Living with livestock; How can livestock help us create a resilient, sustainable farming and food...
-
Upload
farming-futures -
Category
Technology
-
view
670 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Living with livestock; How can livestock help us create a resilient, sustainable farming and food...
Living with livestockHow can livestock help us create a resilient, sustainable
farming and food system?
Tara Garnett
Food Climate Research Network ‐ University of Surrey
9 December 2009
This presentation• Livestock and GHGs: what contribution?
• Two key issues for livestock and their impacts:– Land
– Demand
• Livestock in the global context – Why is this relevant?
• How do these factors affect whether livestock are a burden, or a blessing?
• Livestock: some possible futures
Why livestock?Some things we know about meat and dairy
• Most GHG intensive food category (on the whole) ‐ as measured using a range of functional units.
• Most of its impacts occur at the farm stage
• UK meat and dairy consumption (incl imports excl exports) accounts for 8% UK emissions (incl imports excl exports)
• EBLEX report finds UK beef and sheep production direct emissions = 2.7% UK emissions.
Is 2.7% a lot?• Compare car travel by purpose as % UK GHG emissions(ie. the problem of disaggregating problems to nothing...)
And the growing problem of land use change
• Research commissioned by FCRN & WWF‐UK finds that land use change (LUC) adds another 50% on top of UK emissions.
• In total LUC accounts for 40% of (now higher) food GHG footprint
• More than ¾ is attributable to livestock.• Source: An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system
and the scope for reduction by 2050: How low can we go? Produced by Cranfield University, Ecometrica and Murphy‐Bokern Associates. FORTHCOMING
• NB: report also confirms that both tech and dietary change are needed
What does LCA tell us about different types of livestock?
• On the face of it – white meat is ‘better’ than red meat. Why?
• Feed conversion efficiency: Pigs and poultry convert feed into edible meat/eggs more efficiency (energy not lost as methane)
• Methane: No methane (except pig manure)
• Land: less land is needed to produce a given volume of white meat than red
• BUT ...
... this is too simplistic
• We need also to consider:
• Not just how much but what kind of land is being used to feed and rear the animals
• What we do about demand and how demand trajectories influence the conclusions
Land use and pigs & poultry • Intensive pigs and poultry systems use less land overall than ruminants BUT
• The land they do use is prime arable land – for cereal and soy production
• This land is also needed for to grow grains for human consumption
• In a resource constrained world – is using prime agricultural land to grow grains to feed to pigs the most sensible thing to do?
• Demand for agricultural land is growing and will lead to LUC = CO2 release
Land use & intensive ruminant production
Intensive systems:
• Depend on grains and oilseeds – land / grains could be used to feed humans – same issues as for pigs and poultry
• Use more land per unit edible output than pigs and poultry
• Feed conversion lower than pigs & poultry
• A triple whammy (although methane is lower than extensive ruminant systems)
Land use & extensive systems: Properlymanaged
• Make use of land unsuited to crop production (resource efficiency)
• Can help store carbon in soil
• Sustain ecosystem services (water, biodiversity, soil, aesthetic value)
• Consume byproducts from other food & agricultural sectors (resource efficiency)
• Give us something for nothing – meat , wool, leather – all from agricultural waste and poor quality land
• Higher methane per kg needs to be seen in this context
But ‐ land use & extensive systems: poorlymanaged
• Cause soil degradation and carbon losses
• Cause deforestation (eg. Amazon) & CO2 release
• Reduce biodiversity and water storage capacities
• Yield little meat for much climate change and other damage
Demand trajectories are key
Global trends in demand are unsustainable
Meat & dairy set to nearly double
Production in developing world already higher – most of growth in demand set to come from developing world
BUT inequality continuesper cap meat to 2050
Source: FAO 2006
Ditto for milk ‐ per cap. to 2050
Is it really all China’s fault?
Meat kg / per capita / yr Milk kg / per capita / yr
UK 83 242
China 54 16
India 5 67
Kenya 15 98
The ‘Which livestock and in what system? question depends on what you
do about demand
• If demand is seen as inevitable & unconstrainable then:– Pigs and poultry are the least bad option
– Extensive ruminants are the worst option
• But in a world where limits are placed on demand then we can ask: “How do livestock best make use of the land we have available while contributing to multiple ecosystem benefits?”– Extensive ruminants may be the best option
– Industrial pig & poultry have nothing to offer
Which future?What if things were different?
• How do the GHG impacts of different livestock systems and consumption practices look when we adopt differing definitions of:– An acceptable diet: nutritional needs vs demand
– Role and value of different land uses and aesthetics?
– Animal welfare
– Biodiversity
– Freedom (to buy)?
4 scenarios – different variables
• Demand versus needs– Emissions per kg product wanted vs emissions per nutritional need fulfilled
• Land efficiency versus land reconnection– Land use /emissions per kg product vs matching agriculture to land availabilty
by type and appropriateness of use
• Absolute versus relative ethics:– Meat and dairy foods: Physical supply versus equitable distribution
– Animal welfare: Intrinsic value versus extrinsic utility
– Biodiversity: Agroecology vs biodiversity havens ‐ and differences in how we assign value to diversity
– Freedom: To choose versus freedom from hunger
• For each scenario: What are the implications for GHG emissions and how would you need to define and deal with the above?
How do you reduce demand?
I don’t know ‐ but...
We need to work it out
• We cannot achieve a global 50% cut in agricultural GHGs (with a pop of 9bn) unless we tackle demand
• The developed world must lead the way (this is central to the Copenhagen negotiations)
• If the developed world is to achieve an 80‐90% cut in GHG emissions there are lots of things we need to do that sound uncomfortable
• We need approaches that combine fiscal measures; regulation; voluntary agreements; availability of alternatives; awareness raising & information
• Production & consumption measures must go together
• Farmers mustn’t lose out
•