Livestock production and climate change

Livestock makes a key contribution to global food security. Its

contribution is especially important in marginal lands where livestock
represents a unique source of energy, protein and micronutrients (Chapter
B2-1.1). Climate change has substantial impacts on ecosystems and the
natural resources upon which the livestock sector depends. At the same
time, livestock food chains are major contributors to greenhouse gas
emissions (FAO, 2006).

Livestock’s role in adaptation practices is described in Chapter B2-

1.2. Chapter B2-1.3 looks at climate change mitigation options available
along the entire supply chain. These options are mostly associated with
feed production, enteric fermentation and manure management. Figure
B2.1 summarizes the contribution the sector can make to climate-smart
food systems, and the technical strategies available to livestock producers
for adapting to and mitigating climate change. It also highlights the
institutional elements that are necessary to harness the sector’s potential
to support a shift to climate-smart food systems.

Figure B2.1. Summary of technical and institutional determinants of

climate-smart livestock production

Source: Gerber, 2013 (unpublished)

B2-1.1 Climate change impact on livestock production - need for
sustainable production intensification and diversification
Farming is the source of livelihood for one-third of the world's
population. About 60 percent of the people who rely on farming for their
livelihoods own livestock. Nearly 800 million livestock keepers live on
less than USD 2 a day (FAO, 2011b). Livestock production is a rapidly
growing sector. It accounts for 40 percent of the global agricultural gross
domestic product and is crucial for food security in all regions. In sub-
Saharan Africa, more than half the population keep livestock, and one in
three of these livestock keepers can be considered poor (FAO, 2012).

Livestock make a necessary and important contribution to global calorie,

protein supplies and important micro nutrients such as B12, iron, calcium.
They produce 17% of calories consumed globally and 33% of protein.
Livestock can increase the world’s edible protein balance by transforming
inedible protein found in forageii into forms that people can digest. For
example, in pastoraliii areas, livestock are the only option to turn a sparse
and erratic biomass resource into edible products. On the other hand,
livestock can also reduce the global edible protein balance by consuming
large amounts of edible protein found in cereal grains and soybeans and
converting it into small amounts of animal protein (Mottet et al, 2017).
The choice of livestock production systems (e.g. grass-based, integrated
crop-livestock) and good management practices (discussed in Chapter
B2-4 and Chapter B2-5) are important for optimizing the protein output
from livestock.

Access to food derived from livestock is affected by income and social

customs. Access to livestock as a source of income, and hence food, is
also unequal. Gender dynamics play a part in this inequality, particularly
in pastoralist and small-scale farming communities, where female-headed
households tend to have fewer resources and consequently own fewer and
smaller livestock, and within families where the larger and more
commercial livestock operations are often controlled by men. Livestock,
especially small ruminants and chicken, are key to women empowerment
and gender equity.

Livestock are also a major asset among rural communities, providing a

range of essential services, including savings, credit and buffering against
climatic shocks and other crises (see Chapter B2-4). In mixed systems ,
livestock consume crop residues and by-products (from agro-industrial
processing) and produce manure used to fertilize crops (see module B5).
Cattle, camels, horses and donkeys also provide transport and draught
power for field operations, up to 81% in Northern Africa (Gebresenbet
 and Kaumbutho, 1997). With all these services, the contribution of
livestock goes beyond agriculture and food security and directly supports
education and human health.

However, as discussed in Chapter B2-2.2, livestock need to be managed

carefully to maximize the range of services they provide and reduce its
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

B2-1.2 The impact of climate change on livestock production - the need

for adaptation
Climate change poses serious threats to livestock production. Increased
temperatures, shifts in rainfall distribution, increased frequency of
extreme weather events and consequent increased heat stress and reduced
water availability are expected to adversely affect livestock production
and productivity around the world both directly and indirectly (Figure
B2.2):

 The most serious impacts are anticipated in grazing systems because of

their dependence on climatic conditions and the natural resource base,
and their limited adaptation opportunities (Aydinalp and Cresser, 2008).
Impacts are expected to be most severe in arid and semi-arid grazing
systems at low latitudes, where higher temperatures and lower rainfall are
expected to reduce yields on rangelands and increase land degradation
(Hoffmann and Vogel, 2008). The direct impacts of climate change are
likely to be more limited in non-grazing systems mostly because the
housing of animals in buildings allows for greater control of production
conditions (FAO, 2009; Thornton and Gerber, 2010).
 Indirect impacts will be experienced through modifications in
ecosystems, changes in the yields, quality and type and availability of
feed and foddervi crops, and greater competition for resources with other
sectors (FAO, 2009; Thornton, 2010; Thornton and Gerber, 2010).
Climate change could lead to additional indirect impacts from the
increased emergence of livestock diseases, as higher temperatures and
changed rainfall patterns can alter the abundance, distribution and
transmission of animal pathogens (Baylis and Githeko, 2006). In non-
grazing systems, indirect impacts from lower crop yields, feed scarcity
and higher feed and energy prices will be more significant.

Figure B2.2. Direct and indirect impacts of climate change on livestock

production systems
 Non-grazing systems Grazing systems

increased frequency of
extreme weather events

change in water increased frequency and

availability, which may magnitude of droughts and
increase or decrease floods Direct
depending on the region impacts of
productivity losses
climate
increased frequency of resulting from
change
extreme weather events, physiological stress due to
with impact being less higher temperatures
acute than for extensive
systems change in water
availability, which may
increase or decrease
depending on the region

Agro-ecological changes
and ecosystem shifts
leading to:
increased resource prices
(e.g. feed, water and alteration in fodder quality
energy) and quantity Indirect
impacts of
disease epidemics change in host-pathogen climate
interaction resulting in an change
increased cost of animal increased incidence of
housing (e.g. cooling emerging diseases
systems)
disease epidemics

These impacts are likely to be widespread. However, they will be difficult

to quantify due to the uncertain and complex interactions between
agriculture, climate, the surrounding environment and the economy
(Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal, 2003; Randolph, 2008).

Livestock’s vulnerability to climate shocks depends first on their

exposure, which is determined by the duration, frequency and severity of
the shocks, and the location of the stocks and related assets (e.g.
feedstock, housing, water points). It also depends on their sensitivity,
which is determined by the breed (see module B8-3.1 for the impact of
climate change on animal genetic resources), the housing or feeding
system, status of animal health (e.g. vaccination rate) and the importance
of livestock to the household in terms of food security and livelihoods
(ICEM, 2013). A number of other factors can increase livestock’s
vulnerability to climate change, especially in semi-arid and arid regions.
These factors include rangeland degradation, the fragmentation of grazing
areas, changes in land tenure, conflicts and insecure access to land and
markets (e.g. crop residues and by-products for feed, animal products).
Socio-economic factors that specifically affect disease prevalence include
changes in land use, host abundance, international trade, migration and
public health policy.

Box B2.1 The potential impact of climate change on breed distribution -

an example from Kenya
The current geographic distribution of Kenyan Kamba cattle, as
recorded in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
(DAD-IS), was used to model their potential distribution. The system
took into account several temperature and humidity characteristics of
their production environment. This information served to define
potential current and future habitats for this breed. Future habitats
were modeled using the ‘Hadley Global Environment Model 2 - Earth
System’ and four scenarios (representative concentration pathways:
(IPPC, 2013) were selected. The differences between potential current
and future habitats were mapped, revealing areas where habitat was
lost and gained, and where it remained unchanged (Figure B2.3).

Analyses of this kind can potentially contribute to more informed

decision-making on breed management in a changing climate. They
can strengthen the capacity of national governments, livestock keepers
and farmers to protect and enhance food security and manage animal
genetic resources sustainably.

Figure B2.3. Modeled distribution of the Kenhan Kamba cattle under four
representative concentration pathways (RCPs). Areas of habitat loss
appear in red, areas of no expected change in dark green and areas of
habitat gain in light green.
 Source: FAO, 2015.

Impact of climate change on animal health

Infectious diseases in animals and their transmission cycles represent
complex interactions between hosts, pathogens and the environment
(Peterson, 2006) and mainly occur following changes in the host-
pathogen-environment system (Jones et al., 2008). Most of these diseases
are zoonotic, i.e. may be transmitted to humans, and can have serious
consequences for public health, the economy of the livestock sector and
biodiversity conservation (Pinto et al., 2008).

Climate change, in particular global warming, likely affects animal health

by influencing the host-pathogen-environment system both directly and
indirectly. The direct effects are more likely to influence diseases that are
associated with vector transmission, water or flood, soil, rodents, or air
temperature and humidity (Abdela and Jilo, 2016). Indirect impacts of
climate change are more complex to disentangle and include those
deriving from changes in land use and biodiversity and the attempt of
animals to adapt to these climatic and environmental changes or from the
influence of climate on microbial populations, distribution of vector-
borne diseases and host resistance to infectious agents, feed and water
scarcity, or food-borne diseases. In particular, prolonged droughts
determine water and pasture shortages, which decrease livestock
immunity against infectious diseases, as well as trigger livestock
movements to areas at higher risk of animal diseases, determining the
congregation of domestic animals around few available watering points
and grazing areas in proximity to wildlife reserves. Here the risk of
disease transmission is increased by the increased contact among
domestic animals and between domestic and wild animals (Pinto et al.,
2008). Grazing areas resulting from deforestation and changes in land use
may expose livestock to novel pathogens due to increased interface
between livestock and wildlife (Lubroth, 2012). These direct and indirect
effects of climate change may be spatial, i.e., affecting the geographical
distribution of the pathogen, host or vector, or temporal, i.e., affecting the
timing of an outbreak and its intensity (Lubroth, 2012; Abdela and Jilo,
2016). However, not all organisms will respond similarly to climate
change. In general, disease agents with external stages (e.g., non-host) of
their life cycles, such as parasites, food-, water- and vector-borne diseases
are most influenced by climatic and environmental changes. For instance,
temperature increases feeding intervals and development rates of blood-
feeding arthropods, while rainfall increases the availability of habitat for
breeding sites. In general, global warming and changes in rainfall patterns
and intensity are expected to expand the geographical and altitudinal
distribution of vectors, allowing them to cross mountain ranges that
currently limit their distribution (Abdela and Jilo, 2016). Furthermore,
climate change can also influence livestock health through the survival of
pathogens in the environment. A pathogen may emerge in new territories
and host landscapes; become more aggressive, and perform a host-species
jump, possibly in relation to increased host species mixing or contacts
(Lubroth, 2012).

Vector-borne diseases that are strongly associated with vector

amplification due to climate variability include Rift Valley fever (RVF),
West Nile Virus (WNV), Bluetongue (BTV) and Trypanosomosis. For
instance, RVF in East Africa is strongly associated with extreme events,
such as heavy rains and floods, caused by the El Niño Southern
Oscillation events, which are expected to occur more frequently in the
future as an effect of global climate change (FAO et al., 2015). On the
contrary, West Nile Virus (WNV), Bluetongue (BTV) and
Trypanosomosis appear to be strongly influenced by global warming and
raise in temperature (Paz, 2015). Soil-borne diseases, such as Anthrax,
are also affected by precipitation variability. Livestock and wildlife likely
get infected with Anthrax while grazing and ingesting forage or soil
contaminated with Anthrax spores, browsing on vegetation contaminated
by carrion flies, or by percutaneous exposure from biting flies, and
possibly spore inhalation (WHO, 2008). Anthrax outbreaks mainly occur
after heavy rains and floods followed by a dry period or with the onset of
rains ending a period of drought (Blackburn et al., 2007; Patassi 2016).
These climatic conditions favor the concentration of spores in the upper
level of the soil, increasing the risk of spore ingestion by herbivores.
Climate change can also impact animal health in the Arctic region. The
Anthrax outbreak that affected the reindeer population and humans in the
Yamalo-Nenets region of Siberia in July 2016 is suspected to be
associated with global warming and the abnormal warm temperatures
observed in 2016, which may have substantially reduced the snow cover,
water ice and permafrost in the area (FAO, 2017a). The previous reported
outbreak in the area occurred in 1941, about 75 years ago. Time-series
analyses of satellite-derived climate data over the past decades suggested
that the observed changes in climate and livestock production system in
the region may have increased animal exposure to Anthrax infected soil
(FAO, 2017a).

Disease agents whose transmission depends primarily on close host-to-

host contact can also be favored by extreme weather events that may
increase contacts between naive and infected populations. For instance,
prolonged droughts can increase the risk of occurrence of foot and mouth
disease, hemorrhagic fevers, and tuberculosis (Abdela and Jilo, 2016).

Climate change has already been shown to determine a mismatch

between migratory bird nesting and peak food abundance (Both et al.,
2006) as well as changes in migration routes and timing (Hurlbert and
Liang, 2012). The scarce availability of food during nesting is a great
stressor that increases disease prevalence. At the same time, climate
change may reduce available habitats, determining higher congregation of
birds of several species in smaller areas of remaining resources and
increasing the chance of within-species and cross-species disease
transmission. Changes in migration routes and timing may also favor the
emergence and introduction of a pathogen carried by birds in novel areas.
This scenario is a likely explanation for the recent spread of highly
pathogenic H5N8 avian influenza in Africa (FAO, 2017b).

Climate variability in rainfall, temperature, humidity patterns and extreme

weather events, such as floods, droughts, heatwave, are therefore
considered important indicators for monitoring and predicting animal
diseases occurrence. As shown by the FAO Emergency Prevention
System (EMPRES) since its implementation in 1994, early warning, early
detection and early response are key in the prevention and control of both
old and new emerging animal diseases (Lubroth, 2012). The FAO’s
Global Surveillance and Early Warning System (GLEWS) actively tracks
and verifies diseases rumors and disseminates confirmed disease
outbreaks through the EMPRES-i Global Animal Disease Information
System. FAO’S GLEWS conducts regularly risk assessments and
 modelling activities to provide decision makers in animal health and other
stakeholders with guidance and recommendations on how to identify
disease pathways, predict and prevent areas at risk of disease emergence
and spread and implement rapid response and control measures on the
ground. FAO’S GLEWS regularly monitors climatic and environmental
risk factors using near-real time satellite-derived climate data. Using an
algorithm developed by NASA and partners, a near-real time early
warning system prototype for RVF has been developed using Google
Earth Engine to identify and predict areas at risk of RVF vector
amplification in East and West Africa (FAO, 2017).

Preventive veterinary medicine, together with adjustment of animal

husbandry and social resilience represents a way of coping with the
negative consequences of climate change (Lubroth, 2012).

B2-1.3 Livestock production impact on climate change - need for

mitigation of climate change
The livestock sector is a major contributor to climate change, generating
significant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.
Livestock contribute to climate change by emitting greenhouse gases
either directly (e.g. from enteric fermentation and manure management)
or indirectly (e.g. from feed-production activities, the conversion of forest
into pasture). Based on a life cycle assessment of the livestock sector,
FAO estimates that it emits about 8.3 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent
(CO2 eq.) (GLEAM), distributed as follows.

 Land use and land-use change accounts for 0.7 gigatonnes of CO2 eq. per
year (9 percent of the sector’s emissions). This figure refers to the carbon
dioxide emitted from the replacement of forest and other natural
vegetation by pasture and feed crops in Latin America and Soil Organic
Carbon release (mineralization) from soils, such as pasture and arable
land dedicated to feed production (see Box B7.3).
 Feed production releases 2.6 gigatonnes CO2 eq. per year (33 percent of
the sector’s emissions). It includes carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuels used in manufacturing chemical fertilizer and pesticides for feed
crops, and and nitrous dioxide emissions from chemical fertilizer
application on feed crops (grasses and legumes. It does not include the
carbon released by field operations (Soil Organic Carbon
mineralization).
 livestock production releases 3.7 gigatonnes CO2 eq. per year (46 percent
of the sector’s emissions), including from: enteric fermentation from
 ruminants (as methane) and on-farm fossil fuel use (in the form of carbon
dioxide).
 Manure management (mainly manure storage, application and deposition)
accounts for 0.8 gigatonnes CO2 eq. per year (10 percent of the sector’s
emissions) from methane and nitrous oxide.
 Processing and international transport produces 0.23 gigatonnes CO2 eq.
per year (3 percent of the sector’s emissions).
There are striking differences in global emission intensities among
commodities. For example, on a global scale, the emission intensity vii of
meat and milk, measured by output weight, corresponds on average to
46.8 kg CO2 eq. per kg of carcass weight for beef; 72 kg CO2 eq. per kg
of carcass weight for pork; 5.1 kg CO2 eq. per kg of carcass weight for
chicken; and 2.9 kg CO2 eq. per kg of milk (FAO, 2013a and 2013b). Box
B2.2 illustrates the case of substituting meat intake from livestock with
low feed-conversion efficiency with livestock with higher feed-
conversion efficiencyviii, such as insects.

There is significant variability in emissions across the different regions.

For example, the FAO Life Cycle Assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions from the global dairy sector estimated the global average at 3.0
kg CO2 eq. However it also found emissions per unit of milk products
varied greatly among different regions. Emissions from Europe and North
America range between 1.6 and 1.9 kg CO2 eq. per kg Fat and Protein
Corrected Milk (FPCM). The highest emissions are estimated for sub-
Saharan Africa with an average of 6.5 kg CO2 eq./kg of Fat and Protein
Corrected Milk. Greenhouse gas emissions for Latin America and the
Caribbean, Near East and North Africa and South Asia, range between
3.5 and 5.6 kg CO2 eq./kg Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FAO, 2013a).

Results from the same study of the global dairy sector also found
greenhouse gas emissions to be inversely related to productivity. At very
low levels of milk production (200 kg per cow per year) emissions were
found to be 12 kg CO2 eq./kg FPCM compared to 1.1 kg CO2 eq./kg of
Fat and Protein Corrected Milk for high production levels (about 8 000 kg
of milk). This reflects the strong relationship between livestock
intensification and greenhouse gas emissions across countries on a global
scale (Gerber et al., 2011). This relationship is exponentially declining
which means that small increases in productivity in the least intensive
countries could provide the highest benefits in terms of emission
intensity.
However, beyond this strong relationship across countries, there is also a
strong variability within countries, where production systems and
management practices play an important role.

Box B2.2 Farming insects as 'minilivestock'

The majority of insect collection occurs through wild gathering,
mainly in forests. The concept of farming insects for food or feed is
relatively new.

Farming insects as “minilivestock” offers great opportunities to

provide food at low environmental cost, without compromising wild
insect populations and contributing positively to livelihoods in the
context of climate change thanks to their high feed-conversion
efficiency, relatively low greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions, and
lower water requirements than cattle rearing. An example of rearing
insects for human consumption in the tropics is cricket farming in the
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand and Viet Nam.

Insects can supplement traditional feed sources, such as soy, maize,

grains and fishmeal, to meet the increasing compund demand for feed
production worldwide. Insects with the largest immediate potential for
large-scale feed production are larvae of the black soldier fly, the
common housefly and the yellow mealworm -but other insect species
are also being investigated for this purpose. Producers in China, South
Africa, Spain and the United States are already rearing large quantities
of flies for aquaculture and poultry feed by bioconverting organic
waste.
Animal Agriculture’s Impact on Climate
Change
Though much of the world is focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels as a way to
fight climate change, there is another, often-overlooked climate change culprit: animal
agriculture and its environmental impact. Animal agriculture is the second largest
contributor to human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions after fossil fuels and is
a leading cause of deforestation, water and air pollution and biodiversity loss.

Resources and Production

Animal agriculture puts a heavy strain on many of the Earth’s finite land, water and
energy resources. In order to accommodate the 70 billion animals raised annually for
human consumption, a third of the planet’s ice-free land surface, as well as nearly
sixteen percent of global freshwater, is devoted to growing livestock. Furthermore, a third
of worldwide grain production is used to feed livestock. By 2050, consumption of meat
and dairy products is expected to rise 76 and 64 percent respectively, which will increase
the resource burden from the industry. Cattle are by far the biggest source of emissions
from animal agriculture, with one recent study showing that in an average American diet,
beef consumption creates 1,984 pounds of CO2e annually. Replacing beef with plants
would reduce that figure 96 percent, bringing it down to just 73 pounds of CO2e.
 Most of the GHG emissions result from:

 Methane released from enteric fermentation and partially from animal manure;
o In the United States, methane from the normal digestive processes of animals
totalled 164.3 million metric tons of CO2e in 2014.
 Loss of carbon stored in forests and soils from land-use change and degradation;
o “Livestock induced” emissions (extensive clearing of trees for agricultural expansion)
amount to roughly 0.65 gigatons of CO2e per year.
 Fossil fuels burned to produce mineral fertilizers for feed production;
o Roughly two percent of the world’s energy is used produce 100 million tons of artificial
nitrogenous fertilizer per year to apply to high-energy crops like corn.

Consequences and Impacts

Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock, a widely-cited 2013 report by the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates about 14.5 percent of global GHG
emissions, or 7.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent, can be attributed to the livestock sector
annually. This is broadly equivalent to the emissions from all the fuel burned by all
the world’s transport vehicles, including cars, trucks, trains, boats and airplanes.
Animal agriculture specifically:

 Accounts for five percent of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions;

 Represents 44 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions, the primary driver of
climate change related to livestock, as methane is 34 times more potent than carbon
dioxide over 100 years;
 Comprises 44 percent of all anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, the most potent
GHG; and
 Makes up 75-80 percent of total agricultural emissions.
Furthermore, air and water pollution can be directly attributed to the livestock sector,
which is the largest contributor to global water pollution. The livestock sector is also one
of the leading drivers of global deforestation, and is linked to 75 percent of
historic deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. Nearly a third of biodiversity
loss to date has been linked to animal agriculture. Further amplifying water and air
pollution, global livestock produce seven to nine times more sewage than humans, most
of which is left untreated. They also discharge pesticides, antibiotics, and heavy metals
into water systems.
Animal agriculture is linked to:

 55 percent of erosion;
 60 percent of nitrogen pollution; and
 70 percent of the global dietary phosphorus footprint.
Concentrated animal farming operations present additional public health risks to nearby
communities, as viral diseases may spread from sick livestock to humans and the
increased use of antibiotics encourages antibiotic resistance. Irresponsible manure
management from high-volume facilities risks aerosolizing fecal matter that may reach
nearby homes and cause respiratory problems. Livestock waste can also pass through
the soil to groundwater, which may then contaminate nearby streams and rivers with
nitrates and pathogens.

Mitigation and Action

Global GHG emissions from the livestock sector increased by 51 percent between 1961
and 2010, spurred by a 54 percent increase in methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
livestock manure. Moreover, approximately one gigaton of carbon dioxide equivalent
worth of animal-based foods is wasted globally every year.
If global consumption of meat and dairy continues to grow at the current pace, the
agriculture sector could consume about 70 percent of the allowable budget for all GHG
emissions by mid-century. To meet the global goal of limiting warming to 2°C, annual
emissions must be reduced from today’s levels of 49 gigatons of CO2 to around 23
gigatons by 2050. Agriculture would use up 20 of those gigatons, leaving only three for
the rest of the global economy.
GHG intensity from the average western diet could be cut in half by adopting a plant-
based diet. Agricultural emissions can also be limited through smarter livestock handling,
technology-enabled monitoring of fertilizer application, simple changes in field layout and
other, more efficient agricultural techniques. Groups like Solutions from the Land are
working with American farmers to find ways to reduce emissions without sacrificing
production, and the US Department of Agriculture set up Climate Hubs to help farmers
adapt to and mitigate climate change. Meanwhile, international groups
like the Consortium of International Agricultural Researchers and the International Food
Policy Research Institute are conducting ground-breaking research to determine just how
climate change will impact farmers and what they can do about it.