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.

Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems

542 views

Published on

http://www.egf2014.org/programme/presentations/Session4%20plenary%20DelPrado.pdf
Agustin DEL PRADO agustin.delprado@bc3research.org
Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)
Agnes Van den Pol-van Dasselaar Wageningen UR
David Chadwick Bangor University
Tom Misselbrook North Wyke, Rothamsted Res.
Daniel Sandars Cranfield University
Eric Audsley Cranfield University
Rosa María Mosquera-Losada USC

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems

  1. 1. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems Agustin DEL PRADO agustin.delprado@bc3research.org Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) Agnes Van den Pol-van Dasselaar Wageningen UR David Chadwick Bangor University Tom Misselbrook North Wyke, Rothamsted Res. Daniel Sandars Cranfield University Eric Audsley Cranfield University Rosa María Mosquera-Losada USC "BC3, the world’s second most influential Think Tank in the field of climate change economics and policy." (After the 2013 ICCG Climate Think Tank Ranking. More information at www.bc3research.org).
  2. 2. 1. General overview 2. Sinergies/trade-offs mitigation and adaptation 3. Policy implications Outline Disclaimer
  3. 3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation
  4. 4. Climate Projections in Europe (IPCC WGII, AR5) (within recognised modelling limitations -Hotter: warmest in S Europe in summer and N Europe in winter (high conf.) -Rainfall (drier in South, wetter in North-but dry summers) (med. conf.) (less clear in Continental Europe) -more climate extremes Most vulnerable (in general): high mountains, South Europe Heat waves, warm days/nights (high conf.) Droughts Heavy precipitation (specially N Europe, High Conf)
  5. 5. Impacts of CC on European grasslands(IPCC WGII, AR5) -Grass species distribution, productivity, quality -Livestock productivity Complex response: interactions between temp, CO2, O3, extremes, N, water (non-lineal)
  6. 6. Synergies/trade-offs in Climate Change mitigation&adaptation
  7. 7. Extending the grazing season (for latitudes with increasing growth potential) Moran et al.(2009)50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 baseline 2020 2050 2080 averagestartday(Since1stJan)ofgrazingseason SW YH WA SC 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 baseline 2020 2050 2080 annualgrassgrowth(tDMha-1yr-1) SW YH WA SC ba SW: South West YH: Yorkshire WA: Wales SC: Scotland Average start day (since 1st of January) of grazing season (a) and average annual sward biomass in baseline 2020s, 2050s, 2080s scenarios for UK locations. Extended growth in spring and fall Increased summer autumn forage failure by end century (e.g. France: Graux et al., 2011)
  8. 8. Ruminant CH4 (unless more imported feed, less feed from grazing or silage) Manure GHG & NH3 (unless limitations in manure removal & application) Adaptation (more grazing) affects mitigation Soil N2O, NO3 leaching grazing Pre-farm GHG Soil C sinks ? Adaptation (more grazing) affects other adaptation Animal Health/welfare Soil quality Milk/meat quality Soil Organic matter Extending the grazing season: interactions
  9. 9. SOM (and C)? Large interaction grazing, rainfall and SOC McSherry and Ritchie (2013) GCB Extending the grazing season
  10. 10. Schoeneberger et al. (2012) Agroforestry systems Mitigation Adaptation Change microclimate to -Reduce impacts of extreme events on crop production -Maintain forage quality & quantity -Reduce livestock stress -Provide greater habitat diversity -Provide greater structural and functional Diversity to protect ES -Create diversified production opportunities -Carbon sequestration (wood, soil) -Reduce energy use (CO2) -Reduce fertiliser inputs (N2O, CO2) -Enhance forage quality: less CH4
  11. 11. Replacement of permanent grasslands by suitable arable forage crops (e.g. maize) -Crop suitability will change (but Climatic variability will limit winter crops expansion) Adapted from -Vellinga and Hoving (2011) NCA -Del Prado et al. (2011b) Dairy farms: Forage maize vs grassland 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 N2O CH4 C seq energy (on- farm) energy (off- farm) total GHG NH3 Nox NO3- productivity grassland-based ploughing some grassland to maize Values <1 improve conventional farm results ?
  12. 12. The potential for forage legumes Adapted from Del Prado et al., 2011a STOTEN * Example: modelled comparison between conventional (grass-based) vs mixed clover & grass-based dairy farms in “typical” dairy farm in Devon (England, UK) : 1. Conventional: raygrass-based (and forage maize) 2. Mixed forage legume (grass+ white clover) (and forage maize) 3. Conventional + optimised* synthetic fertiliser (N use efficiency improved) GEIs, NH3, NO3-… Sustainability attributes Values <1 improve conventional farm results Assumption: no differences in reseeding practices and frequency For further info about legumes: Luscher et al. (2014) GFS
  13. 13. Agro-industrial by-products (under-utilised) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 OLIVE SILAGE TOMATO SILAGE OAT HAY N NDF 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Control Olive silage Tomato silage CH4, l/kg CH4, l/kg www.solidairy.eu David Yañez-Ruiz (pers. com.)
  14. 14. No-tillage -Promotes soil C sequestration and build-up of SOM -Method and timing of grassland renovation affects N2O and DM yield (Velthof et al., 2010) -Non-CO2 emissions: Ploughing effect on N2O is not clear (e.g. Pinto et al., 2004)
  15. 15. Policy implications and specific challenges
  16. 16. -Policies of mitigation and adaptation are considered In separate frameworks (conflicts) -Not an easy task: mitigation and adaptation differ in space, timing and geographically (Smith & Olesen, 2010) Complex issue
  17. 17. Climate protection in the new EU CAP -greening: permanent grassland, crop biodiversity and Ecological focus Areas (EFA) -grazing (via cross-compliance) and AF -Legumes (via EFA), forage legumes? -Rich-species swards ? (Rural Development Programme?) -Agroforestry systems (fire risk areas) But does not promote -avoid competition between feed and food, unfair competition -most sustainable use of plant residues and agroindustry by- products (feed vs bioenergy vs soil organic matter) -excessive protein import: coupled subsidies to specific sectors (e.g. intensive dairy farming)
  18. 18. Unwanted effects: C leakage Lassaletta et al., (2014) Global market of proteins (C leakage)
  19. 19. Effectiveness over different time and spatial scales -Maintaining or enhancing soil C must be ensured for a long period (N2O, CH4 or energy-based CO2 can not be re-emited) -Mitigation must be tailored to specific conditions (adaptation generally is more specific) and account for N and C cycles interactions to avoid unwanted Pollution or impact trade-offs (e.g pollution swapping)
  20. 20. Challenges -reference unit: ha (e.g. CAP) vs product (industry) -Other units to factor the fact that some livestock systems heavily compete in the human food chain Del Prado et al., 2013b STOTEN Diets that have LESS Competition with Human-food Diets that have MORE Competition with Human-food
  21. 21. Acknowledgements EU FACCE-MACSUR Agustin DEL PRADO, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) agustin.delprado@bc3research.org

×