Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T20:44:57.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2016

P. Llonch ,
M. J. Haskell ,
R. J. Dewhurst  and
S. P. Turner
P. Llonch*
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
M. J. Haskell
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
R. J. Dewhurst
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: pol.llonch@uab.cat
Get access

Abstract

Livestock production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so will play a significant role in the mitigation effort. Recent literature highlights different strategies to mitigate GHG emissions in the livestock sector. Animal welfare is a criterion of sustainability and any strategy designed to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock production should consider animal welfare amongst other sustainability metrics. We discuss and tabulate the likely relationships and trade-offs between the GHG mitigation potential of mitigation strategies and their welfare consequences, focusing on ruminant species and on cattle in particular. The major livestock GHG mitigation strategies were classified according to their mitigation approach as reducing total emissions (inhibiting methane production in the rumen), or reducing emissions intensity (Ei; reducing CH4 per output unit without directly targeting methanogenesis). Strategies classified as antimethanogenic included chemical inhibitors, electron acceptors (i.e. nitrates), ionophores (i.e. Monensin) and dietary lipids. Increasing diet digestibility, intensive housing, improving health and welfare, increasing reproductive efficiency and breeding for higher productivity were categorized as strategies that reduce Ei. Strategies that increase productivity are very promising ways to reduce the livestock carbon footprint, though in intensive systems this is likely to be achieved at the cost of welfare. Other strategies can effectively reduce GHG emissions whilst simultaneously improving animal welfare (e.g. feed supplementation or improving health). These win–win strategies should be strongly supported as they address both environmental and ethical sustainability. In order to identify the most cost-effective measures for improving environmental sustainability of livestock production, the consequences of current and future strategies for animal welfare must be scrutinized and contrasted against their effectiveness in mitigating climate change.

Keywords

animal welfareclimate changelivestockmitigationsustainability
Type
Review Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , February 2017 , pp. 274 - 284
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.

References

The list of references used older than 2011 is given in Supplementary Material S1.Google Scholar
Abecia, L, Toral, PG, Martín-García, AI, Martínez, G, Tomkins, NW, Molina-Alcaide, E, Newbold, CJ and Yaňez-Ruiz, DR 2012. Effect of bromochloromethane on methane emission, rumen fermentation pattern, milk yield, and fatty acid profile in lactating dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2027–2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appuhamy, RN, Strathe, AB, Jayasundara, S, Wagner-Riddle, C, Dijkstra, J, France, J and Kebreab, E 2013. Anti-methanogenic effects of monensin in dairy and beef cattle: a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 5161–5173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Janzen, HH, Little, SM, McAllister, TA and McGinn, SM 2011. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada; evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, MJ, Wall, E, Simm, G and Russell, G 2011. Effects of genetic line and feeding system on methane emissions from dairy systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellarby, J, Tirado, R, Leip, A, Weiss, F, Lesschen, JP and Smith, P 2013. Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Global Change Biology 19, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM, Galindo, FA and Murgueitio, E 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280, 1771.Google ScholarPubMed
Bruijnis, MRN, Meijboom, FLB and Stassen, EN 2013. Longevity as an animal welfare issue applied to the case of foot disorders in dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buddle, BM, Denis, M, Attwood, GT, Altermann, E, Janssen, PH, Ronimus, RS, Pinares-Patiño, CS, Muetzel, S and Neil Wedlock, D 2011. Strategies to reduce methane emissions from farmed ruminants grazing on pasture. The Veterinary Journal 188, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlton, GL, Rutter, SM, East, M and Sinclair, LA 2011. Preference of dairy cows: indoor cubicle housing with access to a total mixed ration vs. access to pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clonan, A, Wilson, P, Swift, JA, Leibovici, DG and Holdsworth, M 2015. Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutrition 18, 2446–2456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosson, P, Shalloo, L, O’Brien, D, Lanigan, GJ, Foley, PA, Boland, TM and Kenny, DA 2011. A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, IJM, Cederberg, C, Eady, S, Gollnow, S, Kristensen, T, Macleod, M, Meul, M, Nemecek, T, Phong, LT, Thoma, G, van der Werf, HMG, Williams, AG and Zonderland-Thomassen, MA 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal production: towards an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, Dijkstra, T, Van Schaik, G and De Boer, IJM 2011. Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3213–3228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production. a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Duncan, IJ, Edwards, SA, Grandin, T, Gregory, NG, Guyonnet, V, Hemsworth, PH, Huertas, SM, Huzzey, JM, Mellor, DJ, Mench, JA, Špinka, M and Whay, HR 2013. General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: the underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaddis, KP, Cole, JB, Clay, JS and Maltecca, C 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3190–3199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, PJ, Hristov, AN, Henderson, B, Makkar, H, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, AT, Yang, WZ, Tricarico, JM, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, S 2013. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, PJ, Vellinga, T, Opio, C and Steinfeld, H 2011. Productivity gains and emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Science 138, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, C and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 308–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haisan, J, Sun, Y, Guan, LL, Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, A, Duval, S, Barreda, DR and Oba, M 2014. The effects of feeding 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emissions and productivity of Holstein cows in mid lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3110–3119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, KE, Cole, NA and MacDonald, JC 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3174–3185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011. Human–livestock interactions. In The stockperson and the productivity and welfare of farmed animals (ed. PH Hemsworth and GJ Coleman), p 208. CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Firkins, JL, Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Makkar, HPS, Adesogan, AT, Yang, W, Lee, C, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B and Tricarico, JM 2013a. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045–5069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Giallongo, F, Frederick, TW, Harper, MT, Weeks, HL, Branco, AF, Moate, PJ, Deighton, MH, Williams, SRO, Kindermann, M and Duval, S 2015. An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 10663–10668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hristov, AN, Ott, T, Tricarico, J, Rotz, A, Waghorn, G, Adesogan, A, Dijkstra, J, Montes, FR, Oh, J, Kebreab, E, Oosting, SJ, Gerber, PJ, Henderson, B, Makkar, HP and Firkins, JL 2013b. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: III. A review of animal management mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5095–5113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulshof, RBA, Berndt, A, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, Van Zijderveld, SM, Newbold, JR and Perdok, HB 2012. Dietary nitrate supplementation reduces methane emission in beef cattle fed sugarcane-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2317–2323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapell, DNRG, Hill, WG, Neeteson, AM, McAdam, J, Koerhuis, ANM and Avendaño, S 2012. Twenty-five years of selection for improved leg health in purebred broiler lines and underlying genetic parameters. Poultry Science 91, 3032–3043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, T, Ronimus, RS, Dey, D, Tootill, C, Naylor, G, Evans, P, Molano, G, Smith, A, Tavendale, M, Pinares-Patino, CS and Clark, H 2011. Chloroform decreases rumen methanogenesis and methanogen populations without altering rumen function in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lay, DC, Fulton, RM, Hester, PY, Karcher, DM, Kjaer, JB, Mench, JA, Mullens, BA, Newberry, RC, Nicol, CJ, O’Sullivan, NP and Porter, RE 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90, 278–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C and Beauchemin, KA 2014. A review of feeding supplementary nitrate to ruminant animals: nitrate toxicity, methane emissions, and production performance. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 94, 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Fernandez, G, Arco, A, Abecia, L, Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G, Molina-Alcaide, E, Martin-Garcia, AI, Kindermann, M, Duval, S and Yanez-Ruiz, DR 2013. The addition of ethyl-3-nitrooxy propionate and 3-nitrooxypropanol in the diet of sheep sustainably reduces methane emissions and the effect persists over a month. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4, 368.Google Scholar
Mitsumori, M, Shinkai, T, Takenaka, A, Enishi, O, Higuchi, K, Kobayashi, Y, Nonaka, I, Asanuma, N, Denman, SE and McSweeney, CS 2012. Responses in digestion, rumen fermentation and microbial populations to inhibition of methane formation by a halogenated methane analogue. British Journal of Nutrition 108, 482–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moraes, LE, Strathe, AB, Fadel, JG, Casper, DP and Kebreab, E 2014. Prediction of enteric methane emissions from cattle. Global Change Biology 20, 2140–2148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, TTH, Doreau, M, Corson, MS, Eugène, M, Delaby, L, Chesneau, G, Gallard, Y and Van der Werf, HMG 2013. Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on environmental impacts at farm level. Journal of Environmental Management 120, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Mara, FP 2011. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization International des Epizooties (OIE) 2012. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Article 7.1.2, 21st edition (ed. World Organization for Animal Health, OIE), pp. 305. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Patra, AK 2012. Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 184, 1929–1952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Place, SE and Mitloehner, FM 2014. The nexus of environmental quality and livestock welfare. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 2, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Wales, WJ, De Haas, Y, Veerkamp, RF and Hayes, BJ 2014. Genomic selection for feed efficiency in dairy cattle. Animal 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, CK, Humphries, DJ, Kirton, P, Kindermann, M, Duval, S and Steinberg, W 2014. Effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emission, digestion, and energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3777–3789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, RR, Lunney, J and Dekkers, J 2012. Control of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) through genetic improvements in disease resistance and tolerance. Frontiers in Genetics 3, 260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, KMD, Baxter, EM, D’Eath, RB, Turner, SP, Arnott, G, Roehe, R, Ask, B, Sandøe, P, Moustsen, VA, Thorup, F, Edwards, SA, Berg, P and Lawrence, AB 2013. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors. Animal Welfare 22, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinderal, JJ and Milkowski, AL 2012. Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet. Nitric Oxide 26, 259–266.Google Scholar
Taylor, MA 2012. Emerging parasitic diseases of sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 189, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troy, SM, Duthie, CA, Hyslop, JJ, Roehe, R, Ross, DW, Wallace, RJ, Waterhouse, A and Rooke, JA 2015. Effectiveness of nitrate addition and increased oil content as methane mitigation strategies for beef cattle fed two contrasting basal diets. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1815–1823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tubiello, FN, Salvatore, M, Rossi, S, Ferrara, A, Fitton, N and Smith, P 2013. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 8, 015009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zijderveld, SM, Gerrits, WJJ, Dijkstra, J, Newbold, JR, Hulshof, RBA and Perdok, HB 2011. Persistency of methane mitigation by dietary nitrate supplementation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4028–4038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeer, HM, de Greef, KH and Houwers, HWJ 2014. Space allowance and pen size affect welfare indicators and performance of growing pigs under comfort class conditions. Livestock Science 159, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC and Hegarty, RS 2011. Lowering ruminant methane emissions through improved feed conversion efficiency. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, SW, Williams, EJ and Evans, ACO 2011. A review of the causes of poor fertility in high milk producing dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science 123, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, F and Leip, A 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 149, 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C, Rooke, JA, Cabeza, I and Wallace, RJ 2016. Nitrate and inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis: microbial ecology, obstacles, and opportunities for lowering methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zervas, G and Tsiplakou, E 2012. An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmospheric Environment 49, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Llonch supplementary material

Llonch supplementary material S1

Download Llonch supplementary material(File)
File 30.7 KB