Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production

The greenhouse gas emissions from meat sheep production contribute double of household consumption in a Eurasian meadow steppe

With the rapid development of the economy, household activities have emerged as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making them a crucial focal point for research in the pursuit of sustainable development and carbon emission reduction. Hulunber, as a typical steppe region in eastern Eurasia, is representative of studying the GHG emissions from household ranches, which are the basic production units in this region. In this paper, based on survey data of 2018 and 2019, we quantified and assessed GHG emissions from household ranches by combining life cycle assessment (LCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) approaches, with LCA to define household ranches system boundary and SEM to determine the key driving factors of emissions. The results showed that GHG emissions of meat sheep live weight was 23.54 kg CO2-eq/kg. The major contributor to household GHG emissions was enteric methane (55.23 %), followed by coal use (20.80 %) and manure management systems (9.16 %), and other contributing factors (14.81 %). The SEM results indicated that the GHG emissions from household ranches were derived primarily by economic level, while the economic level was significantly affected by income. This study also found a significant positive and linear correlation between household GHG emissions and the number of meat sheep (R2 = 0.89, P < 0.001). The GHG emissions from meat sheep production (67.52 %) were double times greater than household livelihood consumption (32.48 %). These findings emphasized the importance of reducing emissions from meat sheep production and adjusting the energy mix of household livelihood, contributing to the establishment of a low-carbon household livelihood operation.

Estimation of carbon footprint and sources of emissions of an extensive alpaca production system

A cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment was conducted following international standards (ISO 14040, 2006) to estimate sources of greenhouse gas emissions of an extensive alpaca production system in the Peruvian Andes with a focus on carbon footprint. The assessment encompasses all supply chain processes involved with the production of alpaca fiber and meat. Direct (i.e., enteric fermentation, manure, and manure management) and indirect emissions (i.e., electricity, fuel, and fertilizer) of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane were estimated according to the (IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. IPCC 2006 for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 2, Chapter 3. Mobile Combustion. Volume 4, Chapter 10. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Chapter 11. N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 emissions derived from the application of lime and urea. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html ). Carbon footprint was calculated based on a mass, economic, and biophysical allocation. The functional unit of the economic and mass allocations was 1 kg of LW as the main product and 1 kg of white or colored fiber as co-products. The functional unit of the biophysical allocation was 1 kg of live weight and 1 kg of fiber. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions came from enteric fermentation (67%), followed by direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions (29%). The estimated carbon footprint of the extensive alpaca production system, considering a 20% offtake rate, was 24.0 and 29.5 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per kg of live weight for the economic and mass allocations, respectively, while for the biophysical allocation was 22.6 and 53.0 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per kg of alpaca live weight and alpaca fiber, respectively. The carbon footprint per area was 88.6 kg carbon dioxide equivalents per ha.

Livestock water and land productivity in Kenya and their implications for future resource use

Population growth and rising affluence increase the demand for agricultural commodities. Associated growth in production increases dependency on natural resources in countries that attempt to meet part or all of the new demand locally. This study assesses the impact of changing meat and milk production on natural resource use in Kenya under three plausible scenarios of socio-economic development, namely Business-As-Usual (BAU), Sustainable Development (SDP) and Kenya Vision 2030 (V2030) scenarios. The IMPACT model is used to estimate projected cattle, sheep, goats and camel production parameters for meat and milk. The BAU and SDP represent standard scenarios for Kenya of a global economic model, IMPACT, while V2030 incorporates in the model features specific to Kenya's medium-term national development plan. We use calculations of water footprint and land footprint as resource use indicators to quantify the anticipated appropriation of water and land resources for meat and milk production and trade by 2040. Though camel dairy production numbers increase the most by quadrupling between 2005 and 2040, it is cattle dairy production that significantly determined gains in production between the scenarios. Productivity gains under the SDP scenario does not match the investments made thereby leading to only slightly better values for water and land productivity than those achieved under the BAU scenario. Relative to the BAU scenario, improvement in land productivity under the V2030 scenario is the most dramatic for shoat milk production in the arid and semi-arid systems but the least marked for cattle milk production in the humid system. By quantifying water and land productivity across heterogenous production systems, our findings can aid decision-makers in Kenya and other developing countries to understand the implications of strategies aimed at increasing domestic agricultural and livestock production on water and land resources both locally and through trade with other countries.

Effect of Suckling Management and Ewe Concentrate Level on Methane-Related Carbon Footprint of Lamb Meat in Sardinian Dairy Sheep Farming

Simple Summary

Suckling lamb meat is the secondary product of the Mediterranean traditional dairy sheep industry. Similar to the main production, i.e., milk, lamb meat contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), whose main portion is represented by enteric methane produced by the lamb dams. Such an emission, although limited in quantitative terms, should be mitigated by appropriate feeding or compensation techniques. Among all the sources of variation of meat lamb emissions, sex of the lamb and type of lambing (single or twins) showed the largest effect.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the methane-linked carbon footprint (CF) of the suckling lamb meat of Mediterranean dairy sheep. Ninety-six Sarda dairy ewes, divided into four groups of 24 animals each, were assigned to 2 × 2 factorial design. The experiment included the suckling lamb feeding system: traditional (TS), in which lambs followed their mothers on pasture during grazing time, vs. separated (SS), in which lambs remained indoors, separated from their mothers during the grazing time. Each group was divided into high (HS) and low (LS) supplemented ewes (600 g/d vs. 200 g/d of concentrate). The estimated CH₄ emission of the ewes, calculated per kg of body weight (BW) gain of the lamb during the suckling period, was then converted to CO₂eq with multiplying factor of 25. The TS lambs showed lower methane-linked emissions than SS ones (p < 0.05). The sex of lambs affected their methane-linked CF, with males having lower (p < 0.05) values than females. Twins displayed much lower methane-linked CF than singles (4.56 vs. 7.30 kg of CO₂eq per kg of BW gained), whereas the level of supplementation did not affect greenhouse gases (GHG) emission. Interaction displayed lower and not-different GHG emissions for both indoor- and outdoor-reared twins. In conclusion, the methane-linked CF of the suckling lamb meat can be reduced by maintaining the traditional lamb rearing system and by improving flock prolificacy.

Animal board invited review: Animal agriculture and alternative meats - learning from past science communication failures

Sustainability discussions bring in multiple competing goals, and the outcomes are often conflicting depending upon which goal is being given credence. The role of livestock in supporting human well-being is especially contentious in discourses around sustainable diets. There is considerable variation in which environmental metrics are measured when describing sustainable diets, although some estimate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different diets based on varying assumptions is commonplace. A market for animal-free and manufactured food items to substitute for animal source food (ASF) has emerged, driven by the high GHG emissions of ASF. Ingredients sourced from plants, and animal cells grown in culture are two approaches employed to produce alternative meats. These can be complemented with ingredients produced using synthetic biology. Alternative meat companies promise to reduce GHG, the land and water used for food production, and reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. Some CEOs have even claimed alternative meats will 'end world hunger'. Rarely do such self-proclamations emanate from scientists, but rather from companies in their efforts to attract venture capital investment and market share. Such declarations are reminiscent of the early days of the biotechnology industry. At that time, special interest groups employed fear-based tactics to effectively turn public opinion against the use of genetic engineering to introduce sustainability traits, like disease resistance and nutrient fortification, into global genetic improvement programs. These same groups have recently turned their sights on the 'unnaturalness' and use of synthetic biology in the production of meat alternatives, leaving agriculturists in a quandary. Much of the rationale behind alternative meats invokes a simplistic narrative, with a primary focus on GHG emissions, ignoring the nutritional attributes and dietary importance of ASF, and livelihoods that are supported by grazing ruminant production systems. Diets with low GHG emissions are often described as sustainable, even though the nutritional, social and economic pillars of sustainability are not considered. Nutritionists, geneticists, and veterinarians have been extremely successful at developing new technologies to reduce the environmental footprint of ASF. Further technological developments are going to be requisite to continuously improve the efficiency of animal source, plant source, and cultured meat production. Perhaps there is an opportunity to collectively communicate how innovations are enabling both alternative- and conventional-meat producers to more sustainably meet future demand. This could counteract the possibility that special interest groups who promulgate misinformation, fear and uncertainty, will hinder the adoption of technological innovations to the ultimate detriment of global food security.

Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences

•

Consumption of fatty meats may increase risks of cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

•

Production of red meats increases greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions contributing to the global warming.

•

Consumption of wild meats can pose some serious risks of transmission of viruses from animals to humans.

Meat consumption has been increasing since the 1960s, but especially from the 1980s decade to today. Although meat means an important source of nutrients, it is also evident that a great consumption of this source of proteins has also a negative environmental impact. Livestock production does not only have a negative influence on GHG emissions, but also on the water footprint, water pollution, and water scarcity. With respect to human health, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated that red meat was a probable carcinogen to humans (Group 2A), while consumption of processed meat was carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Most environmental contaminants (PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PBDEs, PCNs, etc.) that are frequently found in meats are highly soluble in fats. Therefore, avoiding ingesting fats from red meats and meat products, doubtless would help in the prevention, not only of the well-known cardiovascular diseases derived of fats consumption, but also of certain kinds of cancers, mainly colorectal cancer. On the other hand, consumption of meat – especially wild meat – is related to virus infections, as many viruses have been found in wild meat trade markets. Based on the scientific literature here reviewed, we have noted that the results of the investigations conducted after the statement of the IARC, have corroborated the recommendation of reducing significantly the consumption of red meats and meat products. In turn, the reduction of meat consumption should contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions and their considerable impact on global warming and climate change. It seems evident that human dietary habits regarding meat consumption in general, and red meats and wild meats in particular, should be significantly modified downward, as much and as soon as possible.

Organic Farming as a Strategy to Reduce Carbon Footprint in Dehesa Agroecosystems: A Case Study Comparing Different Livestock Products

This study employs life cycle assessment (LCA) for the calculation of the balance (emissions minus sequestration) of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the organic livestock production systems of dehesas in the southwest region of Spain. European organic production standards regulate these systems. As well as calculating the system's emissions, this method also takes into account the soil carbon sequestration values. In this sense, the study of carbon sequestration in organic systems is of great interest from a legislation viewpoint. The results reveal that the farms producing meat cattle with calves sold at weaning age provide the highest levels of carbon footprint (16.27 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq)/kg of live weight), whereas the farms with the lowest levels of carbon emissions are montanera pig and semi-extensive dairy goat farms, i.e., 4.16 and 2.94 kg CO2eq/kg of live weight and 1.19 CO2eq/kg of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM), respectively. Enteric fermentation represents 42.8% and 79.9% of the total emissions of ruminants' farms. However, in pig farms, the highest percentage of the emissions derives from manure management (36.5%-42.9%) and animal feed (31%-37.7%). The soil sequestration level has been seen to range between 419.7 and 576.4 kg CO2eq/ha/year, which represents a considerable compensation of carbon emissions. It should be noted that these systems cannot be compared with other more intensive systems in terms of product units and therefore, the carbon footprint values of dehesa organic systems must always be associated to the territory.