points, additional labour and more intensive management are more likely to be recouped.

Pasture management and nutrition

Pasture management measures involve the sowing of improved varieties of pasture, typically the replacement of native grasses with higher yielding and more digestible forages, including perennial fodders, pastures and legumes (Bentley et al., 2008). There are far fewer opportunities for sowing improved pastures in arid and semi-arid grazing systems.

The intensification of pasture production though fertilization, cutting regimes and irrigation practices may also enhance productivity, soil carbon, pasture quality and animal performance. These approaches however, may not always reduce GHG emissions. Improved pasture quality through nitrogen fertilization may involve trade- offs between lower CH4 emissions and higher N2O emissions (Bannink et al., 2010).

Animal breeding

Animal breeding to select more productive animals is another strategy to enhance productivity and thereby lower CH4 emission intensities. Research has recently been done on the mitigation benefits of using residual feed intake as a selection tool for low CH4 emitting animals, but so far findings have been inconclusive (Wag- horn and Hegarty, 2011).

There is also evidence that cross-breeding programmes can deliver adaptation, food security and mitigation benefits, making use of locally adapted breeds, which are not only tolerant to heat and poor nutrition, but also to parasites and diseases (Hoffmann, 2008).

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

Animal and herd management, disease control and feeding strategies

As with all livestock production systems, there are a number of options for animal and herd management in land-based systems that can increase animal productivity, improve feed conversion and thus reduce the intensity of intestinal emissions.

Better nutrition, improved animal husbandry, regular maintenance of animal health and the responsible use of antibiotics can improve reproduction rates, reduce mortality and lower the age at slaughter. All these measures will therefore increase production at a given level of emissions. The impact of these measures on adaptation is likely to be neutral.

Mixed systems

	Management objective	Practices/ technologies	Impact on food security	Effectiveness as an adaption strategy	Effectiveness as an mitigation strategy	Main constraints to adoption
Crop and grazing land management	Improved crop varieties	conventional breeding (e.g. dual purpose crops, high yielding crops)	+++	+++	Uncertain	High investment costs; high prices of Uncertain improved varieties, high input costs (e.g. fertilizer)
		Modern biotechnology and genetic engineering (e.g. genetically modified stress tolerant crops)	++	++	Uncertain	High investment costs, concerns with long-term potential impacts (e.g. loss of crop biodiversity, health concerns, limited enabling environment to support transfer of technology)
	Crop residue management	No-till/minimum tillage; cover cropping; mulching	+++	+++	++	Competing demands for crop residue biomass
	Nutrient management	Composting; appropriate fertilizer and manure use; precision farming	+++	++	++	Cost, limited access to technology and information
	Soil management	Crop rotations, fallowing (green manures), intercropping with leguminous plants, conservation tillage	+++	+++	++	Minimal gains over short term (e.g. short term decreases in production due to reduced cropping intensity)
	Grazing management	Adjust stocking densities to feed availability management	+++	+++	+++	Risk aversion of farmers
	Grazing management	Rotational grazing	++	+++	+++
Water management	Water use efficiency and management	Supplemental irrigation/water harvesting	++	++		Requires investment in infrastructure, extension, capacity building
		Irrigation techniques to maximize water use (amount, timing, technology)	++	++
		Modification of cropping calendar	++	++		Lack of information on seasonal climatic forecast trends, scenarios
Livestock management	Improved feed management	Improving feed quality: diet supplementation; improved grass species; low cost fodder conservation technologies (e.g. baling, silage)	+++	+++	+++	High costs
	Altering integration within the system	Alteration of animal species and breeds; ratio of crop-livestock, crop-pasture	++	+++	++	Lack of information on seasonal climatic forecast trends, scenarios
	Livestock management	Improved breeds and species (e.g. heat-tolerant breeds)	++	++	++	Productivity trade-off: more heat- tolerant livestock breeds generally have lower levels of productivity
	Livestock management	Infrastructure adaptation measures (e.g. housing, shade)	++	+++	+
	Manure management	Anaerobic digesters for biogas and fertilizer	+++	+++	+++	High investment costs
		Composting, improved manure handling and storage, (e.g. covering manure heaps) application techniques (e.g. rapid incorporation)	++	+	++

Mitigation/adaptation potential: += low; ++ = medium; and +++= high
Source: FAO: CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Sourcebook; Based on FAO’s current work being done through the Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate Programme

Because they serve multiple purposes, mixed livestock systems, if well managed, may be among the most promising means of adapting to climate change and mitigating the contribution of crop and livestock produc- tion to GHG emissions. There are a number of agronomic techniques and livestock management practices that have proven to be effective in delivering multiple benefits (food security, and improved climate change mitiga- tion and adaptation). The options presented below deal with integrated mixed systems but focus on livestock- related interventions for CSA

Integrated soil-crop-water management

Soil and water are intrinsically linked to crop and livestock production. For this reason, an integrated approach to soil and water management is vital for increasing efficiency in the use of resources, adapting to and miti- gating climate change, and sustaining productivity. For example, by increasing the organic content of the soil through conservation tillage, the soil’s water holding capacity increases, which makes yields more resilient and reduces erosion (Lal, 2009). Existing soil and water adaptation technologies include: minimum or zero till- age; erosion control; the use of crop residues to conserve soil moisture; and improved soil cover through cover crops.

Sustainable soil management

Carbon sequestration in soils has the potential to mitigate climate change and bolster climate change ad- aptation (Pascal and Socolow, 2004). A climate-smart strategy involves creating a positive carbon budget in soils and ecosystems by using residues as mulch in combination with no-till farming and integrated nutrient management.

Restoration of degraded soils, through increases in soil organic carbon pools, improves production, which helps foster food security and improves nutrition. Increasing the pool of soil organic carbon is also important for improving efficiency in the use of nitrogen and potassium. Water quality also improves through a greater control of non-point source pollution (Lal, 2009).

Feed management

Crop residues can represent up to 50 percent of the diet of ruminants in mixed farming systems. While these feed resources provide an inexpensive feed source, they are usually of low digestibility and deficient in crude protein, minerals and vitamins. This low digestibility substantially limits productivity and increases CH4 emissions. Increasing the digestibility of feed rations by improving the quality of crop residues, or supplementing diets with concentrates will reduce CH4 emissions. Other existing feed management practices in mixed farming systems include the use of improved grass species and forage legumes. Animal productivity can be improved by using a multidimensional approach for improving the quality and thereby the utilization of food-feed crops.

Diversification to climate-resilient agricultural production systems

The diversification of sensitive production systems can enhance adaptation to the short- and medium-term impacts from climate change. Transitions within mixed farming systems are already occurring.

Changing the mix of farm products (e.g. proportion of crops to pastures) is an example of a farm-level adaptation option. Farmers may reassess the crops and varieties they grow, and shift from growing crops to raising livestock, which can serve as marketable insurance in times of drought.

Landless systems

Practices and technologies	Impact on food security	Effectiveness as adaption strategy	Effectiveness as mitigation strategy	Main constraints to adoption
Anaerobic digesters for biogas and fertilizer	+++	+++	+++	Investment costs
Composting, improved manure handling and storage (e.g. covering manure heaps), application techniques [e.g. rapid incorporation]	++	+	++
Temperature control systems	++	+++	–	High investment and operating costs
Disease surveillance	++	+++	+
Energy use efficiency		+	+++	Subsidized energy costs
Improved feeding practices (e.g. precision feeding)	+++	+	+++	High operating costs
Building resilience along supply chains	++	+++	–	Requires coordination along the chains

Source: FAO: CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Sourcebook; Based on FAO’s current work being done through the Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate Programme

Climate-smart options are also available for intensive systems (Gill et al., 2009; UNFCCC, 2008). These options mainly relate to manure management (pig, dairy, and feedlots) and enteric fermentation (dairy and feedlots). Because these systems are generally more standardised than mixed and grazing systems, there are fewer applicable options.

Improved waste management

Most methane emissions from manure derive from swine and beef cattle feedlots and dairies, where produc- tion is carried out on a large scale and manure is stored under anaerobic conditions. GHG mitigation options include the capture of CH4 by covering manure storage facilities (biogas collectors). The captured CH4 can be flared or used as a source of energy for electric generators, heating or lighting.

Improved feed conversion

Carbon dioxide emissions associated with feed production, especially soybean, are significant (FAO, 2006a). Improved feed conversion ratios have already greatly reduced the amount of feed required per unit of animal product.

However, there is significant variation between production units and countries. Further progress is expected to be made in this area through improvements in feed management and livestock breeding. Reducing the amount of feed required per unit of output (e.g. beef, milk) has the potential to both reduce GHG emissions and increase farm profits. Feed efficiency can be increased by developing breeds that grow faster, are more hardy, gain weight more quickly, or produce more milk.

Sourcing low-emission feed

Shifting to feed resources with a low-carbon footprint is another way to reduce emissions, especially for concentrated pig and poultry production systems. Examples of low-emission feeds include feed crops that have been produced through conservation agriculture practices or that have been grown in cropping areas that have not been recently extended into forested land or natural pastures. Crop by-products and co-products from the agrifood industry are also examples of low-emission feeds.

Improving energy use efficiency

Landless systems generally rely on greater amounts of fossil fuel energy than mixed and grazing systems (Gerber et al., 2011: FAO, 2009b). Improving energy use efficiency is an effective way to reduce production costs and lower emissions.

Dairy farms are seen as having great potential for energy use efficiency gains. Energy is used for the milking process, cooling and storing milk, heating water, lighting and ventilation

Brainstorming

How do you see your role along the added value chain from farm to fork?

Create a quick mind map by placing the different points. You can add to it later and correct it if necessary.

You can also use a whiteboard and collect the points together.

Why not making a +/ – table?

Conclusions

Livestock can make a large contribution to climate-smart food supply systems. The sector offers substantial potential for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation options are available along the entire supply chain and are mostly associated with feed production, enteric fermentation and manure management. Live- stock’s role in adaptation practices relates to organic matter and nutrient management (soil restoration) and income diversification.

Livestock also makes a key contribution to food security, especially in marginal lands where it represents a unique source of energy, protein and micronutrients. The contribution of the livestock sector to food security could be strengthened, particularly in areas where current levels of consumption of livestock products are low.

This module has highlighted how some practices require making tradeoffs between adaptation, mitigation and food security. However, most practices offer opportunities to exploit synergies in these areas.

Several CSA practices are readily available for implementation, such as sylvopastoral systems, grassland restoration and management, manure management (recycling and biodigestion) and crop-livestock integration. Barriers to adoptions are most often related to a lack of information, limited access to technology and insufficient capital.

This module has also highlighted that CSA approaches need to take into consideration production systems and supply chains. This is especially true in the case of livestock, given the strong interrelationships with crops (feed and manure management) and the wider environment.

What to do on a single farm level?

Given the current and projected scarcity of resources and the anticipated increase in demand for livestock products, there is considerable agreement that increasing efficiency in resource use is a key component to improving the sector’s environmental sustainability.

More efficient use of natural resources is a crucial strategy for decoupling growth in the livestock sector from adverse environmental impacts. Efficiency in the use of natural resources is measured by the ratio between the use of natural resources as input to the production activities and the output from production.

Improving the feed-to-food conversion efficiency in animal production systems is a fundamental strategy for improving the environmental sustainability of the sector. A large volume of food is wasted even before it reach- es the consumer.

The current prices of inputs, such as land, water and feed, used in livestock production often do not reflect true scarcities. Consequently, there is the overutilization of resources by the sector and inefficiencies in production processes.

Ensuring effective management is key for todays future oriented farmer, and basically it has been since ever as sustianing production is basic for future production.

Important will be not only doing, but talking about what good management is in place.

References/ Literature

FAO: CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE Sourcebook

Agroforestry - First Activity

Imagine you on a farm made on scratch:

You are there, managing a 240cow plus own breed dairy farm.

You are lucky, because you manage a farm on rounded up 180ha of 100ha crop land and 80ha grassland.

Up to now you only built the stable and only have the machinery for the processes on farm.

Discuss and calculate what would be your optimized land-based systematic approach for this farm:

Which crop would you use?
Would you change crop- to grassland?
How would you manage your grazing?
How would you feed your animals during winter season or low vegetation time?

Climate Smart Livestock Farming

Introduction

Learning Outcomes