Climate Smart Livestock Interventions

Polly EricksenProgramme Leader, Livestock Systems and Environment

Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies in SEAManila, 2 June2015

GHG intensity of livestock production(Herrero et al., 2014)

Sources of GHG emissions during livestock production (Dickhoefer et al., 2014)

Feasibility of LEDs in the Livestock Sector?

• Hoping for “win-win”: better fed animals have lower emissions intensities

• Get accurate livestock system numbers and typologies/ spatial distribution

• Update emissions factors • Apply different models for quantification

• Dairy sector EA; Rice –based systems SEA

Livestock holdings Vietnam

Regional variation inlivestock holding• North‐South decline in the share oflivestock‐derived income in total income• Dominance of pig‐derived income in allregions, but less so in poorest regions• Cattle relatively important in CH and SCC

Ruminant CH4 emissions during livestock production in OECD countries versus SSA

• OECD states: Strong and linear relationship between intake and digestibility & enteric methane production

• SSA: Livestock often at sub-maintenance

?

cold dry season

hotdry season

Early rainyseason

rainyseason

postrainy

season Lack of knowledge on ruminant CH4 emissions in SSA

wrong GHG inventories

, no data, relevantranges unexplored

200

1009080

150

Maintenanance

level (%)

CH4 and N2O emissions due to manure management

Lack of knowledge on manure management assosiated GHG

emissions in SSAwrong GHG inventories

• IPCC guidelines: 2% of added feces or urine N lost as N2O

• Our data: 0.2 - 0.8% of added N lost as N2O

Preserve nutrients: About 75%-90% of the nutrient intake of production animals is excreted via dung and urineProtect health and safety: prevent transmission of zoonotic diseases that be transmitted through manure. Reduce detrimental environmental effects: Poor manure handling leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of groundwater and surface water. Economic viability: Good manure management better organic fertilizer less synthetic fertilizers lower production costs. Capturing methane as biogas, provides cooking fuel and lighting that can replace firewood and charcoal.

Benefits of Integrated Manure Management

1 M3 biogas will be equivalent to: 5.5 kg of firewood 1.6 kg of charcoal 0.75 liter of kerosene 0.45 kg of LPG 1.5 to 1.7 kWh of electricity

One biogas plant has potentials for:GHG emission mitigation: 4.0 [tons CO2 eq/plant/yr]Deforestation reduction: 0.3 [ha of forest/plant/yr]Soil nutrificaton: 2.7 [t (DM) bio-slurry/plant/yr]

emissions

Soil

AnimalsExcretions

Nutrie

nts &

Organ

ic m

atte

r

Anim

al Fee

d

Nutrients

Crops

Manure

outputs

inputs

inputs

Increase efficiency

reduces emissions

reduces need inputs

Nutrient Cycle principle

10

Overview of the manure management manual

1. Introduction to integrated manure management

5. Anaerobic digestion of manure to produce biogas

2. Livestock housing systems and manure types

6. Management of bio-slurry and liquid manures

3. Management of solid manure

7. Special management options for manure

4. Composting manure

Adaptation and livestock

• Climate change will affect livestock production directly– Heat stressed animals digest less efficiently– Feed and fodder availability will be affected

as climate patterns change– Pest and disease distributions will change– Resource governance arrangements will

need to adapt

Livestock and Climate Change in East Africa: Exploring Combinations of Adaptation and Mitigation Options

1. Select livestock systems (contribution to emissions + vulnerability)

2. Select suitable options with adaptation and mitigation potential

3. Model the impacts of options through the FAO Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM)

Improved animal husbandry and health

•improve fertility•reduce mortality rate

Improved feed quality

•processing crop residues and adding maize to the ration

Improved grassland management•improved grazing management•increase legumes in grasslands

Emissions potential

Silvestri et al.,2014

Targeting FS pillar of CSA

Market options,intensification, diversification,crop-livestock integration

Crop intensification,increase market options

Increase production,off-farm opportunities

61% households

food insecure

Households

CSA and livestock: tradeoffs

• CSA introduces new objectives: adaptation and mitigation

• If climate risk management increases as a priority, it will affect production goals

• If mitigation becomes profitable, this will affect production goals

• Livestock systems will adjust, differently by context

• …. Don’t forget nutrition!