Climate change and livestock : Impacts and mitigation
|
P Mayengbam and TC Tolenkhomba
Contd from previous issue
Practices for mitigating enteric fermentation are increasing dietary fat content (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2010), providing higher quality forage (Hristov et al., 2013), increasing protein content (ICF International, 2013), providing supplements (e.g. bovine somatotropin, feed antibiotics) (Boadi et al., 2004), and the use of anti-methanogens (vaccines to suppress methane emissions; EPS, 2013). However, there is high uncertainty in the efficacy of these practices because various studies have demonstrated that the initial reductions of enteric fermentation achieved are only temporary (ICF International, 2013).
Manure management
Most methane emissions from nature management are related to storage and anaerobic treatment. Although manure deposited on pasture can produce nitrous oxide emissions, the mitigation measures are often difficult to apply because of the manure dispersion on pasture (Dickie et al., 2014). Therefore, most mitigation practices involve shortening storage duration, improving timing and application of manure, used of anaerobic digesters, covering the storage, using a solids separator, and changing the animal diets (ICF International, 2013).
Adjusting animal diets can also be used as a mitigation measure, by changing the volume and composition of manure. GHG emissions can be reduced by balancing dietary proteins and feed supplements. If protein intake is reduced, the nitrogen excreted by animals can also be reduced. Supplements such as tannins are also known to have the potential to reduce emissions. Tannins are able to displace the nitrogen excretion from urine to faces to produce an overall reduction in emissions (dickie et al., 2014; Hess et al., 2006).
Fertilizer management
Fertilizer application on animal feed crops increases nitrous oxide emissions (Bouwman, 1996). Therefore, mitigation measures such as increasing nitrogen use efficiency, plant breeding and genetic modifications (Dickie et al., 2014), using organic fertilizers (Denef et al., 2011), regular soil testing, using technologically advanced fertilizers, and combining legumes with grasses in pasture areas may decrease GHG emissions in feed production (Dickie et al., 2014).
Shifting human dietary trends
Most studies are focused on reducing GHG emissions on the supply-side of the livestock production system. However, less research has focused on the demand section related to consumption of livestock products. A reduction in meat consumption may significantly reduce GHG emissions because beef accounts for a large portion of GHG emissions from the livestock sector and it is the least resource efficient animal protein producer (Stehfest et al., 2009) and thus the mitigation potential is high for the beef component of the livestock sector.
Conclusion
Rise in temperature due to climate changes is likely to impact livestock production and livestock health. Increase in physiological reactions and energy expenditure at high temperatures will elevate heat loads of animals resulting into decline in productivity (milk, meat, wool and draught power). Higher temperature and prolong period of stress will affect diseases and pest challenges. Incidences of diseases (parasitic and protozoan) is likely to increase. Inadequate resources and infrastructure will put stress on livestock and livestock production system with further substantial increase. India is likely to face a major water crisis that will severely impact livestock and livestock production system.
In order to achieve the mitigation measures to address climate change and livestock production, these measures should be scaled up through policy. For example, understanding farmers’ perceptions and including them in policy development can improve food security and environmental conservation by promoting widespread practice adoption. In addition, a comprehensive view of costs, time, and effort required from the producer needs to be included to the policy framework to maintain sustainable production systems.
The writers are from Dept. of Vety. Physiology and Biochemistry, College of Veterinary Scs. & Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University, Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram- 796014
Contd from previous issue
Practices for mitigating enteric fermentation are increasing dietary fat content (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2010), providing higher quality forage (Hristov et al., 2013), increasing protein content (ICF International, 2013), providing supplements (e.g. bovine somatotropin, feed antibiotics) (Boadi et al., 2004), and the use of anti-methanogens (vaccines to suppress methane emissions; EPS, 2013). However, there is high uncertainty in the efficacy of these practices because various studies have demonstrated that the initial reductions of enteric fermentation achieved are only temporary (ICF International, 2013).
Manure management
Most methane emissions from nature management are related to storage and anaerobic treatment. Although manure deposited on pasture can produce nitrous oxide emissions, the mitigation measures are often difficult to apply because of the manure dispersion on pasture (Dickie et al., 2014). Therefore, most mitigation practices involve shortening storage duration, improving timing and application of manure, used of anaerobic digesters, covering the storage, using a solids separator, and changing the animal diets (ICF International, 2013).
Adjusting animal diets can also be used as a mitigation measure, by changing the volume and composition of manure. GHG emissions can be reduced by balancing dietary proteins and feed supplements. If protein intake is reduced, the nitrogen excreted by animals can also be reduced. Supplements such as tannins are also known to have the potential to reduce emissions. Tannins are able to displace the nitrogen excretion from urine to faces to produce an overall reduction in emissions (dickie et al., 2014; Hess et al., 2006).
Fertilizer management
Fertilizer application on animal feed crops increases nitrous oxide emissions (Bouwman, 1996). Therefore, mitigation measures such as increasing nitrogen use efficiency, plant breeding and genetic modifications (Dickie et al., 2014), using organic fertilizers (Denef et al., 2011), regular soil testing, using technologically advanced fertilizers, and combining legumes with grasses in pasture areas may decrease GHG emissions in feed production (Dickie et al., 2014).
Shifting human dietary trends
Most studies are focused on reducing GHG emissions on the supply-side of the livestock production system. However, less research has focused on the demand section related to consumption of livestock products. A reduction in meat consumption may significantly reduce GHG emissions because beef accounts for a large portion of GHG emissions from the livestock sector and it is the least resource efficient animal protein producer (Stehfest et al., 2009) and thus the mitigation potential is high for the beef component of the livestock sector.
Conclusion
Rise in temperature due to climate changes is likely to impact livestock production and livestock health. Increase in physiological reactions and energy expenditure at high temperatures will elevate heat loads of animals resulting into decline in productivity (milk, meat, wool and draught power). Higher temperature and prolong period of stress will affect diseases and pest challenges. Incidences of diseases (parasitic and protozoan) is likely to increase. Inadequate resources and infrastructure will put stress on livestock and livestock production system with further substantial increase. India is likely to face a major water crisis that will severely impact livestock and livestock production system.
In order to achieve the mitigation measures to address climate change and livestock production, these measures should be scaled up through policy. For example, understanding farmers’ perceptions and including them in policy development can improve food security and environmental conservation by promoting widespread practice adoption. In addition, a comprehensive view of costs, time, and effort required from the producer needs to be included to the policy framework to maintain sustainable production systems.
The writers are from Dept. of Vety. Physiology and Biochemistry, College of Veterinary Scs. & Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University, Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram- 796014