Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock

This article discusses the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and their impact on the environment. It explores the role of livestock in the Australian economy and the effects of climate change on the livestock industry. The article also suggests strategies to reduce emissions and promote sustainable livestock production.

Surname1
Student’s name:
Professor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental (IPCC) group of
the United Nations which is aimed at offering the universe with aim, scientific opinion of climate
variation, political and economic effects and perils, and probable resources choices (Caro 203).
The panel reports on direct emissions by sectors through monitoring human activities responsible
for causing a climatic change. According to its research, livestock emissions account for 2.3
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 5% of the total (Caro 203). They comprise of nitrous
oxide, methane and carbon dioxide from multiple sources. It used a worldwide life cycle tactic to
estimate all the direct and indirect discharge from livestock. In addition to rumen digestion and
manure, the commission added that the life cycle discharge also comprise those from generating
feeds and from those producing and transferring the eggs, meat and milks. This flawed
negative publication and comparison may affect the growth strategies and venture and afterwards
upsurge in their food insecurity (Browne 50).
Livestock industries have played a very crucial role in the development of the Australian
economy. Livestock production is an important component of the agricultural economy starting
from production to include a variety of uses such as skins, fibre, fertilizers, fuel and to add on
that capital accumulation. According to Peter J. Batt article Australia’s five strong pillar

Surname 2
economy agriculture, Agriculture remains a major employer in Australia (Bell 7919). It is the
biggest employer in rural and regional communities as it has provided employment to more than
1.6 million Australians. According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics and Science (ABARES), 135,000 agriculturalists in Australia today generate
sufficient food to give over 80 million individuals (Gollnow). They also offer 93 of the local
food provision, and still manage to back an export market with value more than 41 billion per
year which is over 13% of the export return. ABARES statistics demonstrates that key
communities are oil seed and grains, industrial vegetation’s, horticulture and dairy (Engelbrecht,
Wahidul and Waqar 80).
However, livestock production has a huge effect on the surrounding. The effects of
climate variation have one of the broadest ranging sets of effects to the red meat sector, with
numerous concerns and their prospective results affecting each associate of the value chain.
Varying weather sequence and more commonly extreme weather occurrences are also having
key impacts on the red meat generation level in Australia. Climate variation poses both an
immediate and long term peril to the Australia red meat sector, which the prospect for its effects
on the sector to continue to develop. Livestock creation backs to land and water degradation,
acid rain, biodiversity loss, deforestation and coral reef degeneration. It also backs 18% of
human generated greenhouse gas discharge universally (Dhillon and George 79). Meat
production is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions and other particulate
pollution in the atmosphere. This is effects of air pollution on human respiratory health.
Livestock production is likely to be affected diversely by climate change, competition for land
and water, and food security at a time when it is most needed. Global climate change is primarily
caused by greenhouse gas emissions that result in warming of the atmosphere (Hendrie 289).

Surname 3
Climate variation alone pose many perils to health through increased danger of extreme
climate actions such as heat waves, floods and droughts and have been explained as huge threats
to the human health. It is alleged that if one deliberate on minimising use of animal feed, one can
assist realise global greenhouse gas house gas discharge target which are crucial to avert the
adverse impact of climate variation. Meat manufacture is also hugely inefficient, for instances to
produce 1 Kilo of beef requires 25Kilograms of grain to feed the animal and approximately
15,000 litres of water. Also about 30%of earth’s surface land is presently utilised for livestock
agri-business (Bell 7918). This denotes ineffective application of resources as food; land and
water limited possessions in several parts of the realm. Additionally, enteric methane discharge
illustrates a 30% of universal metal discharge (O’Brien 1469). As the methane gas is a short
lived weather effluence, minimising discharges of enteric methane can assist avert climate
variation.
As the sector encounters a changing surrounding, producers and agriculturalist will be
probably be need to embrace their business framework and actions to fit the variations. Where
this change cannot be effectively be executed, a peril is present that these producers will be
coerced to minimise the supply or else subjected to compulsory exist from the sector. In
tackling the above risks, the sector ought to realise the varying climate that Australia is
encountering, and upsurge awareness on what way to actively react. From this strategies and
mitigates can be executed to better make sure a sustainable forthcoming for the business. With
regard to the article by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, low
carbon generation is prospective but process ought to be more decisive, as the sector of
livestock is developing tremendously (Engelbrecht, Wahidul and Waqar 82). Inspired by the
human populace development, urbanisation, high wages, quest for milk, meat and eggs in both

Surname 4
middle and low income nations is increasing. The Food and Agriculture Organization suggests
three means to considerably minimise the livestock production: better livestock integration in the
circular bio economy, productivity advancement that minimise discharges levels and carbon
sequestration by augmented pasture control (Engelbrecht, Wahidul and Waqar 82).
Productivity improvements that reduce emissions intensities is done by helping farmers
to increase the productivity of livestock in a mean to improve rural livelihoods and food security
hence improved living standards (Engelbrecht, Wahidul and Waqar 83). It also supports better
resilience to climate change. Improving feed quality can be achieved through improved grassland
management, improved pasture species, forage mix, feed processing and strategic use of
supplements preferably locally available ones. Also improving reproductive efficiency and
extending the productive life of the animal will improve lifetime performance per animal and
reduce greenhouse gas emission intensities (Dhillon and George 79).
Carbon sequestration by advanced pasture control comprises adjusting the grazing
stress by equilibrating temporal and spatial existence of livestock, nutrients regulation and
introduction of species which encompasses plants and legumes inoculation, augmented mobility
of animals in agro and pastoral schemes, and pastures and trees integration (Dhillon and George
81).
As the linear economy applies external inputs to generated wastes and yield, a circular
economy reduces the energy discharges and substances from the scheme by reprocessing them I
production. This can be realised by raising the share of waster or by products that human beings
cannot digest in the livestock feed proportion or by reprocessing energy and nutrient from
animals wastes such as use of biogas. Advanced natural resource usage also assists the

Surname 5
agriculturalists to be more resilient to the climate variation. Regulatory models are also required
to advance integration, in specific connected to public health (Engelbrecht, Wahidul and Waqar
80). They require to reflect the technical and sanitary needs other restricting elements
comprise a disregard of externalities, present subsidies o inputs, adaptation of technical
solutions to place specific blockages and inaccessibility to knowhow (Caro 204).
The routine of unlocking the probable low carbon livestock needs concerted process by all
the associates to venture in the industry, back and undertake the needed study, address the
organisation failures, offer reimbursement for regenerative and active control and speed the
uptake of improved actions. Solutions are there that must be designed to local states and take
into consideration the numerous diversity of livestock scheme and the individuals who are
affected in big ways.
Apparently, I think Australia has a duty to restrict or control the meal and dairy products use. A
reduction in use of dairy and meats produces is important to avert negative ecology effects.
Minimising meat use will build tangible gains almost instantly through minimising gas discharge
and reduced pressure on the water and land use. This course would crash critical ecological
blockages beyond which human will fight to exist (Herrero 452). The universe required both
users that are well informed of their food selection and firms and manufacturers are well engaged
in low carbon progression. In that routine livestock can make a huge part of climate variation
mitigation, sustainable development and food security.

Surname 6
Works cited
Bell, M. J., et al. "The effect of changing cow production and fitness traits on net income and
greenhouse gas emissions from Australian dairy systems." Journal of Dairy
Science 96.12 (2013): 7918-7931. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019 from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203021300698X
Browne, Natalie A., et al. "Does producing more products over a lifetime reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase profitability in dairy and wool enterprises?" Animal Production
Science 55.1 (2015): 49-55. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019 from:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/an13188
Caro, Dario, et al. "Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from
livestock." Climatic change 126.1-2 (2014): 203-216. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019 from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1197-x
Dhillon, R. S., and George von Wuehlisch. "Mitigation of global warming through renewable
biomass." Biomass and bioenergy 48 (2013): 75-89. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019 from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953412004734
Engelbrecht, Deborah, Wahidul K. Biswas, and Waqar Ahmad. "An evaluation of integrated
spatial technology framework for greenhouse gas mitigation in grain production in
Western Australia." Journal of cleaner production 57 (2013): 69-78. Retrieved on 20
March, 2019 from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613003910

Surname 7
Gollnow, Sebastian, et al. "Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in
Australia." International Dairy Journal 37.1 (2014): 31-38. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958694614000533
Hendrie, Gilly, et al. "Greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian diet—comparing dietary
recommendations with average intakes." Nutrients 6.1 (2014): 289-303. Retrieved on 20
March, 2019 from: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/1/289
Herrero, Mario, et al. "Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector." Nature
Climate Change 6.5 (2016): 452. Retrieved on 20 March, 2019 from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2925
O’Brien, Donal, et al. "An appraisal of carbon footprint of milk from commercial grass-based
dairy farms in Ireland according to a certified life cycle assessment methodology." The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19.8 (2014): 1469-1481. Retrieved on 20
March, 2019 from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0755-9