Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy

Farms Santiago García-Yuste download

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-and-environmentally-
friendly-dairy-farms-santiago-garcia-yuste/

Download more ebook instantly today - get yours now at textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!

Sheepgrass Leymus chinensis An Environmentally Friendly

Native Grass for Animals Gongshe Liu

https://textbookfull.com/product/sheepgrass-leymus-chinensis-an-
environmentally-friendly-native-grass-for-animals-gongshe-liu/

Wind Farms Marian Dunn

https://textbookfull.com/product/wind-farms-marian-dunn/

ADA Programming Everything you need to know about ADA

Programming language 2nd Edition Claudia Alves

https://textbookfull.com/product/ada-programming-everything-you-
need-to-know-about-ada-programming-language-2nd-edition-claudia-
alves/

Sustainable Home Practical Projects Tips And Advice for

Maintaining A More Eco Friendly Household Christine Liu

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-home-practical-
projects-tips-and-advice-for-maintaining-a-more-eco-friendly-
household-christine-liu/
The Santiago Trilogy (The Santiago Trilogy #1-3) 1st
Edition Catherine Wiltcher

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-santiago-trilogy-the-
santiago-trilogy-1-3-1st-edition-catherine-wiltcher/

Reliable Software Technologies Ada Europe 2018 António

Casimiro

https://textbookfull.com/product/reliable-software-technologies-
ada-europe-2018-antonio-casimiro/

Offshore wind farms technologies design and operation

1st Edition Ng

https://textbookfull.com/product/offshore-wind-farms-
technologies-design-and-operation-1st-edition-ng/

Environmentally Oriented Modernization of Power Boilers

1st Edition Marek Pronobis

https://textbookfull.com/product/environmentally-oriented-
modernization-of-power-boilers-1st-edition-marek-pronobis/

Operations in an Omnichannel World Santiago Gallino

https://textbookfull.com/product/operations-in-an-omnichannel-
world-santiago-gallino/
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN
APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Santiago García-Yuste

Sustainable and
Environmentally
Friendly Dairy
Farms
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical publications can be:
• A timely report of state-of-the art methods
• An introduction to or a manual for the application of mathematical or computer
techniques
• A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles
• A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
• An in-depth case study
• A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,
standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting
guidelines, and expedited production schedules.
On the one hand, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology are
devoted to the publication of fundamentals and applications within the different
classical engineering disciplines as well as in interdisciplinary fields that recently
emerged between these areas. On the other hand, as the boundary separating
fundamental research and applied technology is more and more dissolving, this
series is particularly open to trans-disciplinary topics between fundamental science
and engineering.
Indexed by EI-Compendex, SCOPUS and Springerlink.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8884

Santiago García-Yuste

Sustainable
and Environmentally
Friendly Dairy Farms

123
Santiago García-Yuste
Faculty of Chemical Sciences
and Technology
University of Castilla-La Mancha
Ciudad Real, Spain

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISBN 978-3-030-46059-4 ISBN 978-3-030-46060-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Introduction

Rapid climate change is driving global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking
ice sheets, retreating glaciers, decreasing snow cover, rising sea levels, declining artic
sea ice, acidification of oceans and extreme weather events. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change stated that “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate
system is unequivocal”.
The current warming trend is threatening us, and we must find the tools to
combat it as soon as possible. We do have to be concerned about the emission of
any GHGs on the Earth. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that traps most heat, and its
emissions have increased since the industrial revolutions. CO2 is released through
burning fossil fuel, deforestation, volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic activities.
Every day, international institutions such as the UN, FAO, NASA, USEPA, USDA
or IEA warn us about the need to transform anthropogenic actions to more sus-
tainable processes, whatever the activity.
Data reveal that more than half of all CO2 emissions originate from small and
dispersed sources, such as agricultural operations or the transportation sector.
Husbandry processes are the dispersed source of greatest concern to the interna-
tional community. In fact, an estimate of c. 6,500.0 kg of CO2 per dairy cow per
year is reported. Any novel carbon capture strategy to mitigate CO2 emissions from
relatively minor sources should be warmly welcomed.
The authors of the book consider that the best way to make people aware of the
hazardousness of emissions from husbandry requires an understanding of the
structure of the CO2 molecule, the different strategies proposed to remove it and
everyday husbandry activities. This book is intended to change the way people
think about emissions from relatively dispersed and minor sources.
The book is divided into five interrelated chapters. In Chap. 1, the authors
describe the current situation of the global dairy livestock industry, according to the
Paris Agreement, and analyse the potential of the current environmental solutions
and bioeconomic alternatives. Chapter 2 is discussing physiology and how the
cow’s metabolism produces CO2. In Chap. 3, the authors describe the production
systems of dairy farms and the management and treatment processes of the waste
they generate, highlighting the most commonly used means of mitigating

v
vi Introduction

environmental impact. The aim of Chap. 4 is to update the readership on the

different strategies that have been developed, are in development or are merely
proposed for dealing with the reduction of CO2 from the atmospheric pool. Finally,
Chap. 5 describes the ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’, as an innovative carbon dioxide use
proposal for the dairy industry. The predictable CO2 and NH3 emissions from the
dairy cow in a barn, can be converted into ammonium bicarbonate, one of the most
widely used fertilizers in the world. The implementation of the ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’
will transform a conventional dairy farm into a ‘sustainable and environmentally
friendly farm’.

Dr. Santiago García-Yuste

Contents

1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock Systems . ........ 1

Jorge Zafrilla, Ángela García-Alaminos, and Fabio Monsalve
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 1
1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development
Goals and Climate Change Framework . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 3
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Carbon Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 The Ruminant: Life History and Digestive Physiology
of a Symbiotic Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19
Francisco Javier Pérez-Barbería
2.1 Taxonomy, Evolution and Feeding Styles
of the Ruminant Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Domestication of the Ruminant Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Why the Ruminant Is Different: Adaptations to Diet . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.1 Mouth, Teeth, Body Size and Salivary Glands . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2 The Ruminant Stomach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.3 Small Intestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.4 Caecum and Large Intestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 Cattle: A Large Contributor to Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4.1 Cattle Taxonomy, Habitat and Diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.5 Ruminant: The Efficient Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6 Use of Structural and Non-structural Plant Cell Components . . . . 33
2.7 Carbohydrate Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.8 Protein Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

vii
viii Contents

2.9 Lipid Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 Husbandry: Milk Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 47
Abdessamad Gueddari and Jesús Canales Vázquez
3.1 Introduction to the Dairy Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1.1 Extensive Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1.2 Intensive Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.1.3 Mixed Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.1 Tied-Stall Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2 Parlour Milking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.3 Automated Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3 Farm Construction Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.1 Enclosures and Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.2 Flooring Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4 Environmental Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.1 Heat Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.2 Ventilation and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.3 Heating and Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.5.1 Manure Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.2 Anaerobic Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.5.3 Future Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4 Quick Fire Set of Questions About CO2 that Need
to Be Answered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
Carlos Alonso-Moreno and Santiago García-Yuste
4.1 Is the Molecule of CO2 Dangerous? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
4.2 So, Should I Be Worried About the CO2 Concentration
in the Atmosphere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
4.3 What Is the Carbon Cycle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 82
4.4 Can We Do Something to Balance the Global Carbon
Budget Again? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 84
4.5 Are There Any Technologies Able to Capture the CO2
Directly from the Air? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.6 What About Making Useful Products from CO2? . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7 Should We Forget About CDU Strategies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8 What Are the Most Important CDU Strategies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9 Can We Use the CO2 After Storage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Contents ix

4.10 Can You Explain a Little Bit More About the CO2-NH3
System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 88
4.11 Are There Any CDU Strategies Proposed for Minor
Sources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 89
4.12 What Is the Meaning of NETs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 91
4.13 How Can We Analyse the Sustainability of the Different
Strategies Proposed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 94
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 96
5 The ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Carlos Alonso-Moreno and Santiago García-Yuste
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
5.2 CO2 and NH3 Estimated Emissions from Intensive Husbandry
Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2.1 Regarding CO2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2.2 Regarding NH3 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3 The CO2-RFP Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3.1 The CO2-RFP Strategy as a Business Model . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.2 The CO2-RFP Strategy Regarding Negative
Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.3 The CO2-RFP Strategy with Regard
to Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Chapter 1
The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy
Livestock Systems

Jorge Zafrilla, Ángela García-Alaminos, and Fabio Monsalve

Abstract In this chapter, the authors describe the current situation of the global
dairy livestock industry under the influence and challenge of the commitments of
the so-called Paris Agreement. Firstly, the key points of the Agreement affecting the
livestock and dairy systems are discussed within the framework of the Sustainable
Development Goals. Next, a detailed analysis of the evolution of the activity and the
greenhouse gas emissions of the industry is presented. Finally, a summary of current
environmental solutions and bioeconomy alternatives will contribute to enriching the
discussion.

1.1 Introduction

Recent estimates from the United Nations (UN) expect an increase from 7.6 billion
people today to 9.8 billion people by 2050 (UN 2019). Together with the population
increase, food demand is expected to more than double by 2050 because of increases
in living standards (Rojas-Downing et al. 2017). Agricultural systems are called on
to produce the extra food required to secure the food supply of millions of people.
Considering that one of the bases of the current global diet is consumption of animal
products, especially liquid or processed milk products, which are consumed by more
than 6 billion people, the challenge for the dairy sector is very clear (FAO and GDP
2018).
However, the current state of climate crisis jeopardises the ability of agricultural
systems to provide this additional new and secure supply of food within the standards
set by Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015b). The role played by the agricul-
tural sector in the coming decades will be crucial, as at the same time they will have
to deal with goals related to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Agricul-
tural systems find themselves in a situation where, on the one hand, it is one of the
industries at the greatest risk of facing extreme climate events that may endanger the
basic livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people; and, on the other hand, agricul-
tural activities are considered to be one of the main drivers of global greenhouse gas

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

S. García-Yuste, Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy Farms,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0_1
2 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

emissions (GHG). Although there is no international agency reporting official fig-

ures about the GHG of agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), in the way
that there do exist precise figures provided by, for example, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) for fossil fuel combustion-related emissions (Tubiello et al. 2013),
some studies set global agricultural emissions at 10–12% according to Reisinger and
Clark (2018) or 15% according to Persson et al. (2015), with 80% of total emissions
due to ruminants. To these emissions should be added emissions from deforestation,
energy use and animal-feed production, so that the total percentage of emissions
from agricultural activity seems to be key given the current situation.
A deeper depiction of the emissions of agricultural systems is needed, as this
represents the highest non-CO2 emissions source. Agriculture accounts for more
than 40% of global methane (CH4 ) emissions, and 60% of nitrous oxide (N2 O).
These emissions come from the increasing use of synthetic fertilizers, manure use
and enteric fermentation. However, agricultural production increased by 70% over
the period 1990–2015, which indicates a significant improvement in GHG efficiency
(Frank et al. 2019). Also, the increase in agricultural emissions is taking place at
a slower rate than fossil fuel emissions, which results in a reduction of the share
of agriculture’s contribution to GHG global emissions (Tubiello et al. 2013). It is
important to highlight that notable differences arise when the source of emissions,
or the region where they are generated, is analysed. Emissions derived from the use
of fertilizers have grown more than from the use of manure. By regions, emissions
in developing countries have grown more than in developed regions, and they have
even fallen in wealthy regions, as is the case of Europe (Tubiello et al. 2013).
Most of the emissions from agriculture come from livestock, mainly ruminants,
and action in this sub-sector is thus key to achieving climate objectives (Reisinger
and Clark 2018). In the same way as the whole agriculture sector, GHG livestock
inventories have significant measurement problems. In most cases, emissions esti-
mates use global warming potentials (GWPs), which may lead us to underestimate
the effects on climate of other non-CO2 gases such as CH4 from enteric fermentation
and manure management, and N2 O from manure management and nitrogen deposi-
tion (Reisinger and Clark 2018). The case of CH4 is clear; it does not accumulate
and behaves in the same way as CO2 in the atmosphere. Its life cycle is shorter, but
the warming potential is much higher per molecule and kilogram. Other studies such
as Persson et al. (2015) also identify problems with the use of these GWP measures,
as they can return poor estimates.
The Paris Agreement (UN 2015a), the most ambitious global agreement on the
fight against climate change, sets clear targets for GHG emissions to achieve the goal
of at most a 2 °C rise by 2100. Among other goals, it aims at net-zero CO2 emissions
derived from anthropogenic action, mainly through the decarbonisation of energy,
which seems a relatively plausible medium-term goal (Peters et al. 2017). This may
cause the share of other non-CO2 gases in the GHG total to increase decisively
towards the 2100 scenarios. Action to reduce emissions will have to be encompassed
in parallel with dealing with the special characteristics of livestock systems as they
play a key role in meeting the commitments of the Sustainable Development Goals
1.1 Introduction 3

(SDGs), such as ensuring food security and other areas related to draught power,
nutrient cycling, social and capital insurance, and so on (Reisinger and Clark 2018).
Countries need to have good GHG inventories for livestock in order to be able to
properly identify the objectives of their nationally determined commitments (NDCs),
and to be transparent. Given the difficulties and challenges posed by the livestock
industry, especially in developing countries, direct emissions measurement systems,
including measures such as productivity with more advanced inventories, are essen-
tial for success in the fulfilment of climate and sustainable development objectives
(GRA and CCAFS 2016). The productivity measures and the control of energy intake
that the animal needs will return better estimates of GHG that will help countries to
provide better measures of emissions, and will not jeopardise food security, since the
levels of milk or meat production in animals can be maintained or even increased;
thus the goal of reducing GHG emissions will be attained by improving efficiency
and productivity (GRA and CCAFS 2016).
In the dairy sector, an 18% increase in emissions was observed between 2005
and 2015, resulting from a 30% overall increase in production, motivated by the
rise in final demand. These figures show an improvement in efficiency resulting
from the increase in production that is far greater than the increase in emissions.
Improvements in efficiency have helped to avoid reaching an expected increase of
38% of total emissions, causing the intensity per unit of output to fall (FAO and GDP
2018). These data are found qualitatively in all regions, although the improvement in
intensity in developing regions is less than in developed regions. In developed regions
emissions range from 1.3 to 1.4 kg CO2 -eq., kg fat-and-protein corrected milk; while
in developing regions, the range is from 4.1 to 6.7 kg CO2 -eq., per kg fat-and-protein
corrected milk in 2015. Management practices used in these countries are behind
these differentials, so there is room for improvement in the medium term to further
reduce emissions (FAO and GDP 2018).

1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development

Goals and Climate Change Framework

Sustainable Development Goals. The dairy sector emerges as a key industry in

ensuring commitment to most of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
listed by the United Nations (UN 2015b). The Global Dairy Agenda for Action
(GDAA 2015) identifies a list of key elements that differentiate the dairy sector
from others in terms of sustainability: Currently, about 1 billion people make their
living in or around the dairy sector; billions of people enjoy the nutritional bene-
fits of consuming milk and dairy products; rural communities created around the
sector improve quality of life and reduce social inequality, alleviating poverty and
unemployment; and measures such as yield improvements, feed efficiencies, the use
of by-products for human consumption and manure as fertilizer are the basis of an
economic, socially and environmentally friendly model.
4 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

From the institutional sphere, a number of initiatives have appeared to show

this alignment of the dairy sector with sustainability. One of these is the Dairy
Sustainability Framework (DSF), launched in 2013, which is a pre-competitive and
globally recognised sustainability initiative which helps the industry to improve its
sustainability under 11 criteria related to GHG emissions, animal care and market
development (Rabobank 2016). The DSF is a holistic approach to sustainability
which is completely aligned with SDG’s, with clear links and synergies between
them. The dairy value chain participants in the DSF initiative benefit from it because
it takes into account regional and local issues connected at the global level, promotes
the alignment of the sector’s actions regardless of the level, size or location, fosters
the sharing of best practice, establishes a common language to monitor and share the
progress and improvements, and provides a reference for in-depth communication
on the actions and results obtained (DSF 2019).
From a broader perspective, the bioeconomy strategy is probably one of the most
important and ambitious initiatives to integrate the livestock industry into the correct
sustainability path. ‘Bioeconomy’ is understood as ‘an economy using biological
resources from the land and sea, as well as waste, including food waste, as inputs
to industry and energy production. It also covers the use of bio-based processes by
green industries, those parts of the economy that use renewable biological resources
from land and sea—such as crops, forests, fish, animals, and micro-organisms—to
produce food, materials and energy’ (European Commission 2015). The potential of
the livestock sector as a key piece of a circular bioeconomic model is well-known,
since this industry can generate multiple benefits, such as regulating the ecological
cycles by recycling biomass, and using manure as a bio-resource, fostering landscape
and biodiversity preservation, generating employment and innovation in rural areas
or producing protein-rich and safe food, among others (Peyraud 2016).
Paris Agreement. Livestock industries play a crucial role in addressing the chal-
lenge of climate change. The biggest global agreement to fight the current climate
crisis, the so-called Paris Agreement, achieved great consensus with 197 signatory
countries (UN 2015a). To date, 185 countries have ratified the agreement to keep
the increase in global average temperature well below 2 °C by the end of the cur-
rent century. Each country’s efforts have to be described and designed within each
country’s nationally determined commitments (NDCs). The goal of reducing anthro-
pogenic emissions through the decarbonisation of the energy systems is only one part
of the list of policies recommended. The Paris Agreement also considers potential
strategies for negative emissions that involve the removal of CO2 from the atmo-
sphere, either through technologies such as afforestation and agricultural practices,
or through direct CO2 removal from the atmosphere using chemical innovations
(Anderson and Peters 2016; Peters and Geden 2017; Williamson 2016). Livestock
systems possess the perfect characteristics to promote actions along all the lines set
out in the Paris Agreement.
In current state of NDC development, 92 countries around the world have included
the livestock sectors within their future strategies for reducing environmental pres-
sures. Developing countries have the opportunity to take the lead in implementing
their NDCs as climate action in agricultural sectors. The strategies could result in
1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development Goals … 5

positive outcomes for the fight against climate change, but could also be a key driver
to achieve other SDGs related to the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutri-
tion (FAO 2016). This task must be undertaken with the help of the international
community, as the Paris Agreement incentivises international cooperation between
signatory countries to ensure the success of the implementation of climate actions and
policies. All international machinery, in terms of financial institutions, R&D organ-
isations and agencies and any other actors should enhance the commitment of the
goals in developing countries and open up efficient mechanisms to give transparency
to these processes, implement coherent policies, provide research tools, generate
enough capacity to implement the actions and guarantee enough investment flows
(FAO 2016).
The challenge does not only affect low-income, developing countries; climate
change is also a threat in areas such as Europe and Central Asia, because of issues
related to food security, nutrition and ecosystem services (FAO 2018). Extreme cli-
mate events are endangering the economic stability of those areas, mostly in middle-
income regions. The identification of proper commitments, policy and finance gaps,
and opportunities for enhancing climate change mitigation strategies is also crucial
at a global level. Most of the European and Central Asian countries have ratified
the Paris Agreement and have submitted NDCs together with SDG targets. Imple-
mentation of these actions will take place in the coming years. The success of these
actions will depend on the quality of national planning tools, together with insti-
tutional coordination and correct technological improvements to ensure technical
capacity within sectors. Developed countries within the EU-28 are setting adequate
legislative and institutional frameworks to ensure commitment to the goals. How-
ever, the development of regulations in middle-income countries is still in process
(FAO 2018).
Within this framework, agriculture in general, and, in particular, livestock systems,
need a proper way to address their national GHG inventories, in order to improve the
quality of their NDC commitments. However, many countries lack relevant data on
the way they compute GHG inventories for their agriculture sectors (Wilkes and van
Dijk 2018). Indicators based on the inclusion of productivity and efficiency promoted
in the so-called Tier 2 approaches to estimating livestock emissions in the inventories
are the keys to success in achieving goals such as the Global Research Alliance on
Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) (GRA and CCAFS 2016). Wilkes and van
Dijk (2018) report a complete collection of livestock Tier 2 inventory practices by
countries. Networks such as the GRA facilitate links across organisations, research
institutes and governments to share information, knowledge and inventories in order
to improve the results of each country’s NDC implementation (GRA and CCAFS
2016).
6 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Carbon Footprint

Global dairy activity. Global figures show the production of almost 669,000,000
tonnes in 2017 of fresh cow’s milk. According to FAO and GDP (2018) and FAOSTAT
(2019b), raw cow milk production experienced an average growth of 2.8% per year
in the period 2005–2017, which has accelerated in the last seven years. Figure 1.1
identifies the main raw cow’s milk producers in 2017. The main actors are not only
the emerging countries with high populations like India, Brazil or China, but also
developed nations such as the USA, Germany, France or New Zealand. The European
Union and NAFTA (Mexico, USA and Canada) account for almost 40% of worldwide
production. Africa is the major region with lower production, together with some
countries in South-East Asia and South America. The left-hand panel in Fig. 1.1
shows that worldwide production has increased since 1995, especially in emerging
regions like India, China or the Rest of the World (RoW). As FAO and GDP (2018)
state, the most growth observed is concentrated in regions such as West Asia and
Northern Asia, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa with 4.5, 4.0 and 3.6% growth
rates per year, respectively. Whereas in the two major developed areas, NAFTA and
EU, generally considered as traditional dairy cattle regions, production growth rates
are below the global average, 1.5 and 1.6%, respectively, while the global average
over the period 2005–2015 is about 2.8% (FAO and GDP 2018; FAOSTAT 2019b).

Fig. 1.1 Production of whole fresh cow’s milk (tonnes), 2017 Source Prepared by the authors using
FAO livestock primary datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 7

Fig. 1.2 Animals producing whole fresh cow’s milk (head). Evolution in major regions in 1995
(left panel) and 2017 (right panel)1 Source Prepared by the authors using FAO livestock primary
datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)

The production shares of both developed regions have declined because of the boost
in production in emerging countries.
The measurement of productivity in the dairy industry is generally considered to
be milk production per cow per year, which gives a measure of the yield. Figure 1.2
shows that the common trend in the period 1995–2017 is to reduce the number of
cows producing fresh milk in developed regions such as Europe (both the European
Union and the other European countries), NAFTA and Russia, while increasing it in
emerging regions like Africa, India, China, RoW America, and RoW Asia-Pacific.
On the one hand, the reduction in developed regions can be justified by the high
values of the average yield achieved by these areas in 2017 with respect to 1995: as
Fig. 1.3 shows, these regions exhibit yields above the worldwide average in 2017.
On the other hand, emerging regions have increased not only the number of cows
producing milk but also their average yields (see Fig. 1.3). Therefore, these patterns
could be indicating that developed areas are following an increasing trend of import-
ing raw cow’s milk from developing regions as a primary input to be introduced into
their production chains.
Looking more closely at Fig. 1.3, the case of China is very notable. Its yield used
to be below the world average, but from the mid-2000 onwards it surpassed this mean
value. An increasing demand for dairy products in the Chinese market has motivated
the rise of domestic milk output in the period analysed (shown in the left panel of

1 Forthe sake of visual clarity, Figs. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 show a regional aggregation proposal: EU
all EU-28 countries; NAFTA includes USA, Mexico and Canada; RoW Europe all non-EU-28
countries; RoW America all Central and South-American countries, with the exception of Mexico;
RoW Asia-Pacific all Asian and Pacific countries with the exception of India, China and Russia.
8 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
Africa India RoW Brazil RoW Asia- China RoW Russia EU NFT
America Pacific Europe

Region yield (average) 1995 World average yield 2017 World average yield

Fig. 1.3 The average yield of animals producing whole fresh cow’s milk, hectograms per head.
Evolution of major regions 1995–2017 and worldwide average Source Prepared by the authors using
FAO livestock primary datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)

Fig. 1.1), which has been sustained not only by the growth of the dairy herd shown
in Fig. 1.2, but also by the significant upturns in productivity seen in Fig. 1.3.
Conversely, Fig. 1.3 shows that regions like Africa, RoW America or RoW Asia-
Pacific have barely increased their yields, which are below the world average over
the whole period considered. Smallholder dairy production systems are common
in developing areas like Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, but these
small exploitations suffer constraints to production related to access to technological
progress (for instance, the choice of species, new feed resources, improved breeding
and animal health care and so on), which causes difficulties in making improvements
in the production yield (Devendra 2001). Brazil had, in 1995, a similar yield to Africa
or India, and much lower than RoW America’s yield, but its increase has been much
faster.
The productivity differentials by region are explained by the different industry
structures among regions, the access to new technological developments and the
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 9

140000
21% 19% 20%
120000

100000
14%
14% 15%
80000
11%
60000 10%
10% 10% 9%
8% 8% 7%
40000 6% 6% 61% 61% 59%
4% 74%
3% 4% 59% 60%
20000 70% 73% 59%
69% 2% 86% 94% 72% 72% 61% 61%
67% 70% 68%
0 68%
19952016199520161995201619952016199520161995201619952016199520161995201619952016
RoW Russia China RoW Brazil NFT India EU RoW Africa
Europe America Asia-
Pacific
Rest of direct emissions in raw caƩle milk exploitaƟons (Gg eq.CO2)
Emissions from enteric fermentaƟon (dairy caƩle) (Gg eq.CO2)

Fig. 1.4 Direct emissions from whole fresh cow’s milk production: emissions from enteric fer-
mentation and other direct emissions. Evolution of major regions 1995–20162 Source Prepared by
the authors using FAO livestock primary and enteric fermentation datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b) and
(FAOSTAT 2019a), respectively

unique characteristics of each region that modulate the structure of the dairy systems
(FAO and GDP 2018).
The dairy greenhouse gas emissions. Dairy systems manifest increasing effi-
ciency as emissions per unit of output are declining (Frank et al. 2019). However, the
remarkable increase in milk production around the world has increased the global
numbers in terms of emissions derived from dairy activities (Rojas-Downing et al.
2017; Frank et al. 2019; FAO and GDP 2018). The evolution of global emissions in
the dairy sector shows an increase of about 18%, 256 million tonnes CO2 -eq. in 2015
relative to 2005 levels according to FAO and GDP (2018) figures. The amount of
emissions generated differs by region and type of source considered. Figure 1.4 shows
direct emissions generated within the dairy milk sector, which are disaggregated into
emissions from enteric fermentation (methane gas produced in the digestive systems
of the cattle) and other direct emissions. For most countries, emissions generated
directly by the animal account for more than 60% of the total, and in some regions

2 The lower percentage represents the participation of emissions from enteric fermentation over total

direct emissions of each region. The upper percentage represents the participation of each region’s
total direct emissions over worldwide raw milk industry direct emissions.
10 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

where traditional production methods predominate this is even higher (in RoW Amer-
ica, emissions from enteric fermentation accounted for 94% of total direct emissions
in 2016). This means that, although applying sustainable practices to farming and
exploitation methods is always a positive action, the most effective way to reduce
direct emissions from cow’s milk production is to reduce the herd by increasing the
yield since the bulk of emissions comes directly from the cattle’s digestive system.
Looking at the different regions, it is outstanding that Europe (both the EU and other
countries), Russia and Brazil are the only regions that have reduced the absolute and
relative values of their direct emissions in 2017 with respect to 1995. This fall can be
explained by looking at the reduction in the number of animals in these regions set
out in Fig. 1.2. On the other hand, RoW Asia-Pacific and Africa have moved from
15 to 11%, respectively, in total emissions in 1995 to a participation of 19 and 20%
in 2016. Again, China’s case is remarkable as it is the region that has most increased
its direct emissions.
The continuous gains in productivity have limited the rise in emissions intensities.
As stated by Gerber et al. (2011), productivity increases constitute not only a way
of satisfying the increasing demand for milk but also a suitable mitigation method,
especially in regions with milk yields below 2000 kg/cow/year. According to FAO
and GDP (2018) measures, the emissions intensity of milk decreased by 11% over the
ten years period considered, 2005–2015, from 2.8 to 2.5 kg CO2 -eq. Improvements in
grassland management and feeding practices, together with improved animal genetics
management, are behind these results. As FAO and GDP (2018) state, higher milk
yields transform the cow’s metabolism in favour of milk production and reproduction
rather than maintenance. The energy intake of a high-producing dairy cow for milk
production is greater than for maintenance (47%); in the case of a low-producing
dairy cows the intake of energy for maintenance (75%) is greater than for milk
production, which contributes, in the first case, to lowering the emissions intensity
per animal (FAO and GDP 2018). More specifically, methane—which constitutes the
bulk of direct emissions generated within the sector—and nitrous oxide emissions
fall with increasing productivity while carbon dioxide emissions increase but to a
lower extent (Gerber et al. 2011).
The global dairy carbon footprint. Common analyses accounting for dairy sys-
tems emissions use the producer criterion by region to estimate the contribution of
the sector to the generation of GHG emissions. Current developments in the allo-
cation of responsibilities change the perspective of the analysis by focusing on the
consumer side using measures of carbon footprint. The concept of carbon footprint
is an appropriate tool in the allocation of responsibilities as it accounts for all the
emissions generated in the production chain, considering not only direct emissions
but also indirect emissions, both those generated domestically and those imported
from other regions. In this section, using the common modelling of environmentally
extended multi-regional input–output models (EE-MRIO)3 , we have estimated the

3 Thecarbon footprint estimates given in this chapter were developed using the common envi-
ronmentally extended multi-regional input–output models (EE-MRIO) developed in papers like
(Hertwich and Peters 2009; Minx et al. 2009; G. Peters et al. 2016). Both the world multi-regional
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 11

carbon footprint of the global raw milk sector (mostly represented by cow’s milk pro-
duction) differentiating between the regions where the highest footprint is generated
and also between domestic and imported emissions flows.
Figure 1.5 uses a Sankey diagram to show the flow of the total amount of carbon
footprint (kt CO2 -eq.) by emissions source, the countries where the bulk of the carbon
footprint is triggered by their raw milk final demand patterns and the domestic or
imported origin of the footprint for the available period 1995–2011. The total carbon
footprint of the raw milk sector grew by 16% over the whole period. The left panels
of Fig. 1.5 show that the most significant part of the GHG footprint in the raw milk
sector (around 80% for the four years considered) corresponds to methane (CH4 ),
which comes mainly from enteric fermentation in the digestive systems of cattle. The
right panels show that the origin of this footprint is mainly domestic. Raw milk is a
perishable primary input that might not be worth importing due to its high transport
costs, and so, as might be expected, a vast part of the carbon footprint of the sector is
generated domestically (96.4% in 2011). The remaining imported part of the global
footprint shows limited growth in the period considered, mainly generated in more
developed regions such as the European Union and NAFTA. Similar but smaller
trends are observed for RoW Asia-Pacific and Russia.

Fig. 1.5 GHG footprint of the raw milk industry in major regions. Disaggregation into GHG gases
(kt CO2 -eq) and domestic/imported origin of emissions. 1995–2011 Source Prepared by the authors
based on EXIOBASE (Stadler et al. 2018)

input–output table and the environmental satellite accounts come from the EXIOBASE. A global,
detailed multi-regional environmentally extended supply-use table (MR-SUT) and input–output
table (MR-IOT) (Stadler et al. 2018).
12 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

Looking at how major regions contribute to these footprints with their demand
for raw milk, no big changes have occurred at the top of the list. India has by far the
highest and most rapidly increasing figures in terms of carbon footprint, accounting
for about 29% of the total footprint over the period. Emerging regions, like Africa,
China and RoW Asia-Pacific, have expanded their footprints notably because of their
increasing demand for domestic production of dairy products and, due to exports,
they also supply to developed regions. Despite its vast population, China had a
relatively small footprint in 1995 (7.5% of the total footprint), as it has traditionally
been described as a ‘lactophobe’ society (Harris 1998), but it has climbed up the
ranking over the period analysed, passing other regions like the European Union. This
increase in the footprint of certain developing regions might be linked to the so-called
‘livestock revolution’ (Delgado 2003), which is primarily driven by the increasing
demand for meat and milk in developing regions as they achieve higher income levels
(FAO 2017). In addition, other authors point out socio-cultural changes and global
advertising campaigns behind this increase in milk consumption in developing Asian
regions such as India and China (Fuller et al. 2006; Wiley 2011).

1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy

The regulatory framework. The environmental impact of livestock and its regula-
tion is not a new issue, especially in the sphere of the European Union. Since the late
1990s, regulatory development has constantly attempted to reduce the environmental
impacts associated with the activity. As Loyon et al. (2016) stated, in the last 30 years
there have been successive legislative efforts in the European Union to deal with the
environmental impacts of the livestock systems. Problems derived from the presence
in the water of nitrates and phosphorus have led to actions such as the implemen-
tation of the National Emissions Ceiling Directive (EC 2001, 2016)—which, since
2001, sets targets for the contention of NH3 pollution, emissions regulations for CH4
and N2 O livestock set out in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol (UN 1997)—
sector-specific actions detailed in the Emissions Directive (EC 2010), and, of course,
all actions derived from the most recent implementation of the goals of the Paris
Agreement (UN 2015a).
FAO recommendations and policy actions. As we have seen in the preced-
ing sections, the livestock sector generates more emissions than any other food-
related industry, mainly from animal feed production, enteric fermentation, waste
and changes in land use. The solutions to reducing the environmental impact of this
sector exist, but we must act quickly as it is an intensively growing sector motivated
by population growth, rising incomes and demand from developing countries. FAO
considers three main lines of action to reduce the pollution intensity of the livestock
sector (FAO 2017):

(1) Improvements in productivity: The central objective is the reduction of pollu-

tion intensities. FAO estimates that improved practices can contain emissions
1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy 13

between 20 and 30%. They recommend, on the one hand, improving the quality
of animal feed and to prefer local options in doing so, and on the other, better
reproductive efficiency and better veterinary care are desirable, to prolong the
reproductive life of the animal. Finally, better planning of animal husbandry pro-
grams, as well as conservation of genetic diversity, is recommended to increase
productivity and allow the animal to adapt to changing environments.
(2) Carbon sequestration: The maintenance of permanent pasture should be the
strategy followed, given its high capacity to contain carbon. Grazing naturally
plays an essential role in this. There are many options for improving the quality
of pastures; for example, their efficiency can be improved by balancing, spa-
tially and temporally, the presence of livestock, or other solutions related to
fertilisation, nutrient management, and so on. However, approximately 20% of
the world’s grasslands have been degraded, reducing the possibility of adapting
them to climate change.
(3) Integration in the circular bioeconomy: The productive model of livestock must
avoid linearity; leaks of materials and energy must be redirected back to the
production process. On the one hand, the correct use of crop residues and agro-
industrial by-products must be guaranteed, as they represent a high percentage
of the animal food base, and this is even more true at a time of expansion
of world production. The use of nutrients derived from livestock manure for
fertilizer production is another key to the development of a production model
based on bioeconomy, because it helps producers to improve efficiency in the
use of natural resources, making them more resilient to adverse climatic events.
Government regulation is key in this sense, as it has to assist, encourage and
certify the integration of actions that favour the bioeconomic circular model.

The bioeconomy in livestock activities. The third of these strategies is undoubt-

edly the most ambitious, and the one that can generate the best results in terms of
sustainability, understood in a broad sense. The commitment to bioeconomy in the
livestock sector in the European Union is presented in Lutzeyer (2019). Since 2005,
through the 7th Framework Program, the ‘Knowledge-based Bioeconomy’ line has
been launched, which has been followed by a multitude of meetings, programs and
funding lines for bioeconomic goals. In 2012, the European Commission proposed
a strategy called ‘Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe’,
which takes a bioeconomic view of the challenges facing the livestock industry, as
it is expected to be increasingly affected by competition for natural resources and
by the urge to reduce its environmental impact (European Commission 2012). The
bioeconomy today is thus an economic sector including a multitude of activities that
go beyond the agricultural sectors, such as textiles, wood and furniture, paper, the
biochemical and plastic industries and energy, which by 2016 had generated almost
19 million jobs. Financing and regulatory programs currently maintain the commit-
ment to bioeconomics in the European Union. The priorities set by the Union in this
respect are job creation, mitigation of climate change, renewal and improvement of
the European Union’s industrial base, strengthening the circular economy based on
bioeconomy and the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity (Lutzeyer 2019).
14 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

Specifically, the European Union is focused on the livestock sector as one of the
main motors of the new bioeconomic model, given that the sector is a perfect exam-
ple of a circular model for the use of waste and its reincorporation into production
processes (Peyraud 2016). The European Union highlights the benefits brought by
this sector in terms of food security and healthy diets, given that it represents the
nutritional base of millions of households. Current EU bioeconomy programs con-
sider actions for basic livestock, with the aim of contributing to improving efficiency
in the agricultural sectors, as synergies between crops and livestock are key, and even
more so at a local level (Peyraud 2016). In addition, farming systems can provide
public goods such as agricultural landscape, farmland biodiversity, air and water
quality, food security and rural vitality, so a public good-oriented bioeconomy can
bring additional opportunities to society, as it empowers small-size exploitations to
make their own contribution to the SDG (Schmid et al. 2012). The European Union
promotes the improvement of ecological cycles derived from the more efficient use
of manure, as it is the base of key nutrients for crops. The idea of turning waste into
a good instead of a problem is encouraged and financed from the point of view of
research and technology. All these actions, beyond the economic and social gains
to which they contribute directly, are also implemented with the aim of alleviating
the environmental pressure of a sector that receives close attention because of its
high pollution intensity. Estimates from the European Union calculate an emission
reduction potential of between 30 and 40% (Peyraud 2016).

1.5 Conclusions

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), together with the Paris Agreement, are two
of the major challenges facing humanity today. Livestock systems, and in particular
dairy sectors, are called on to be main actors in the fulfilment of all the commitments
undertaken. At a time when the world population is growing, and with 80% of the
population basing their diet on the daily consumption of milk or milk products, the
implementation of actions in the dairy sector that ensure a secure supply of milk,
improve productivity, help the development of local communities and increasingly
reduce their environmental impact is highly necessary.
Although data in recent years show how the dairy sector has greatly reduced
its intensity of emissions, it has not been possible to reduce the total volume of
emissions, mainly due to the increase in global herd, especially in low-productivity
regions such as Africa or India. However, there are still possibilities for improvement
that need to be explored. Following the guidelines proposed by FAO and GDP (2018),
there are three lines of action required in the near future, taking into account the
population growth scenario. Firstly, an increase in productivity must remain a key
goal. All actions aimed at increasing efficiency in any section of the facilities must
be encouraged. Improvements in cow diets related to nutrients and proteins, feed
technology, the search for locally low-emission suppliers, the use of non-fossil fuels
on farms, or animal health are among the desirable actions. Secondly, the protection of
1.5 Conclusions 15

carbons sinks must be guaranteed. All livestock systems must avoid the degradation
of ecosystems and deforestation. Actions related to the feed of the animals, to better
grassland management and to optimised uses of low-carbon fertilizers and manure
would also be good practices. Thirdly, bioeconomic solutions for livestock and dairy
systems should be fostered as a holistic pathway to achieving sustainability in the
sector. The implementation of a circular model in livestock systems is quite feasible
and might bring a number of benefits aligned with the SDG. Recycling and reuse of
energy and waste must be a foundation of the productive model of these systems.
Fulfilling the Paris Agreement commitments will require much more than reduc-
ing fossil fuel emissions in the mid-term. Solutions closely tied up with the bioe-
conomy will be key in the near future, because it incentivises not only the reuse
and recycling of inputs, which reduces the environmental pressures, but also R&D
in new fields and applications that might lead to a transformation of the technology
and techniques, generating positive spillovers into society. Developed economies,
such as those of the European Union, show a clear commitment to the development
of the bioeconomy, not only to fulfil environmental targets but also as a potential
engine of economic and employment growth. The boost to the bioeconomy in devel-
oped regions should extend its influence on developing countries through technology
transfer. Such transfers are considered in the Paris Agreement to be of one of the
objectives and obligations of the countries that have ratified the accord.
Livestock and dairy will continue to play an important role in the solution to the
problem of production and distribution of food and nutrients globally. But now they
must also be part of the solution to the climate crisis. From governments to small-
size producers, there is a series of possibilities for moving towards more sustainable
industry.

References

K. Anderson, G. Peters, The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354(6309), 182–183 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
C.L. Delgado, Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food
revolution. J. Nutr. 133(11), 3907S–3910S (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.11.3907S
C. Devendra, Smallholder dairy production systems in developing countries: Characteristics, poten-
tial and opportunities for improvement—review. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 14(1), 104–113
(2001). https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2001.104
DSF, Dairy Sustainability Framework. (2019). https://dairysustainabilityframework.org/2019
EC, Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on
National Emission Ceilings for Certain Atmospheric Pollutants, ed. by E. Commission (2001)
EC, Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010
on Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), ed. by E. Commission
(2010)
EC, Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of The Council of 14 December 2016
on the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants, Amending Directive
2003/35/EC and Repealing Directive 2001/81/EC, ed. by E. Commission (2016)
European Commission, Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe, ed. by D.-G.
f. R. a. I. E. Commission, (EU Publications, Brussels, 2012)
16 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

European Commission, Bioeconomy for Europe Communication. (European Comission Publica-

tions Office, 2015)
FAO, The Agricultural Sectors in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Priority Areas for
International Support. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2016)
FAO, Livestock Solutions for Climate Change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2017), (p. 8)
FAO, Policy analysis of nationally determined contributions (NDC) in Europe and Central Asia.
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Budapest, 2018), p. 84
FAO and GDP, Climate Change and the Global Dairy Cattle Sector–The Role of the Dairy Sector
in a Low-carbon Future. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Global
Dairy Platform Inc, Rome, 2018), (p. 36)
FAOSTAT, Enteric Fermentation Dataset, ed. by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2019a)
FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary Dataset, ed. by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2019b)
S. Frank, P. Havlík, E. Stehfest, H. van Meijl, P. Witzke, I. Pérez-Domínguez, et al., Agricultural
non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nature Climate Change,
9(1), 66–72. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8
F. Fuller, J. Huang, H. Ma, S. Rozelle, Got milk? The rapid rise of China’s dairy sector and its future
prospects. Food Policy 31(3), 201–215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.03.002
GDAA, The Dairy Sector: Ready to Help Achieve The Sustainable Development Goals. (The Global
Dairy Agenda for Action, 2015)
P. Gerber, T. Vellinga, C. Opio, H. Steinfeld, Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions
intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Sci. 139(1), 100–108 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.
2011.03.012
GRA and CCAFS, Livestock development and climate change: The benefits of advanced greenhouse
gas inventories. Global Res. Alliance Agric. Greenhouse Gas. (2016)
M. Harris, Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. (Waveland Press, 1998)
E.G. Hertwich, G.P. Peters, Carbon footprint of Nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 43(16), 6414–6420 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a
L. Loyon, C.H. Burton, T. Misselbrook, J. Webb, F.X. Philippe, M. Aguilar et al., Best available tech-
nology for European livestock farms: Availability, effectiveness and uptake. J. Environ. Manage.
166, 1–11 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.046
H.-J. Lutzeyer, Introduction to the European Bioeconomy Strategy. Paper presented at the SCAR-
CASA Workshop, (Carcavelos, Portugal, 2019)
J.C. Minx, T. Wiedmann, R. Wood, G.P. Peters, M. Lenzen, A. Owen et al., Input-output analysis
and carbon footprint: An overview of applications. Econ. Syst. Res. 21(3), 187–216 (2009)
U.M. Persson, D.J.A. Johansson, C. Cederberg, F. Hedenus, D. Bryngelsson, Climate metrics and
the carbon footprint of livestock products: where’s the beef? Environ. Res. Lett. 10(3), 034005
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034005
G. Peters, R. M. Andrew, J. Karstensen, Global Environmental Footprints. A Guide to Estimat-
ing, Interpreting and Using Consumption-Based Accounts of Resource Use and Environmental
Impacts. (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016)
G. P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, J.G. Canadell, S. Fuss, R.B. Jackson, J.I. Korsbakke, et al., Key indi-
cators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate
Change, 7, 118. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3202. https://www.nature.com/articles/
nclimate3202#supplementary-information
G.P. Peters, O. Geden, Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nature Climate
Change 7, 619 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3369
J.-L. Peyraud, The Role of Livestock in an EU-Bioeconomy, (Animal Task Force (ATF), 2016)
Rabobank. Dairy and the Sustainable Development Goals. The Dairy Sector’s Contributions and
Opportunities, Trans. by RaboResearch, (Rabobank Industry Note #574: Rabobank, 2016)
References 17

A. Reisinger, H. Clark, How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global
warming? 24(4), 1749–1761. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13975
M.M. Rojas-Downing, A.P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, S.A. Woznicki, Climate change and live-
stock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Manage 16, 145–163 (2017). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
O. Schmid, S. Padel, L. Levidow, The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods
and farmer perspective. Bio-based Appl Econ 1(1), 47–63 (2012)
K. Stadler, R. Wood, T. Bulavskaya, C.-J. Södersten, M. Simas, S. Schmidt et al., EXIOBASE 3:
Developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables.
J. Ind. Ecol. 22(3), 502–515 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12715
F.N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore, S. Rossi, A. Ferrara, N. Fitton, P. Smith, The FAOSTAT database of
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8(1), 015009 (2013). https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009
UN, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (United
Nations, New York, USA, 1997)
UN, The paris agreement, in U. N. F. C. O, ed. by C. Change, (United Nations, Paris, 2015a), (pp. 25)
UN, Sustainable development goals. (2015b). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/
sustainabledevelopmentgoals. Accessed 30 July 2017
UN, Revision of world population prospects. (2019). https://population.un.org/wpp/
A.S. Wiley, Milk for “Growth”: global and local meanings of milk consumption in China, India,
and the United States. Food Foodways 19(1–2), 11–33 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.
2011.544159
A. Wilkes, S. van Dijk, Tier 2 inventory approaches in the livestock sector: A collection of
agricultural greenhouse gas inventory practices. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH. (2018)
P. Williamson, Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature 530, 153–155 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1038/530153a
Chapter 2
The Ruminant: Life History
and Digestive Physiology of a Symbiotic
Animal

Francisco Javier Pérez-Barbería

Abstract Ruminants are the main pillar of our animal stock, and were crucial to the
process of human Neolithization, as the first species to be domesticated for husbandry.
They are an important element of the world’s economy and cultural heritage, and
also play a significant role in promoting biodiversity within the habitats they occupy.
They have evolved a digestive system that relies entirely on a symbiotic relation-
ship with micro-organisms, most of their energy comes from the end-products of
microbial digestion, enabling ruminants to make use of the plant cell wall, which
is something that no other vertebrate can do to such an extent. This, together with
an efficient mechanism of nitrogen recycling, converts the ruminant into an efficient
animal able to subsist on plant fibre, one of the most abundant organic resources
in nature. Ruminants also have dental and behavioural (rumination) adaptations to
comminute food and so facilitate the activity of ruminal micro-organisms, and very
long intestines and caeca to increase the time food is exposed to enzymatic diges-
tion and absorption. Brief descriptions of food energy losses and the main metabolic
paths of the transformation of dietary carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are given
here. Food digestion, mainly of fibre, comes at the cost of gas emissions, especially
methane, which reduce food use efficiency and contribute to global greenhouse gas
emissions. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the ruminant
animal, its taxonomic diversity and life history traits, the relevance of domestication,
and its adaptations to the use of plant-based diets and digestive physiology, in order
to gain a better understanding of the relationships between diet and gas and solid
emissions. We focus on the ruminant over monogastric species for two reasons: (i)
the greater biomass contribution of ruminants to livestock, and (ii) the very complex
ruminant digestive system, which includes both foregut and hindgut enteric fermen-
tation, while monogastric species have only hindgut fermentation. Comments on
dietary components and their metabolic transformations refer to roughage natural
diets, rather than concentrate or supplemented diets. Although in many cases these
are equivalent, we remark the importance of roughage diets because they have been
the driver of the evolutionary adaptation of the ruminant symbiotic digestive system,
and because of the importance of the use of roughage resources in reducing the car-
bon footprint of these species as compared to concentrate feeds, the production of
which is high in carbon.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 19

S. García-Yuste, Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy Farms,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0_2
20 2 The Ruminant: Life History and Digestive Physiology …

2.1 Taxonomy, Evolution and Feeding Styles

of the Ruminant Animal

A ruminant is any member of the mammalian order Artiodactyla (suborder Ruminan-

tia), which is characterised by a digestive system with a multi-chambered stomach
formed by rumen, reticulum, omasum and abomasum diverticula. Other anatomical
traits are lack of upper incisors, presence of incisiform lower canine teeth, and a
tarsus constituted by the fusion of the navicular and cuboid bones (Gentry 2000).
There are some 193 species of extant ruminants, in six families, namely Tragulidae
(3 genera, 4 species), Moschidae (1 genus, 5 species), Bovidae (49 genera, 140
species), Giraffidae (2 genera, 2 species), Antilocapridae (1 genus, 1 species) and
Cervidae (17 genera, 41 species) (Nowak 1999). The group is characterised by a
wide inter-species range in body mass, from 2 kg in Tragulidae up to over 1000 kg
in the male giraffe, and a median body mass of 45 kg (Van Wieren 1996) (Fig. 2.1).
Wild ruminants contribute to promoting biodiversity in the habitats they occupy,
due to their grazing, trampling and nutrients mobilisation activities, which creates
habitat heterogeneity (Gordon and Prins 2008).
Primitive ruminants have their extant representatives in the Tragulidae family
(Janis 1984), which were forest dwellers with relatively simple social behaviour.
Bovidae is the family with the greatest number of species, which are generally
highly gregarious and with complex social behaviour, and among them were the
wild species on which livestock domestication was based. It is suggested that there
are five extinct families of Ruminantia: Dromomerycidae, Hypertragulidae, Geloci-
dae, Leptomerycidae and Palaeomerycidae (Carroll 1990), whose main habitat might
have been subtropical forest with mixed clear-outs (Janis and Manning 1998). The
most primitive family is Hypertragulidae, whose origins can be traced back to the

Fig. 2.1 Average, minimum and maximum body mass (kg) of the six extant families of ruminant
species. Average: thick-black horizontal line; box top side: maximum, box bottom side: minimum
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.94%
accurate

3O2 Biographical Notices. could not be saved, and before 8

p.m. the same evening Colonel Norris had breathed his last. His
funeral was largely attended by the general public, and his remains
were followed by two companies of the I2th York Battalion, also a
number of the rank and file of the Queen's Own, the
GovernorGeneral's Body Guard, the Field Battery, and the loth
Royals. A large number of commissioned officers were present,
besides several prominent citizens of Toronto. The body was
temporarily lodged in the vault at St. James's Cemetery, and was
subsequently removed to its final resting place in Scarboro . Of the
esteem in which Colonel Norris was held by his brother magistrates
and neighbours, the following memorial is sufficient testimony : "
That the Magistrates of the County of York, in adjourned General
Sessions of the Peace tor the transaction of the public business, are
deeply impressed by the absence from among them of two
esteemed friends, for whom they had entertained sentiments of the
most affectionate regard — they refer to the late Colonel Richard R.
D. Denison and Lieut. -Colonel W. Norris, whose loss as members of
their body is seriously felt, and engenders feelings of sincere sorrow.
Impelled by a sense of duty, and actuated by feelings of long-tried
friendship, this court desires to place on record that they have
always found in those gentlemen unswerving integrity and zeal for
the public good, and beg leave to assure the bereaved families of
their departed friends how truly they sympathize with them in the
very painful bereavement which, by the dispensation of Providence,
has fallen upon them." W. P. Norris resides on lot 4, concession 6,
Markham Township, and is the eldest son of the late Lieut. -Colonel
W. H. P. Norris. He was born in London, England, in the year 1835.
Came to Canada with his father in 1839, and after receiving a fair
education, turned his attention to farming, which occupation he has
since followed. By perseverance, industry and good management, he
has made for his family a comfortable home. He was married in
1868 to Miss Letitia Cairns; they have two sons and five daughters.
Mr. Norris is a Liberal Conservative in politics, and has never taken
any active part in contested elections. He is no office seeker, but
finds sufficient outlet for his ambition in the cultivation of his farm,
and towards the comforts of his home. The only positions of any
importance held by Mr. Norris were a lieutenancy in the militia of
Scarboro', which had he desired it would have been raised to the
captaincy, and Public School Trustee for his own section for a term.
Mr. Norris bears the reputation of being very exact in his public
dealings, and his liberality towards all objects of public benefit is
very charitable ; and his hospitable and genial manner is particularly
noticeable and appreciated by his neighbours and friends.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.83%
accurate

Township of Markham. 303 MARSHALL O'NEILL, lot 10,

concession 6, brick manufacturer, was born in Markham in 1856, and
is the son of Isaac O'Neill, who for some years carried on a brick
manufactory in the Township of Uxbridge. Our subject commenced
business for himself in 1882, and has been very prosperous. He
married Miss Mary Hampton, by whom he has two children, William
A., and Frederick O. Mr. O'Neill takes a lively interest in all matters
pertaining to the welfare of the municipality. JOHN PETERSON, lot
19, concession 6, is of German extraction, his father, Philip Frederick
Peterson, being a native of Hanover. His grandfather was a minister
of the Lutheran Church, who emigrated to America in 1795 with his
family. In 1831 Philip Frederick purchased the lot now owned by our
subject, on which he lived until his death in 1880, at the age of
eighty-nine years. He left a widow and four children, three
daughters, and John who was the only son. The latter took
possession of the old homestead, which he continues to cultivate. He
is of a quiet and unassuming disposition, and has never held or
sought office in connection with municipal government. FRANCIS
PIKE, lot n, concession 9, was born in Pennsylvania in 1804, and
came to Canada in 1824. The prospects during the first few weeks of
his advent were not encouraging, and only the want of funds
prevented him from returning to Pennsylvania, but content came at
last and with it success. He married in 1826 Elizabeth Strickler, by
whom he had a family of fourteen children, nine of whom are living.
He bought the old homestead, lot 30, concession 8, Markham, in
1826, and made it one of the most desirable farms in Markham ; at
that time it was harder to pay for a farm at $4 per acre than now at
$80, owing to the absence of markets, and the impassable roads.
Peter, his eldest son, has two fine farms, and John, another son, has
three farms, all of which are in the vicinity of the old homestead.
Francis sold his own farm, and bought ten acres, on which he built a
beautiful brick house and out-buildings, and has also a fine orchard
adjoining. Mr. Pike bears a good reputation for charity in the
township, and steadily seeks how best to put in practice the precepts
of the Great Teacher. He is a member of the Mennonite Church, and
has been School Trustee for several years. JOHN PINGLE, lot 21,
concession 5, is the son of George and Mary Pingle, who emigrated
from Germany and settled in the United States in 1792. His parents
only remained there one year before coming to Canada
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.99%
accurate

304 Biographical Notices. and at once proceeded ;to

Markham and located on the lot now occupied by him. He was born
on the homestead in 1804, and from his earliest years was
accustomed to the severe labour which fell to the lot of pioneers in
clearing the bush. He managed to attend the German school of the
district during the winter months, his services being in request on his
father's farm in summer. In 1827 he married Miss Jane Hunter; eight
children being the fruit of the union. Of that family six are still
livingtwo sons and four daughters. He was presented with one
hundred acres of land with which to commence for himself, and by
prudence, industry and thrift he was enabled to give his sons a fair
start in life. He has a son and daughter living at home ; the name of
the former being Alexander, who manages the farm. Mr. Pingle is a
member of the Church of England, and held the position of Warden
in connection with that body for a number of years. FREDERICK
QUANTA, deceased, an early settler in Markham Township, was born
in London, England, in 1782. He was a German by birth, his father
being a soldier in the English Army, and fought in that capacity
during the American War of Independence. The latter returned to
Europe on the restoration of peace, and while there his son
Frederick was born. He subsequently returned to America, landing in
Philadelphia in 1791 ; from thence he came to Canada and settled in
Markham in 1793, where Frederick thereafter continued to reside.
Our subject served in the War of 1812 under Colonel Butler, in
command of the Markham Cavalry, and afterwards drew a small
pension. He died in the year 1877. George Quantz, son of the above,
on commencing for himself purchased part of lot 12, concession 2,
in Markham, and also two hundred acres of land near Barrie, in
Simcoe County, on one hundred acres of which his son Frank now
resides. He also bought fifty acres of land on lot 38, concession i,
where his son Arthur resides. He married a daughter of Edward
Phillips, of this township, by whom he has three sons and four
daughters. He has a married daughter living in Vaughan Township,
and a son-in-law who is a lawyer in Toronto. Mr. Quantz and his wife
are famed throughout the district for their hospitality, shelter never
being refused the wayfarer. Arthur Quantz, lot 38, concession i, son
of the above, was born in Markham in 1849. He has been connected
with farming all his life, and the interest he takes in agricultural
matters is amply shown by the fact that he is President of the
Agricultural Society of this township. He married in 1875, Margaret,
daughter of Thomas Linklatter. He is a member of the Lutheran
Church, and holds a Trusteeship.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.12%
accurate

Township of Mark ham. 305 FREDERICK QUANTZ, lot 26,

concession 6, is the eldest son of George and Mary Quantz. His
father was a native of Hamburg, Germany, and came with his
parents to the United States in 1772, where they remained about
one year ; subsequently coming to Canada and settling in this
township. Mr. Quantz, sen'r, remained at home until his marriage in
1807, when he removed to a farm of his own. Frederick married
Margaret Puterbough, by whom he had ten children. She died in
1854, and he married a second time to Mrs, Mary Lundy, a widow ;
they have two children, a son and a daughter, who live at home with
them. Mr. Quantz is a member of the Methodist Church. JOHN
RAMER, lot 30, concession 8, is the son of Abraham and Fanny
Raymer, and was born in Pennsylvania, U. S., in 1810. He came to
Canada in 1822 with his parents, and remained on the homestead
until his marriage, clearing up the land. His wife was Elizabeth
Sophia Breuls, daughter of John Breuls, a native of London, England,
by whom he had eleven children, as follow : Hannah, dead ;
Elizabeth, married ; Fanny, who married Mr. Mitchell, dead ; Mary,
living at home ; Anna, married ; Philip, married ; Martha, dead ;
John, married ; Margaret, married ; George, dead, and Joseph, who
lives at home. Although Mr. Ramer has suffered reverses, and has
not always enjoyed the best of health, he has nevertheless a fine
farm of two hundred acres and is in easy circumstances. He is a
member of the Mennonite Church. PETER RAMER, lot 14, concession
7, is the son of Abraham Ramer, and was born in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, March 7, 1800, and came to Canada in 1809, settling
on lot 14, concession 8, Markham, where he lived until his marriage
in 1823 with Miss Elizabeth Byer; they had a family of three sons
and one daughter, Abraham, Jonas, John and Martha Reesor, all of
whom are living in this township. The family belong to the
Mennonite Church, and are in very good circumstances. Mr. Ramer,
though now advanced in years, still continues hale and hearty and
can yet read the newspaper without the aid of spectacles. Deer Park
Farm, lot 15, concession 8, Markham, the home of Peter and
Elizabeth Ramer for fifty-four years, was always open to receive
weary strangers, and Mr. Ramer was one of the most enterprising
and prominent pioneer farmers in Markham. Mrs. Ramer died in
1877. PETER RAYMER, lot 32, concession 8, is the son of the late
Abraham Raymer, who came with his family from Pennsylvania, U.S.,
in 1822, and settled in this township. Peter was about five years old
when his people 21
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.73%
accurate

306 Biographical Notices. came to Canada, and was

brought up to farming. His family consists of four sons and three
daughters — Jacob, the eldest son, is located on lot 12, concession
7, of Whitchurch, and married Martha Breuls ; the other members of
the family are Fanny, married to John Heisey ; Abraham, married to
Matilda Stockley, located on lot 8, concession 7, Township of
Whitchurch ; Mary and Christian (the two last named being twins),
Elizabeth and Peter. Christian Raymer married Christina Stouffer. He
is of a studious disposition, and often fills the pulpit of Mennonite
Brethren in Christ. Mr. Peter Raymer has been successful enough to
give each of his sons a good farm and yet retain for himself fifty
acres, and bears an exceptionally good character among his
neighbours in the section. BENJAMIN B. REESOR. The family first
settled in Markham in 1804, John Reesor, the father of our subject,
being born at Cedar Grove a short time afterwards. Mr. Reesor, sen'r,
assisted to clear the farm, and for some years was proprietor and
ran a grist-mill in his native village, until receiving from his father lot
i, concession u, of Markham, he repaired thither and commenced
farming. He subsequently bought land adjoining, and his property in
all amounted to about seven hundred acres. His death occurred in
1864. Benjamin was born in 1836, and is the owner of the old
homestead, being the youngest in a family of five children. He
married Nancy Hoover in 1857; the result of this union being eleven
children. He is a Reformer in politics, and a member of the
Mennonite Church ; he has a brother, a minister in that body. MRS.
C. REESOR, lots 14 and 15, concession 10, rehct of the late C.
Reesor, of this township, is a daughter of Calvin Cornell, of Scarboro'
Township. She was married to Mr. Reesor in August, 1866, and his
death, which took place on April 25, 1877, left her with five children,
viz. : Albert C. Grasett, Victoria M., John A. E., Frederick E. N., and
Maude C. E., all of whom are still living. By the father's will each of
the sons received three hundred acres of land, the daughters having
divided among them the village property. To Mrs. Reesor was left the
management of the estate, together with its income, besides village
property and money. Her deceased husband was a Conservative in
politics, and an adherent of the English Church. Mrs. Reesor belongs
to the Methodist persuasion, and recently gave a lot in the Village of
Stouffville on which to build a church. Her father, the late Mr. Calvin
Cornell, died in Detroit, Mich., under circumstances that provoked at
the time a strong suspicion of foul play. He had gone on a journey to
the United States to buy land, and for that purpose
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.92%
accurate

Township of Markham. 307 carried with him a large sum of

money ; he took sick at Detroit and died, and the doctor who
attended him was tried at the Courts in Toronto for having poisoned
Mr. Calvin Cornell, but managed to clear himself. All the money and
some notes disappeared. JOSEPHUS REESOR, lots 3 and 4,
concession 9, was born in the Township of Markham, January 10,
1820, being the son of Peter Reesor, a native of Pennsylvania, who
emigrated to Canada at an early day. The family is one of great
respectability and is very well known throughout the township. Mr.
Reesor has followed farming since he commenced for himself, which
occupation was also followed by his father. Mr. Reesor is a Mennonite
in religion, and in politics is a Conservative. WILLIAM REESOR, lot
22, concession 10, Township of Markham, is the eldest son of the
late Christian Reesor, and was born in this township, March 24,
1821, where he has always resided. He has been married twice, the
first time to Mary Jane Campbell, who died August i, 1862, by whom
he had two sons and one daughter ; one son and the daughter died
in infancy and the other son is now established in the jewellery
business in Brandon, Manitoba. His second wife was Jeannette,
daughter of Hector Thompson, of Cedar Grove, by whom he has one
son and two daughters. William Reesor and his wife belong to the
Wesleyan Methodist Church, of which they are exemplary and
consistent members. JONATHAN SLATER, farmer, Buttonville Post-
office. Benjamin Slater, the father of the subject of this sketch, was
born in New York State, in 1789, and while yet a young man came to
Canada, and became a British subject. When the War of 1812-15
broke out he took up arms in defence of his adopted country. He
settled first on Yonge Street, near Hogg's Hollow, but afterwards
removed to Markham Township, where he purchased a farm on
which he lived until his death in 1868, at the ripe old age of seventy-
nine years. Jonathan received a good common school education,
remained on the farm, and on his father's death came into
possession of the homestead. By his energy and industry, and by
adopting the most approved system of farming, he has raised
himself to a front rank among the agriculturists of this section, and is
a prominent member of the Farmers' Club. He has given
considerable attention to the improvement of stock, especially
sheep. His religious persuasion is Presbyterian. In politics he is a
consistent Liberal, but has never aspired to political distinction.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.07%
accurate

308 Biographical Notices. JOHN SNOWBALL, lot 8,

concession 7, was born in Yorkshire, England, and came to Canada
in 1842. He settled first at Yorkville, where he followed his
occupation of brick-maker. In 1845 he removed to Markham, and
established his present business which was up to 1860 confined to
the manufacture of brick alone. In that year he was enabled, by
importing machinery from England, to enter largely into the
manufacture of tiles, which business he still follows. Besides his two
sons he finds constant employment for two men, and his close
application to business has been the means of securing him a large
trade. He married Ann Glue, of Yorkville, by whom he has seven
children, four sons and three daughters; a son and a daughter are
dead. He is an adherent of the Methodist Church. WILLIAM SPENCE,
merchant tailor, Unionville, was born in Yorkshire, England,
September 4, 1858, and came to Canada in 1883. He located first in
Hamilton, where he was employed as cutter, subsequently removing
to Unionville, where he commenced business for himself. Since his
advent he has met with considerable encouragement, the business
in the near future promising to be a prosperous one. He married
Elizabeth Love, of Yorkshire, England, by whom he has two children.
He takes great interest in the temperance movement, and holds the
position of Worthy Patriarch in the Sons of Temperance Society.
JAMES STATENBURGH, lot 25, concession 3, is the youngest of three
children, and was born in Markham Township in 1821, where he
received his education. He is of Dutch descent, his grandparents
having been born in Holland. He is now living on the family
homestead, having received the same from his father, after paying
off the other members of the family. He has in addition other
property which he has purchased, and has laid out a great deal of
money in buildings and improvements. He held the office of
Postmaster and is still License Inspector of the district. He is Captain
of the militia, having risen to that rank by merit from the grade of
private. He was twice married, first to a daughter of Robert Nichol,
who died in 1845. He married the following year a daughter of
Robert Grundy from Yorkshire, England, who died in 1883. By his
first wife he had one daughter ; by his second wife three sons and
two daughters. REUBEN H. STIVER, general merchant, Unionville,
was born in Markham Township, July 16, 1855. He is the only son of
Robert Stiver, who was born also in Markham Township, October 25,
1818, and, when quite young, removed with his parents to Toronto
Township; but returned again
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.61%
accurate

Township of Markham. 309to Markham in a few years ; he

was one of the young pioneers of Markham", and at the present
time is the oldest member of the Stiver family now living; he is a
staunch Reformer, and took part in the Rebellion of 1837. He married
Annie Bell, a native of Cumberland, England, who came to Canada
when only eight years of age. Reuben A. Stiver commenced life on a
farm, but, at the age of twenty-two, he gave up farming and
engaged in the hardware business in Unionville, which he continued
until January i, 1884. He is now engaged in the general business in
the same place. On March 2, 1880, he married Eleanor, the third
daughter of the late James Mustard, of Markham ; his wife was born
on July n, 1855. In religion he is an adherent of the Lutheran
Church, in politics he is a Reformer. His wife is a Presbyterian. W.
STIVER, lot 14, concession 5, public school teacher and farmer, was
born in Markham Township, May 17, 1830. He is of German descent,
his grandfather having emigrated to the United States from
Hamburg, Germany, in 1792. He (the grandfather) remained in New
York State about one year, and in 1793 came and settled in
Markham Township. Our subject's father, Francis Stiver, was born
near Rochester, New York State, in 1793, and came to Markham
Township with the family. He served with his brother John as a
volunteer during the War of i8i2-'i4. His death occurred May 12,
1879, at the age of eighty-six years and eleven months. The mother
of our subject was Elizabeth Lindsay, who was born at Southampton,
England, in 1805 ; she died in 1873. William Stiver is one of a family
of nine children, and after receiving a good scholastic training he
commenced the business of life as school-teacher. He began his
duties in 1851, which he continued uninterruptedly to fulfil until so
recent a date as December, 1884. During the course of his career of
thirty-four years' tutorship it is calculated that he travelled on foot to
and from school, altogether a distance of sixty-nine thousand five
hundred and twelve miles. He had something like one thousand four
hundred and seventy-eight different pupils under his care, some of
whdm are now professors, ministers, and high and public school
teachers. He taught eleven years in No. 5 Section, two years in No.
10 Section, and twenty-one years in No. n School Section of
Markham Township. Mr. Stiver was married at the Lutheran
Parsonage, Vaughan, December 24, 1873, to Elizabeth J., daughter
of Andrew and Rebecca (May) Wagner. Two children only are the
issue of this marriage, Elma May and J. L. Bernard. Mr. Stiver
belongs to the Lutheran Church, and is a Reformer. As an illustration
of the tenacity with which the members of this family cling to their
political principles, it is recorded as
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.84%
accurate

310 Biographical Notices. a fact that never on any occasion

did the father or one of his six sons poll a Conservative vote.
WILLIAM STIVER, lot 13, concession 4, is the son of John and Mary
Stiver. His mother, it is stated, was the first white child born in
Markham, her birth being on April 7, 1794. The family originally
came from Hanover, Germany, in 1793; and Mr. Stiver, the father of
our subject, served in the War of 1812, for which he drew a pension.
He died in 1879. William married a daughter of Robert Hesk, of this
township, by whom he has nine children, all living. DANIEL TIPP, lot
23, concession 4, is the son of William and Catharine Tipp. His
mother was born in Pennsylvania of German parents. His father was
born in Germany in 1755, and came to America as a soldier in the
German Legion of the British Army, and served through the
Revolutionary War. At its conclusion he settled in Pennsylvania, but
subsequently came to Canada where he drew three hundred acres of
land from the Crown. His grant was at Chippewa Creek, which he
afterwards sold and removed to Toronto. He located soon after in
Markham. He took part in the War of 1812, and was at the Battle of
York. Mr. Tipp, sen'r, being ignorant, of farming, was not very
successful ; but the last days of himself and wife were spent in
comfort in the home of their son. Daniel was born in 1799 at
Richmond Hill, and has always been a resident of Markham. When
he reached manhood he purchased two hundred acres of land in
Tecumseth, and afterwards bought in Markham the lot where he
now resides. He married Sarah Perkins ; the issue of the union being
two daughters, both married. Mr. Tipp's religious principles are
sound, and he gives liberally to all denominations. He has not sought
office, but has quietly attended to his own affairs, which have been
successful. JAMES TRAN, lot 6, concession 10, is of Scotch descent,
but was born in Yorkshire, England, in 1814. He emigrated to
Canada in 1843, his mother and remainder of family coming in 1844,
his father having died in England. In 1845 he settled in Markham,
the family comprising a small colony of themselves, there being nine
sons and three daughters ; two have since died, a son and a
daughter. James has always followed farming, and during the first
few years of his residence in the township rented a farm. In 1856 he
bought the property, and five years later added to the purchase,
making in all one hundred and ninety acres of choice land. The lively
interest he took in agricultural matters gained for him the Presidency
of the County
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.54%
accurate

Township of Markham. 311 Agricultural Society, and he was

for twenty-six years Director and Judge of the Provincial Exhibition.
He has imported stock from the Old Country, together with
agricultural implements, and in connection with this business has
five different times crossed the Atlantic. He has been License
Inspector seven years, and during his residence in the township has
contributed materially to its progress. He married in England in 1837
Mary Ann Gardham, by whom he had thirteen children ; nine only
are living, seven of whom are married. One of his daughters,
Maggie, has been successful in securing the first prize for the best
Farmer's Wreath, at York County, Whitby and Newmarket Fairs. Mr.
Tran has at present twentyfour grand-children. WALTER W. WALKER,
lot 26, concession 6, hotel proprietor, was born in Essex, England,
and emigrated from there to the United States in 1872. He came to
Canada one year later, and was for some time engaged on the
survey of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He took possession of the
present hotel in 1880, and makes an entertaining and agreeable
host. He also fills the position of County Constable with zeal and
discretion. Mr. Walker married Christiana E. Hunter of this township,
by whom he has one child, a daughter. THOMAS WILLIAMSON, the
present Reeve of the Township of Markham, was born in the
township in 1848, and is essentially a self-made man. His father
emigrated from England in 1837, and settled at Richmond Hill, where
after renting two farms, he ultimately purchased land on lot 26,
concession 7. His parents were married in England, his mother's
maiden name being Hannah Bowlor ; their family consisted of seven
children. Between the years 1866 and 1877 Thomas taught school in
the village, and afterwards bought a farm of ninety-five acres on lot
31, concession 5, of this township. He married in 1860 Miss Jane Lee
of Markham, by whom he has four children as follow : Elizabeth,
born 1871 ; John, born 1873 ; Ernest, born 1875 5 and Clarabell,
born 1879. Mr. Williamson has been Deputy-Reeve and Councillor.
DAVID WISMER, lot 17, concession 7, was born in this township in
1807, being the son of David and Lydia Wismer, who emigrated from
Pennsylvania in 1805, and making the journey with a yoke of oxen,
settled in Markham. His parents died in 1856. David married in 1826
Mary Toman, by whom he had fourteen children ; ten are still living.
Elijah, the youngest son, resides with his parents, and takes the
management of the
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.78%
accurate

312 Biographical Notices. farm. He married Susanna

Strickler, by whom he has four children. Mr. Wismer, sen'r, though
over seventy-six years of age, still preserves the activity of youth,
and though his long life has been energetic and industrious. He has
assisted in the making of roads and other necessary improvements
for the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the section,
and in various ways has proved his usefulness to the community. He
is a member of the Christian Church.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.33%
accurate

VILLAGE OF MARKHAM.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.53%
accurate

VILLAGE OF MARKHAM. OHN ANTHONY, builder, was born

in Norfolk, England, and came to Canada with his father, who settled
in Scarboro' Township, in 1836. John remained at home until 1850,
when he was apprenticed to Mr. Peter Lapp, with whom he learned
the trade of carpenter. In 1856 he commenced business with Mr.
Matthew Swallow, and two years later removed to Pickering and
began business for himself, which he carried on until 1870. He then
became foreman for Speight & Son, which position he held eleven
years. He now rents a large factory, where he manufactures sashes,
doors and all kinds of general wood work. Mr. Anthony has the
reputation of being a first-class draughtsman and architect, and has
erected some of the finest buildings in the township. In 1858 he
married Mary Cook. By this union he has four children, Mary, Arthur,
H. Oscar and Stella. On October 23, 1883, Mr. Anthony lost all his
property by fire. SAMUEL CHARLES ASH was born in Devonshire,
England, in 1817. He belonged to H.M.'s 43rd Regiment of Foot, and
came to Canada with the corps in 1838. They were first stationed at
Montreal, and afterwards removed to Niagara Falls. In 1846 he
returned to England, where he got his discharge. The following year
he came to Canada and located in Montreal a short time, and in
1848 he went to Toronto. After spending some little time at
Thornhill, he commenced business in Toronto as a merchant tailor.
From there he went to Uxbridge and ultimately came to Markham
Village. In 1850 he married Elizabeth Washington, who died on
December u, 1877 ; they had five children, viz. : Elizabeth Maria,
born May 27, 1851 ; Elizabeth Maria, born July 21, 1852 ; Agnes
Augusta, born September 21, 1853 (the three last named died in
infancy); Frederick Charles, born February 22, 1855 ; Elizabeth
Maria, born May 4, 1858.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.64%
accurate

316 Biographical Notices. EBENEZER BURK, postmaster,

was born on lot 24, concession 10, of Markham Township, in 1847,
and is the son of David Burk, who emigrated from Ireland in 1833.
His mother's maiden name was Jane L. Campbell. In 1866 Mr. Burk
commenced general store keeping, which he continued until 1872.
In 1881 he took charge of the Markham Post-office, which position
he still holds. In July, 1879, he married Miss Lizzie Bell, of
Brougham; he has one son, Edmund, born January 9, 1882.
GEORGE JAMES CHAUNCEY was born at St. John's, Newfoundland,
in November, 1849, and is a descendant of one of the oldest families
in Britain's oldest colony. Among his predecessors was the first
SurveyorGeneral and Clerk of the Peace of the colony ; and among
his late relatives was the late Thomas Knight, Esq., for many years a
member of the Legislature, one of whose sons still fills the
responsible position of Acting Secretary of the Board of Works, and a
second that of Cashier of the Newfoundland Savings Bank. Mr. Rice,
M.H.A., one of the present representatives to the Legislature from
the electoral district of Notre Dame Bay, is also an uncle of Mr.
Chauncey on his mother's side. Another of his uncles lost his life
whilst engaged in the public service of the colony ; whilst the old
firm of Goss, Chauncey & Ledgard was one of the most substantial
commercial houses in Harbour Grace, Conception Bay. One of Mr.
Chauncey's uncles by marriage has been Financial Secretary of the
Colony for the past eight or ten years. Mr. Chauncey's parents are
George William Fletcher Chauncey and Eliza, eldest daughter of the
late James Rice, Esq., formerly Sheriff of the Northern District of
Newfoundland. Mrs. Chauncey was born at Twillingate, Notre Dame
Bay, in 1828, where her husband carried on a general commercial
business for some years. Mr. George Chauncey is one of seven
children, five of whom are still living. His earliest days were spent in
Notre Dame Bay, where many of the most stirring memories of his
boyish days were acquired. One of the most memorable of these
incidents occurred when scarcely fourteen years old — his father
then being engaged in commercial life at Twillingate. Upon that
occasion large numbers of seals (Phoca Groenlandica ) had been
driven into the Bay upon the ice, and George, young as he was,
made it his duty to join the seal hunters in their raids upon the
amphibious animals, and always brought home his " haul," when
others had cut their lines to save their lives. Twice, with his
companions, he was carried off upon the floebergs, to be rescued by
a timely boat on one occasion ; and upon the other escaping to
shore over the ice after very considerable exertion, which ended in
an attack of ice-blindness that lasted for three days. How great the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com