‘Defining the problem is half of the solution and that’s what we have done’, Anders Fagerberg, Dairy Expert of DeLaval concluded at the end of the conference. The dairy sector does not stick its head in the sand and deny the problem. The next step will be to work on solutions. Two of the best solutions at this moment are bio-digesters and energy audits, but new solutions will surely appear. Experts expect that innovative farm management will play a key role. Trading of CO2 rights (like in other industries) thereby using the market forces to find solutions could be a way to control greenhouse emissions from dairy farming. This was one of the suggestions that came up at the Summit.
Appr. 240 delegates from more than 30 countries met in Edinburgh
to discuss climate change and dairy farming
The cow as an environmental disaster
Ten years ago practically nobody had heard of a carbon footprint. Today the impact of human activities on the environment is one of the biggest issues. Dairy farming plays an important role in causing pollution. A cow is an environmental disaster. She puffs out all kinds of gases (particularly methane) which harm the environment and contributes to the climate change. The production of feed and milk products is also accompanied by a huge amount of greenhouse gases.
The cow as an efficient ‘food processor’
On the other hand the cow is a highly efficient ‘food processor’. She is one of the only species which can convert grass into healthy nutrition for humans: milk and meat. Otherwise millions of hectares of the grasslands in the world could not be used for human consumption. On those lands no other crop can grow. The world population increases. There are 70 million new mouths to feed every year. At the same time the prosperity in several regions in the world (China, Brazil, India etc.) grows. The food consumption in those ‘new’ countries changes from starch to protein. Thus, much more milk and meat are needed (it needs to be doubled until 2050), but this causes more problems with greenhouse gases.
The first IDF Dairy Farming Summit in Edinburgh
Here is the dilemma, in a nutshell: feeding the world versus the environmental problems. That’s what the participants discussed at the Summit from June 25th to June 27th in Edinburgh. 250 participants from 40 different countries attended the conference and discussed the topic ‘Climate Change and dairy farming - The heat is on’. The Summit was co-organised by UK-IDF and DeLaval, and featured several of the world’s leading experts on climate change and dairy farming. A high-profile team of environmental experts participated at the Summit.
Sector should be pro-active
The participants were convinced that dairy farming has to bring a balance between feeding the world and protecting the environment. The sector should be pro-active. Everyone agreed that they should not wait for legislation. But, it is difficult to say how that should be done. Greenhouse gas emission is not at the top of the list of public or agricultural concern everywhere in the world. But there is no denial about it either.
Two to five percent of all greenhouse gas emission
How much the dairy sector contributes to the greenhouse gas emission is not known yet. At the conference the experts mentioned figures between two to five percent, depending on what they calculated. They expect to have more precise figures within short. One figure for the whole livestock sector is well known. According to FAO calculations 18 percent of the greenhouse gas emission in the world are related to the livestock sector.
High milk yield, low carbon footprint
Another important figure is how much greenhouse gas the production of one liter of milk will release. It creates at least one kg of CO2 equivalent. (methane and nitrogen oxide). For cows 1 kg CH4 (methane) equals 23 kg CO2, and 1kg N2O (nitrous oxide) equals 296 kg CO2 (carbon dioxide).
A survey from the Netherlands demonstrated an emission of 1.5 kg CO2 equivalent for high producing cows.
Torsten Hemme of the International Farm Comparison Network (a group of dairy economists) presented the preliminary results of a survey on the carbon footprint of dairy farming. Weight productivity (calculated as kg of milk produced per kg live weight of the cow) is a key factor here, and the results of the survey suggested that intensive large farms with a high milk yield per cow have the lowest carbon footprint, while small farms with a low milk production per cow have the highest. Some figures: in Peru an average farmer with 6 cows has a CO2 emission of 190 ppm per kg milk per kg live weight, in the USA an average farmer with 1,700 cows reaches close to 110 ppm per kg milk per kg live weight.
Alarming outlook for the future
To make the discussion more complex, the dairy sector is also affected by the climate change: drought, higher sea level, lack of water, deforestation, pollution, contamination etc. From several regions in the world there was an overview of the situation and an alarming outlook for the future. The Canadian, Roger Street, who has worked with the IPCC (the intergovernmental panel on climate changes) and who is now Technical Director within the UK Climate Impacts Programme, predicted that in the coming decades the situation will become worse. According to the IPCC, the temperature will rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees this century, depending on how society reacts. The best guess is 3.2 degrees Celsius, which is huge comparing to the last century with an increase of 0.76 degrees.
Roger B. Street from the the UK Climate Impacts Programme
showed climate projections
Little water gets less; lots of water will get more
His greatest concern was the warming up of all the oceans, a process which will have great impact on the climate in the next decades. The consequences in a nut shell: where there is scarcity of water, there will be less and where you have water now, you will get more of it. These are averages; per region the variability is wide. Roger Street gave several examples. For instance, it is expected that China will get less rain, heat waves, more floods, more cyclones, and an increase of draughts and dust storms. The winter temperature will rise up to seven degrees.
These changes will happen. A reduction of greenhouse gas emission with 50 percent in 2040 (compared to 1990) as governments have decided, is not enough, Roger Street said. At least 80 percent is necessary to change the process.
2007, the big change
If the temperature rises with one degree, the present world milk yield will go down 10 percent because of drought, John Gilliland, farmer and former chairman of the Rural Climate Change Forum in Northern Ireland predicted. He described the effects of climate change on farming. He marked 2007 as the year of the big change with inflation in food prices, dramatic consequences due to water floods and drought, the lowest stocks on grain, a dash for bio-energy and the further spread of exotic diseases.
John Gilliland (left) gave several interviews during the conference.
He believes that agriculture can play a role in solving the climate
change problem.
Only 30 days grain in stock
What worried John Gilliland the most was the low stocks of grain: just for 30 days. It has never been lower in the last 50 years . In the same period the world population has doubled. Not only the further increase of the world population has an extra claim on grain, also the change of consumption in the new economies will influence the demand for grain. They switch from a starch nutrition to a protein nutrition. ‘That means you double the grain consumption,’ said John Gilliland, who also mentioned the influence of growing grains for bio-fuels. Today 60 percent of the grain is for food, 36 percent for feed and three percent for bio-fuel. Every year the demand for food and feed will grow by three percent, but for bio-fuel it will be 20 percent. ‘The key agenda of climate change is food and food poverty. We need to look at the consequences’, the Northern Irish farmer said. ‘You cannot turn your back and walk away from the problem.’ He quoted the Stern Review Report which predicted a fall of the global economy of 20 percent if nothing is done. ’It’s complete recession. But if we start now, we can reduce that fall to 1 percent GGP.’
Dairy farming has to mitigate
Concerning the greenhouse gas emission John Gilliland underlined that dairy farming has to mitigate. But measures should be based on good science, and right now there is a knowledge gap. He pleaded for more (financial) support from the governments and the industry, which have reduced their research investments in the last 20 years. ‘I’m positive about the challenges for dairy farming, but I’m concerned we don’t have the tools in our toolkit yet. There is not one simple solution. What we need is a basket full of solutions.’ He saw a breakthrough in the next five years. For example an Institute in Aberdeen claimed the development of a food additive, that reduces methane emission by sheep 40 percent. Perhaps this can also be done for dairy cattle? Scientists are working on bacteria which can ‘eat’ methane in the cow’s stomach and breeding experts try to find sires which sire less greenhouse gas emission. No till on soil types which emit methane and nitrogen oxide could also be an answer. And soils can lock up CO2. ‘On solutions, land comes first, second crops and animals.’
He suggested rewarding pioneers which practise new solutions. If farmers ask John Gilliland what they can do today, he gives them two answers: do an energy audit and find out what you can do better utilising your animal manure? ‘You are working for the environment and earning money.’ He was optimistic. Agriculture can play a role in solving the climate change problem. ‘Agriculture is the solution and not the guilty part.’
FAO-report Livestock's Long Shadow
Pierre Gerber is one of the main authors of the landmark FAO report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”. The objective of that report was not to blame the rapidly growing and intensifying global livestock sector for severely damaging the environment, Pierre Gerber said. It should encourage decisive measure at the technical and political levels for mitigating such damage.
FAO's Pierre Gerber answered many questions from the delegates
When taking into account the entire livestock commodity chain, from land use and feed production to livestock waste and product processing, about 18 percent of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission can be attributed to the livestock sector. Per gas the contribution of the agricultural sector differs: 9 percent for anthropogenic CO2, 37 percent for methane and 65 percent for nitro-oxide. Pierre Gerber made a reservation that there were lots of uncertainties in the calculations especially for methane and nitrogen-oxide.
Land is the main factor
The emissions in relation to livestock are caused by:
- Land use and land use change (forest and other vegetation replaced by pasture and feed crop) and carbon release from soils: 36 percent (2.5 Giga tonnes CO2 equivalent).
- Manure management , mainly through manure storage, application and deposition: 31 percent (2.2 Giga tonnes)
- Animal production: 25 percent (1.9 Giga tonnes)
- Feed production including fertilizer production: 7 percent (0.4 Giga tonnes)
- Processing and transport: < 1 percent (0.03 Giga tonnes)
Action is required. ‘If, as predicted, the production of meat will double from now to 2050 we have a problem. We need to halve the impacts per unit to achieve a mere status quo in overall impact’, the FAO Livestock Policy Officer said. And technical options exist. For instance he talked about fermentation in a bio-digester, stocking CO2 in the soil and balanced feeding. ‘It's true when you intensify and produce more milk per cow, you reduce the emission, but it's only one part of the whole picture’ Pierre Gerber from the FAO said. ’The complete farm and all the inputs should be considered.’ It can't be done the same in all regions. And there is a tremendous difference between farms.
He reacted on proposals in some countries to stop or reduce drinking milk and eating meat. ‘In general, that is not good advice’, Pierre Gerber said, ’but, if in a country the average meat consumption is for instance 120 kg, you should think about reducing.’
Absolute need for cows on grazing land
‘Not eating meat is not the solution’, professor Maggie Gill, Chief Scientific Adviser for Rural Affairs and Environment for the Scottish Government, reacted. ‘3.4 billion hectare in the world is grazing land. There is absolutely a need to use this bio-mass, which only ruminants can convert into high quality food for humans. We can’t look at livestock in terms of a negative contribution to climate change, we also have to look at livestock in relation to the food security debate and the appropriate land use. It’s getting that in balance.’ Against this background she put up the question on what land and where milk can be produced the best? Or, reversed, should milk be produced in all the countries were it’s been done now? These questions will be politically addressed, in particular, the discussion about climate change, Maggie Gill confronted the participants.
Maggie Gill, Chief Scientific Adviser for Rural Affairs and Environment for the Scottish Government, believes that it is possible to feed the world in an environmentally sound way
Scientists don’t have all the answers
The professor admitted that scientists don’t have all the evidence and answers to all the questions about the contribution of dairy farming to the climate changes. Especially not for regions and countries, where situations can differ. For instance, the situation and the emissions in Scotland and England differ. ’The uncertainty is there. What is indisputable is that agriculture just like other sectors has to do something’, she pointed out.
‘We should provide evidence’, was her message. She called for policy makers, scientists and practitioners in the food chain to work together to find the evidence and the right measures. ‘Different parts of the world have different abilities to respond to technological mitigation. We should get a balance between getting the answers as good as we can and the very strict timelines our ministers and politics come up with.’ The politicians need to find a balance between the three parts of sustainability: economics, environment and social aspects to ensure long term sustainability.
Dairy sector should be pro-active
She pointed out that the dairy sector should be pro-active and come with practical solutions itself, otherwise the politicians will come with legislations. ‘That’s not always the best option. See for example the measurements the EU took for growing grain for bio-fuels’, professor Gill explained afterwards. Working together on evidence and solutions won’t cost a lot of time, she thinks. When it is well organized, it can be done in six to seven months, she thought. It’s particularly a question of good sharing of knowledge. She believed that it is possible to feed the world in an environmentally sound way.
Climate change a threat for animal health
Gideon Brückner, Director General of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) gave answers to the question as to whether climate change is a threat for animal health. There is no doubt that the climate change has an impact on the increase or decrease in animal disease risks. For example through droughts some diseases will disappear. On the other hand new diseases appear. Gideon Brückner gave three examples of diseases which are related to the climate change: the unprecedented spread of Avian flue, the rapid spread of bluetongue across Europe and the spread of Rift Valley Fever in parts of Africa. The latter followed after severe floods in Eastern Africa caused by the climate change. The same goes for the heavy sandstorms in Northern Africa which ‘blew’ bluetongue to Europe.
He underlined that there are many more factors for the outbreak of diseases. On top of the list is international traveling. But climate change is one of the top five on that list. He was most worried about the spread of zoonotic diseases, which transmits from animal to human.
|