Bottom-up: Responding to climate change through livestock in integrated agriculture Katrien van t Hooft, ETC Adviesgroep, Netherlands
Personal introduction Veterinary medicine in Utrecht, NL MSc Management of Agricultural Knowledge Systems 1985-1997 Latin America - projects with smallholders, (dairy) farmer organisations, government, educational centres 1998-2007 Consultant ETC/Compas network, urban livestock Since 2005: Coordinator Endogenous Livestock Development (ELD) network Since 2008: ETC-NL sustainable dairy projects Various books and films 2009 ETC & partners: Smart Footprint Farming livestock and climate change
Presentation content 1. Major discussions Climate Change and Livestock 2. Solution: increased animal-productivity? 3. Major livestock production systems 4. Solution: integrated farming? 5. Example 1 bottom-up: Dutch dairy (ETC-NL) 6. Example 2 bottom-up: smallholder mixed farming (Send a Cow- Uganda) 7. Role of learning networks 8. Lessons learnt + related research needs
Contribution livestock to Greenhouse Gas emissions (2) According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007): Greenhouse Gas emissions by livestock is 18% of total emissions. This is more than traffic. According to FAO - Livestock s Long Shadow (2006): Livestock sector in top 3 of most significant contributors to environmental problems: 1. Land degradation & loss of soil fertility 2. Loss of water availability and quality 3. Loss of biodiversity 4. Atmosphere and climate change through Greenhouse Gas emissions
Proposed reduction through increased animal productivity Higher animal productivity: Reduce roughage intake by ruminants, more maize and concentrates More use of highly productive (specialised) breeds Diet adaptation Oil and other substances that reduce methane production in rumen of ruminants Species adaptations Change from ruminants to pigs or poultry Stable adaptations Mainly indoor animal keeping Absorb greenhouse gases produced, through totally closed stables Mega-stables
Differentiation between livestock production systems (1) High input, low diversity Extensive land use 3 4 2 1 Intensive land use Low input, high diversity
Differentiation between livestock production systems (2) Ranching Industrial systems Pastoralism & agro-pastoralism Smallholder mixed farming
In developed countries, eg. Netherlands Specialised meat production Industrial systems Livestock in nature conservation Backyard/Hobby farming
Proposed reduction through integrated farming (1) IPCC, FAO and follow-up reports: The greatest mitigation contribution originates from enhanced soil carbon (CO2) sequestration, especially through:» Improved cropland management» Improved grazing land management» Restore cultivated organic soils» Restore degraded land
Proposed reduction through integrated farming (2) Global technical mitigation potential of each agricultural management practice, showing the impact of each practice on each greenhouse gas (From IPCC, 2007)
Example 1 Bottom-up: high input dairy systems in Netherlands Result: high production levels but also: Ineffecient nitrogen use, loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, increased costs Farmers income down
Environmental problems due to Nitrogen-excess: new policies Obligation to injecting manure into the soil Conservation of manure in tanks But: soil fertility and farm-efficiency were further reduced
Learning networks: farmers study groups, research support, experimentation & joint learning Now supported by regional governments
Cycle approach: increasing efficiency of soil-plantanimal-manure system
Efficiency N-use in soil BBD en FB Alles % 75 65 55 45 Results: Increased N-efficiency in soil 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 35 Reduced use of chemical fertiliser and concentrates and Lower costs, farmer income maintained
Example: Hoeksma s farm Organic matter content in soil % Time (years) Organic matter content variation due to different soil management
Example: Hoeksma s farm Dry matter yield and fertilizer N/ha, over 23 years DRY MATTER YIELD FERTILIZER
C-efficiency calculations 39 boeren Bedreven Bedrijven Drenthe 2007 GEM MIN MAX Melk/koe 8177 5825 9656 Melk/ha 13071 8049 21589 METHAAN (CH4) Melkvee 47,6 37,4 57,5 Jongvee >1 7,6 0,7 18,7 Jongvee <1 2,9 0,0 4,4 Mestopslag 8,0 7,1 8,8 Totaal CH4 66,1 57,5 73,0 X 21 LACHGAS (N2O) Pens 0,1 0,0 0,1 voer gekocht 3,9 2,5 10,7 beweiding 8,0 0,0 15,3 nitraat gras 1,2 0,7 3,4 mestopslag 0,0 0,0 0,0 mest org. 1,8 1,1 3,3 kunstmest 5,5 0,0 9,6 bodem 3,4 2,3 11,3 uitspoeling 9,0 5,4 10,8 vervluchtiging 1,0 0,8 1,1 energie 0,1 0,0 0,1 Totaal N2O 33,9 27,0 42,5 X 310 Totaal CO2 513748 273940 1098532 kg melk 0,72 0,56 0,99 hectare 9280 6117 12181
Mixed farming systems Organic fertilizer Composting Draft power Use of crop-residues Crop rotation Cover crops
Example 2 Bottom up: Smallholder dairy - Send a Cow Uganda - Integration of livestock, crops, forestry - 0-grazing system - Passing-on the Gift programme
Smallholder farming Send a Cow Uganda (2) Training includes: Leadership / managerial skills Gender and participation Business skills: savings and credit HIV / AIDS awareness; family planning Compost making from animal and vegetable waste Key Hole and Bag Gardens Urine made into natural pesticides Fodder tree planting Herbal medicines Soil erosion control - mulching, trenches Fuel efficient stoves 70% more efficient Biogas cooking and lighting
Results Smallholder farming Send a Cow Uganda Carbon costs of the programme Cow GHG emissions: Methane, Nitrous dioxide Composting process Air and road travel Total costs one cow over five years: 13.8 tonnes CO2 eq Carbon capture of the programme Fifteen tonnes of compost added to the soil 100 multipurpose trees planted Total capture one cow over five years: years 25.7 tonnes CO2 eq
Pastoral systems Agro-forestry systems Organic fertilizer Using crop residues Reduction of bush-encroachment Reduction of wildfires Calculations of CC effect?
ETC: supporting and facilitating learning networks towards more sustainable agriculture agro-bedrijfsleven industry dienstverleners extension farmers organisation sectororganisaties?? education farmers boeren onderzoekers researchers maatschappelijke local authorities organisaties?? policy makers beleidsmakers
Not an isolated experience! Gembloux agricultural univ. (Didier Stilmant) Ecological intensification Heifer International: Deep Green Revolution New EU proposal: Integrating mitigation and adaptation options for sustainable livestock production under climate change
Lessons learnt (1) 1) Livestock systems are very diverse 2) Potential of livestock as part of integrated agricultural systems (farm or regional level). 3) Learning process to find the optimum footprint in terms of carbon efficiency, biodiversity, and economic effects within the various production systems: Smart Footprint Farming. 4) Potential of increased efficiency of soil-plant-animal system: integrated intensification. 5) Working towards improved biodiversity and increased soil organic matter is possible within both intensive and extensive production systems
Lessons learnt (2) 6) More experience needed of ways farmers could be rewarded for their carbon-sink and biodiversity services, through carbon funding or green funding. 7) Combine farmers knowledge with scientific knowledge; joint innovation can increase local capacities to adapt to changing conditions, including climate change 8) Learning networks can support this process