Short communication: Identifying key parameters for modelling the impacts of livestock health conditions on greenhouse gas emissions

Perspective: science and the future of livestock industries

Since the 1990s, livestock industries have been forced to respond to major pressures from society, particularly with respect to methane emissions and animal welfare. These challenges are exacerbated by the inevitability of global heating and the effects it will have on livestock productivity. The same challenges also led to questions about the value of animal-sourced foods for feeding the world. The industries and the research communities supporting them are meeting those challenges. For example, we can now envisage solutions to the ruminant methane problem and those solutions will also improve the efficiency of meat and milk production. Animal welfare is a complex mix of health, nutrition and management. With respect to health, the 'One Health' concept is offering better perspectives, and major diseases, such as helminth infection, compounded by resistance against medication, are being resolved through genetic selection. With respect to nutrition and stress, 'fetal programming' and the epigenetic mechanisms involved offer novel possibilities for improving productivity. Stress needs to be minimized, including stress caused by extreme weather events, and solutions are emerging through technology that reveals when animals are stressed, and through an understanding of the genes that control susceptibility to stress. Indeed, discoveries in the molecular biology of physiological processes will greatly accelerate genetic progress by contributing to genomic solutions. Overall, the global context is clear - animal-sourced food is an important contributor to the future of humanity, but the responses of livestock industries must involve local actions that are relevant to geographical and socio-economic constraints.

The hidden carbon impact of animal disease

Livestock production is under scrutiny for its impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Animal disease outbreaks will have economic effects on producers and the indirect cost of an animal disease outbreak is the result of shifts in consumption across commodities. This shift in demand for meat products will also positively or negatively affect carbon emissions. We explore the indirect costs and subsequent carbon impact of four potential exotic disease outbreaks, namely African swine fever, sheep pox, bluetongue, and foot and mouth disease. The indirect costs are quantified under different severities of outbreak using a vector error correction model and by estimating the changes in revenues of livestock and feed markets. By associating subsequent consumption switches with emission factors, we quantify the hidden carbon impact of these livestock disease outbreaks. The indirect costs vary based on severity and type of disease outbreak. Similarly, the net reduction in supply and subsequent consumption impacts result in averting between 0.005 and 0.67 million tonnes of CO2 eq. for these sectors. A foot and mouth disease outbreak has the highest indirect costs and largest reduction in GHG emissions as it decreases the production of cattle as consumers switch to lower emitting meat commodities. Conversely, African swine fever has the smallest reduction in GHG emissions, reflecting the more industrialised nature of pig farming. Our modelling approach opens a provocative debate around how compensation to producers supports restocking and how this relates to commitments to net zero farming. Overall, an exotic disease outbreak may trigger an opportunity to switch to lower emitting breeds or species if a more holistic, joined up approach were taken by Government.

Investing in health to improve the sustainability of cattle production in the United Kingdom: A narrative review

Livestock health is a key concern for all food system stakeholders and has considerable impacts upon sustainable food production. Improving productivity means that a set quantity of milk or meat may be produced at a lower economic cost, using fewer resources and with reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe); however, diseases that reduce yield, growth or fertility have the opposite effect. The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the breadth of economic and environmental sustainability information relating to cattle health within the literature and to discuss related knowledge gaps within the literature. The mechanisms by which improved awareness and investment can lead to improved cattle health both on-farm and across the wider cattle industry are also appraised; concluding with the opportunities and challenges still outstanding in improving sustainability through livestock health. The economic and environmental impacts of cattle health have not been sufficiently quantified in the literature to draw valid conclusions regarding the sustainability impact of different diseases. Where available, economic data tended to be dated or extremely variable. Furthermore, environmental analyses did not use consistent methodologies and principally focused on GHGe, with little attention paid to other metrics. Although reducing disease severity or occurrence reduced GHGe, published impacts of disease varied from 1% to 40% with little apparent association between GHGe and industry-wide economic cost. An urgent need therefore exists to standardise methodologies and quantify disease impacts using a common baseline with up-to-date data inputs. Given the threat of antimicrobial resistance, improving cattle health through technology adoption and vaccine use would be expected to have positive impacts on social acceptability, especially if these improvements rendered milk and meat more affordable to the consumer. Therefore, it is important for cattle producers and allied industry to take a proactive approach to improving cattle health and welfare, with particular focus on diseases that have the greatest implications for sustainability.

Anthelmintic resistance in ruminants: challenges and solutions

Anthelmintic resistance (AR) is a growing concern for effective parasite control in farmed ruminants globally. Combatting AR will require intensified and integrated research efforts in the development of innovative diagnostic tests to detect helminth infections and AR, sustainable anthelmintic treatment strategies and the development of complementary control approaches such as vaccination and plant-based control. It will also require a better understanding of socio-economic drivers of anthelmintic treatment decisions, in order to support a behavioural shift and develop targeted communication strategies that promote the uptake of evidence-based sustainable solutions. Here, we review the state-of-the-art in these different fields of research activity related to AR in helminths of livestock ruminants in Europe and beyond. We conclude that in the advent of new challenges and solutions emerging from continuing spread of AR and intensified research efforts, respectively, there is a strong need for transnational multi-actor initiatives. These should involve all key stakeholders to develop indicators of infection and sustainable control, set targets and promote good practices to achieve them.

Do animal health models meet the needs of organic and conventional dairy farmers in Spain and the UK on disease prevention?

Modelling plays an important role in assessing disease risks and the efficacy of preventative actions. However, the extent to which existing models meet the needs of different groups of dairy farmers around disease prevention is unclear. A questionnaire gathered information on disease prevention actions undertaken by organic and conventional dairy farmers in Spain and the UK, and on their information preferences and needs in relation to such actions. A systematic review of animal health modelling articles was undertaken to compare the expressed needs of dairy farmers for information on disease prevention, with the focus and outputs of existing models. Farmer groups differed in needs when planning disease prevention interventions. Most farmers sourced animal health information from veterinarians. Farmers preferred to use practical experience to judge the efficacy of change. To fulfil the expressed needs of dairy farmers, models need to address specific farming contexts and non-economic impacts of change.