RESUMO

Ways are being sought to reduce the environmental impact of ruminant livestock farming. Integration of trees into farming systems has been advocated as a measure to deliver ecosystem services, inter alia climate regulation and adaptation, water quality regulation, provisioning of fibre, fuel and habitats to support biodiversity. Despite the rapid expansion of cattle farming in the tropics, notably in Latin America, there is little robust evidence on the extent to which trees are able to mitigate the effects of cattle farming in this ecological zone. This article describes a case study conducted on a large, specialised dairy farm in Costa Rica, where two-thirds of the field boundaries are live tree fences. For the first time, this study quantifies the offset potential of trees by estimating rate of carbon sequestration in a silvopastoral system (SPS) in the tropics. It was found that over a 30-month interval, trees sequestered 1.43 Mg C ha-1 year-1 above and below ground. Attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) (cradle to farm gate) was applied to calculate the carbon footprint of milk produced on the farm for the years 2016 to 2018. Trees in live fences offset 21-37% of milk footprints, resulting in residual net footprints of 0.75±0.25 to 0.84±0.26 kg CO2 eq. kg-1 milk. Exclusion of life cycle emissions that may not fall within national emission inventory accounting (e.g. fertiliser manufacture and feed production) increased the mean offset from 27 to 34% of gross milk footprint. Although based on temporally limited data (30 months), our findings indicate that a live fence SPS could play an important role in short- to medium-term climate mitigation from livestock production, buying time for deployment of long-term mitigation and adaptation planning. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-022-00834-z.

RESUMO

Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas (GHG) modelled distinctly from long-lived GHGs such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to establish global emission budgets for climate stabilisation. The Paris Agreement requires a 24-47% reduction in global biogenic methane emissions by 2050. Separate treatment of methane in national climate policies will necessitate consideration of how global emission budgets compatible with climate stabilisation can be downscaled to national targets, but implications of different downscaling rules for national food production and climate neutrality objectives are poorly understood. This study addresses that knowledge gap by examining four methods to determine national methane quotas, and two methods of GHG aggregation (GWP100 and GWP*) across four countries with contrasting agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sectors and socio-economic contexts (Brazil, France, India and Ireland). Implications for production of methane-intensive food (milk, meat, eggs and rice) in 2050 and national AFOLU climate neutrality targets are explored. It is assumed that methane quotas are always filled by food production where sufficient land is available. Global methane budgets for 1.5 °C scenarios are downscaled to national quotas based on: grand-parenting (equal percentage reductions across countries); equity (equal per capita emissions); ability (emission reductions proportionate to GDP); animal protein security (emissions proportionate to animal protein production in 2010). The choice of allocation method changes national methane quotas by a factor of between 1.7 (India) and 6.7 (Ireland). Despite projected reductions in emission-intensities, livestock production would need to decrease across all countries except India to comply with quotas under all but the most optimistic sustainable intensification scenarios. The extent of potential afforestation on land spared from livestock production is decisive in achieving climate neutrality. Brazil and Ireland could maintain some degree of milk and beef export whilst achieving territorial climate neutrality, but scenarios that comply with climate neutrality in India produce only circa 30% of national calorie and protein requirements via rice and livestock. The downscaling of global methane budgets into national policy targets in an equitable and internationally acceptable manner will require simultaneous consideration of the interconnected priorities of food security and (land banks available for) carbon offsetting.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Milk and beef production cause 9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have shown that dairy intensification reduces the carbon footprint of milk by increasing animal productivity and feed conversion efficiency. None of these studies simultaneously evaluated indirect GHG effects incurred via teleconnections with expansion of feed crop production and replacement suckler-beef production. We applied consequential LCA to incorporate these effects into GHG mitigation calculations for intensification scenarios among grazing-based dairy farms in an industrialized country (UK), in which milk production shifts from average to intensive farm typologies, involving higher milk yields per cow and more maize and concentrate feed in cattle diets. Attributional LCA indicated a reduction of up to 0.10 kg CO2 e kg-1 milk following intensification, reflecting improved feed conversion efficiency. However, consequential LCA indicated that land use change associated with increased demand for maize and concentrate feed, plus additional suckler-beef production to replace reduced dairy-beef output, significantly increased GHG emissions following intensification. International displacement of replacement suckler-beef production to the "global beef frontier" in Brazil resulted in small GHG savings for the UK GHG inventory, but contributed to a net increase in international GHG emissions equivalent to 0.63 kg CO2 e kg-1 milk. Use of spared dairy grassland for intensive beef production can lead to net GHG mitigation by replacing extensive beef production, enabling afforestation on larger areas of lower quality grassland, or by avoiding expansion of international (Brazilian) beef production. We recommend that LCA boundaries are expanded when evaluating livestock intensification pathways, to avoid potentially misleading conclusions being drawn from "snapshot" carbon footprints. We conclude that dairy intensification in industrialized countries can lead to significant international carbon leakage, and only achieves GHG mitigation when spared dairy grassland is used to intensify beef production, freeing up larger areas for afforestation.

Assuntos