Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Climate smart livestock interventions

3,415 views

Published on

Presented by Polly Ericksen at the CCAFS climate-smart agriculture (CSA) Technologies Workshop, Manila, Philippines, 2-4 June 2015

Published in: Science

Climate smart livestock interventions

  1. 1. Climate Smart Livestock Interventions Polly Ericksen Programme Leader, Livestock Systems and Environment Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies in SEA Manila, 2 June2015
  2. 2. GHG intensity of livestock production (Herrero et al., 2014)
  3. 3. Sources of GHG emissions during livestock production(Dickhoefer et al., 2014)
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Livestock holdings Vietnam Regional variation in livestock holding • North‐South decline in the share of livestock‐derived income in total income • Dominance of pig‐derived income in all regions, but less so in poorest regions • Cattle relatively important in CH and SCC
  6. 6. 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 hot dry season Early rainy season rainy season post rainy season Lack of knowledge on ruminant CH4 emissions in SSA wrong GHG inventories , no data, relevant ranges unexplored 200 100 90 80 150 Maintenanance level(%)
  7. 7. CH4 and N2O emissions due to manure management Lack of knowledge on manure management assosiated GHG emissions in SSA wrong 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
  8. 8. Preserve nutrients: About 75%-90% of the nutrient intake of production animals is excreted via dung and urine Protect 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]
  9. 9. emissions Soil Animals Excretions N utrients & O rganic m atter Anim alFeed N utrients Crops Manure  outputs inputs  inputs  Increase efficiency  reduces emissions  reduces need inputs Nutrient Cycle principle
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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!

×