DOCSLIB.ORG

Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH LIVESTOCK A GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS AND MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES NGE THROUGH LIVESTOCK A TE CH A CKLING CLIM Ta TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH LIVESTOCK A GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS AND mitigation OPPortunitieS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2013 Recommended citation Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Photo credits Cover and page 15: @SIE-Masterfile Page 1: @FAO/Giulio Napolitano Page 5: @FAO/Noah Seelam Page 23: @FAO/Giulio Napolitano, Vasily Maximov, Jim Holmes, Florita Botts, Tariq Tinazay Page 45: @iStockphoto.com/Kickers Page 59: @FAO/Ishara Kodikara Page 83: @International Telecommunication Union The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-107920-1 (print) E-ISBN 978-92-5-107921-8 (PDF) © FAO 2013 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected]. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. Table of Contents Foreword ix Acknowledgements xi Overview xii Abbreviations and acronyms xvi Glossary xviii 1. Introduction 1 2. Methods 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) 5 2.3 Modelling carbon sequestration potential in grasslands 11 3. The aggregate picture 15 3.1 Overall emissions 15 3.2 Emissions by species and commodities 15 3.3 Main sources of emissions 17 3.4 Emissions by regions 21 4. Emissions by species 23 4.1 Cattle 23 4.2 Buffalo 27 4.3 Small ruminants (sheep and goats) 31 4.4 Pig 35 4.5 Chicken 37 4.6 Cross-cutting observations 40 5. Scope for mitigation 45 5.1 Mitigation potential 45 5.2 Carbon sequestration 50 5.3 Potential by main geographical areas 53 iii 6. Mitigation in practice: case studies 59 6.1 Dairy cattle production in South Asia 61 6.2 Intensive pig production in East and Southeast Asia 62 6.3 Specialized beef production in South America 68 6.4 Small ruminant production in West Africa 72 6.5 Dairy production in OECD countries 76 6.6 Potential for productivity gains 79 7. Implications for policy-making 83 7.1 A brief description of mitigation policy approaches 83 7.2 Targeting of mitigation policies 85 7.3 Main mitigation strategies and their policy requirements 86 7.4 Existing policy frameworks for mitigation through livestock 91 7.5 Conclusions 99 APPENDIX Supplementary information on methods 103 References 109 iv LIST OF TABLES 1. Sources of GHG emissions considered in this assessment 7 2. Summary of ruminant production systems 8 3. Summary of pig production systems 8 4. Summary of chicken production systems 9 5. Global production, emissions and emission intensity for cattle milk and beef 24 6. Global production, emissions and emission intensity for buffalo milk and meat 27 7. Global production, emissions and emission intensity for small ruminants 32 8. Global production, emissions and emission intensity for pigs 35 9. Global production, emissions and emission intensity for chickens 38 10. Estimates of emission reduction potential based on the analysis of emission intensity gap 51 11. Mitigation estimates computed for mixed dairy cattle systems of South Asia 62 12. Mitigation estimates computed for intermediate and industrial pig production in East and Southeast Asia 68 13. Mitigation estimates computed for specialized beef production in South America 72 14. Mitigation estimates computed for the small ruminant sector in West Africa 73 15. Mitigation estimates computed for mixed dairy systems in OECD countries 80 16. Effect of maintaining animal numbers constant on the production and emission volumes estimated in four case studies 81 v LIST OF BOXES 1. Main emission pathways 20 2. A review of available techniques and practices to mitigate non-CO2 emissions 48 3. Estimating mitigation potential through analysis of the emission intensity gap 52 4. Main emission reduction strategies 84 5. Brazil’s NAMA and progress in its livestock sector 95 vi LIST OF FIGURES 1. Overview of the GLEAM modules and computation flows 6 2. Global estimates of emissions by species 16 3. Global emission intensities by commodity 16 4. Global emissions from livestock supply chains by category of emissions 17 5. GHG emissions from global livestock supply chains, by production activities and products 18 6. Global livestock production and GHG emissions from livestock, by commodity and regions 21 7. Global emissions from cattle milk and beef supply chains, by category of emissions 24 8. Regional variation in beef production and GHG emission intensities 25 9. Regional variation in cattle milk production and GHG emission intensities 26 10. Global flows of emissions in cattle supply chains 28 11. Global emissions from buffalo milk and meat supply chains, by category of emissions 30 12. Regional variation in buffalo milk production and GHG emission intensities 30 13. Regional variation in buffalo meat production and GHG emission intensities 31 14. Global emissions from small ruminant milk and meat supply chains, by category of emissions 32 15. Regional variation in small ruminant milk production and GHG emission intensities 33 16. Regional variation in small ruminant meat production and GHG emission intensities 34 17. Emissions per kg meat and milk protein from small ruminants, with and without allocation of emissions to non-edible outputs 34 18. Global emissions from pig supply chains, by category of emissions 35 19. Regional variation in pork production and GHG emission intensities 36 20. Global emissions from chicken meat and egg supply chains, by category of emissions 37 vii 21. Regional variation in chicken meat production and GHG emission intensities 38 22. Regional variation in chicken egg production and GHG emission intensities 39 23. Relationship between productivity and emission intensity of milk (country averages) 42 24. Global emission intensity from pig supply chains, by main production systems 43 25. Example of emission intensity gap – distribution of broiler production units in GLEAM according to their emission intensity in temperate zones of East and Southeast Asia 46 26. Example of emission intensity gap – distribution of dairy cattle production units in GLEAM according to their emission intensity in mixed systems in temperate zones of Western Europe 47 27A. Emission intensity per unit of edible protein 54 27B. Emission intensity per unit of land area 55 27C. Emission intensity per unit of human population 56 28. Interactions between trends in livestock production, GHG emissions and mitigation efforts 101 viii Foreword It is easy to draw a dramatic picture of today’s world. Climate change, the most serious environmental challenge humanity has to face, is threatening the well-being of the next generation. Globalization has led to rapid economic, social and technological changes that have left too many behind. Hunger is still a persistent problem, affecting over 900 million human beings worldwide. Faced with these issues, we sometimes feel over- whelmed by their magnitude and powerless. But we need not despair. Difficult problems can be tackled for the benefit of many if we apply the right policies that support the required innovation and investment. We have known for several years that livestock supply chains are an important con- tributor to climate change. This new report shows that the potential to significantly reduce emissions exists and is within reach. Options are available for all species, systems and regions. But we need political will and better policies. The report provides much-needed data that will allow us to move forward. It pre- sents an evidence-based picture of emissions with data broken down by species, agro- ecological zones, regions and production systems. The breadth of information provided by this report and the two complementary technical reports1 reflect the vast diversity of the livestock sector. A detailed understanding of the magnitude, sources and pathways of emissions is es- sential to inform policy dialogue and avoid oversimplifications. It will help us to make more informed choices about livestock policies in support of sustainable food produc- tion, economic growth and poverty alleviation. This report identifies ways of reducing emissions by assessing the mitigation potential of sets of technologies. Such analysis provides guidance for local and system-specific solutions, as sector actors seek to improve sustainability and viability, but also for more targeted pro-poor livestock development.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housed Livestock, Manure Storage, Manure Processing Draft Section for a Guidance Document
    Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing Draft section for a Guidance Document Prepared by Barbara Amon and Lars Stoumann Jensen (session chairs) For discussion at the workshop on integrated sustainable nitrogen management, Brussels 30 September – 1 October 2019 This draft chapter to a planned Guidance Document on integrated sustainable nitrogen management has been prepared for the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen under the UNECE Air Convention, with support from the European Commission. The process of drafting the Guidance Document started in connection to a workshop “Towards joined-up nitrogen guidance for air, water and climate co-benefits”, hosted in Brussels, 11-12 October 2016. The current chapter draft is based on the results from that workshop and on discussions and developments since then. It will be presented and discussed in Brussels on 30 September – 1 October at a second workshop jointly organised by the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen and the European Commission. The content of the draft paper reflects the views only of the authors and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information. 2 Housed livestock, manure storage, manure processing 1. Introduction and background 2. Why do we have emissions and how can they be influenced – the basics behind emission processes Nitrogen can take various forms (Fig. 1). Reactive nitrogen (Nr) includes all forms of nitrogen that are biologically, photochemically, and radiatively active. Compounds of nitrogen that are - - reactive include the following: nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrate (NO3 ), nitrite (NO2 ), ammonia + (NH3), and ammonium (NH4 ). Reactive forms of nitrogen are those capable of cascading through the environment and causing an impact through smog, acid rain, biodiversity loss, etc.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Lettuce and Leafy Greens
    1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMODITY SPECIFIC FOOD SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR THE 7 PRODUCTION AND HARVEST OF LETTUCE AND LEAFY GREENS 8 VERSION 11 - ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 38 39 Authors Note: This document reflects Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the 40 Production and Harvest of Leafy Greens for Arizona. It is based on the Commodity 41 Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Leafy Greens 42 accepted for use by the California Leafy Greens Handler Marketing Agreement and 43 contains minor, non-substantive modifications recommended by the Arizona Leafy 44 Greens Marketing Committee. Arizona law supersedes any requirements in this 45 document that may be in conflict. 46 Table of Contents 47 48 Glossary 3 49 Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 50 List of Appendices 10 51 Introduction 11 52 Scope 12 53 1. Purpose 15 54 2. Issue: General Requirements 15 55 3. Issue: Records 15 56 4. Issue: Personnel Qualifications and training 16 57 5. Issue: Environmental Assessments 18 58 6. Issue: Water 19 59 7. Issue: Water Usage to Prevent Product Dehydration 21 60 8. Issue: Soil Amendments 29 61 9. Issue: Nonsynthetic Crop Treatments 38 62 10. Issue: Harvest Equipment, Packing Materials, and Buildings 42 63 11. Issue: Harvest Personnel - Direct Contact with Soil and Contaminants 64 during Harvest 45 65 12. Issue: Field and Harvest Personnel - Transfer of Human Pathogens by 66 Workers 45 67 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Spectacular
    Voyager’s World | July 2018 | P1 Vol XV Issue X Pages 40 August 2018 Rs 60 SAFE &SPECTACULAR Voyager’s World @VoyagersWorld THE ONLY MULTI DESTINATION EVENT THE ONLY TRADE SHOW FOCUSSED ON OUTBOUND TRAVEL Southeast Asia 01st - 05th October 2018 Bangkok | Kuala Lumpur | Jakarta | Singapore (Optional) India Edition 1 8th - 15th January 2019 Delhi | Kolkata | Hyderabad | Ahmedabad | Mumbai Middle East 10th - 13th February 2019 Dubai | Kuwait | Qatar | Oman (Optional) India Edition 2 25th February 2019 - 1st March 2019 Mumbai | Bengaluru | Chandigarh | Delhi A B2B trade event connecting buyers & suppliers of outbound travel industry from across the globe, oering unparalleled networking & contracting oppertunities. • The Middle East Edition of OTR - 2018 witnessed a footfall of 550 eminent buyers across Dubai - Kuwait - Qatar - Oman. • Over 1800 buyers attended the India - Edition 1 of OTR in January, 2018 across Mumbai - Chennai - Bengaluru - Delhi. • India Edition 2 for 2018 held across Delhi - Ahmedabad - Mumbai witnessed an overwhelming presence of over 1200 buyers. • OTR is the only focused buyer event on invitation basis; & witnesses key decision makers amongst the travel trade For Participation Please Contact: Email: [email protected] | [email protected] Mob: +91 9945279001 | +91 9845238980 For Sponsorship Please Contact: Email: [email protected] Mob: +91 8748929534 www.outboundtravelroadshow.com THE ONLY MULTI DESTINATION EVENT THE ONLY TRADE SHOW FOCUSSED ON OUTBOUND TRAVEL Southeast Asia 01st - 05th October 2018 Bangkok | Kuala Lumpur | Jakarta | Singapore (Optional) India Edition 1 8th - 15th January 2019 Delhi | Kolkata | Hyderabad | Ahmedabad | Mumbai Middle East 10th - 13th February 2019 Dubai | Kuwait | Qatar | Oman (Optional) India Edition 2 25th February 2019 - 1st March 2019 Mumbai | Bengaluru | Chandigarh | Delhi A B2B trade event connecting buyers & suppliers of outbound travel industry from across the globe, oering unparalleled networking & contracting oppertunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Central African Republic Overview of Bilateral, Regional, Multilateral, and Global Programs Overview of U.S
    Meeting the Fast Start Commitment U.S. Climate Finance in Fiscal Year 2011 Central African Republic Overview of Bilateral, Regional, Multilateral, and Global Programs Overview of U.S. Fast Start Climate Financing in Fiscal Years 2010 & 2011 n December 2009, President Obama and contribution to fast start financing will also leaders from around the world came include funding from FY 2012. together in Copenhagen at the 15th Consistent with President Obama’s Global IConference of the Parties to the United Nations Development Policy, we are using the full range Framework Convention on Climate Change of mechanisms – bilateral, multilateral, and (UNFCCC) to chart a new course in the global private – to ensure that our climate finance is effort to tackle climate change. The resulting efficient, effective, and innovative; based on Copenhagen Accord reflected - for the first country-owned plans; and focused on achieving time in an international outcome - measurable, measurable results. We are focusing our bilateral reportable and verifiable mitigation targets and efforts on those countries and regions where actions by all major economies, and set out we have a comparative advantage and are new institutions and approaches for adaptation, coordinating closely with other donors. U.S. fast technology and finance. start finance is provided to developing countries The finance outcomes in Copenhagen included through a variety of channels, including: a collective commitment by developed countries Q Congressionally appropriated climate to provide resources to developing countries finance: grant-based assistance through approaching $30 billion in the period 2010- the Global Climate Change Initiative – a 2012. The elements that leaders endorsed in the whole-of-government effort to promote low Copenhagen Accord, including this “fast start” emission, climate resilient economic growth finance commitment, were carried forward in around the world – and additional grant- decisions of the 16th Conference of the Parties in based assistance that delivers significant Cancun in December 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement
    ADBI Working Paper Series AGGREGATE EMISSION INTENSITY TARGETS: APPLICATIONS TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT Jinhua Zhao No. 813 March 2018 Asian Development Bank Institute Jinhua Zhao is a professor and director at the Department of Economics, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, and the Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. Working papers are subject to formal revision and correction before they are finalized and considered published. The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. Suggested citation: J. Zhao. 2018. Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement. ADBI Working Paper 813. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: https://www.adb.org/publications/aggregate-emission-intensity-targets-applications-paris- agreement Please contact the authors for information about this paper. Email: [email protected] Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building, 8th Floor 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan Tel: +81-3-3593-5500 Fax: +81-3-3593-5571 URL: www.adbi.org E-mail: [email protected] © 2018 Asian Development Bank Institute Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement Jinhua Zhao1 February 18, 2018 1Department of Economics, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, and the Envi- ronmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management Factsheet
    INDIANA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Helping People Help the Land. FACT SHEET Manure Management Properly managed manure can improve soil health, crop yields and reduce the risk of runoff to surface waters. June, 2014 Photo Source: IDEM NRCS works directly with farmers to manage NRCS ASSISTANCE Natural Resources manure as a valuable nutrient source in an BACKGROUND environmentally conscious manner. Properly NRCS helps farmers and landowners identify • Manure is a valuable fertilizer Conservation Service managed manure can improve soil health, natural resources concerns on their farm. containing varying amounts of nitrogen, crop yields, and reduce the risk of runoff to NRCS provides technical assistance at no cost phosphorus, potassium, micronutrients surface waters. to create a conservation plan and identify and organic matter, depending on conservation practices to address resource the livestock species and the manure MANURE MANAGEMENT concerns. handling and storage, as well as application methods. STANDARDS Practices may include nutrient application (590 standard) to address identified water quality • Manure is a cost-efficient form of Through a scientific planning process and or other concerns, or manure storage (313 and fertilizer for crops, that if managed and standards, NRCS works with farmers to 359 standards) to address an identified water applied correctly, can supply plant- address resource concerns on their farms. All quality, odor or other resource concern. nutrient needs and can enhance soil NRCS standards require
    [Show full text]
  • Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020
    Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020 Table of contents Table of contents 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Context 3 About this report 4 Key issues in setting SBTs 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Understand the business case for science-based targets 12 3. Science-based target setting methods 18 3.1 Available methods and their applicability to different sectors 18 3.2 Recommendations on choosing an SBT method 25 3.3 Pros and cons of different types of targets 25 4. Set a science-based target: key considerations for all emissions scopes 29 4.1 Cross-cutting considerations 29 5. Set a science-based target: scope 1 and 2 sources 33 5.1 General considerations 33 6. Set a science-based target: scope 3 sources 36 6.1 Conduct a scope 3 Inventory 37 6.2 Identify which scope 3 categories should be included in the target boundary 40 6.3 Determine whether to set a single target or multiple targets 42 6.4 Identify an appropriate type of target 44 7. Building internal support for science-based targets 47 7.1 Get all levels of the company on board 47 7.2 Address challenges and push-back 49 8. Communicating and tracking progress 51 8.1 Publicly communicating SBTs and performance progress 51 8.2 Recalculating targets 56 Key terms 57 List of abbreviations 59 References 60 Acknowledgments 63 About the partner organizations in the Science Based Targets initiative 64 Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 -2- Executive summary Key findings ● Companies can play their part in combating climate change by setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with reduction pathways for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Sustainable Niche for Anaerobic Digestion in a Low Carbon Future
    Identifying the Sustainable Niche for Anaerobic Digestion in a Low Carbon Future David Styles1,2, Jalil Yesufu1, Prysor Williams1, Martin Bowman3 & Karen Luyckx3 Bangor University & Feedback Global Affiliations: 1School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales; 2University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 3Feedback Global, London. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Circularity & climate stabilisation ....................................................................................................... 3 Food waste .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Anaerobic digestion ............................................................................................................................ 4 Low carbon energy .............................................................................................................................. 5 Assessing environmental sustainability .............................................................................................. 5 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8 Goal and scope .................................................................................................................................... 8 Impact categories ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Methane Emissions from Landfills
    Methane Emissions from Landfills Haokai Zhao Advisors: Prof. Nickolas J. Themelis Prof. A.C. (Thanos) Bourtsalas Prof. Wade R. McGillis Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science Columbia University January, 2019 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. in Earth and Environmental Engineering Research co-sponsored by Methane Emissions from Landfills H. Zhao Executive Summary Methane, one of the main greenhouse gases (GHGs), has been assessed to have 28 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, methane is generated as a product of the anaerobic degradation of organic waste. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) estimated that, in 2016, landfill methane emissions in the U.S. were approximately 107.7 million tons carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2 e). And globally, it was estimated that methane emissions from landfilling of solid waste were 794.0 million tons of CO2 e in 2005. At both the U.S. and the global levels, landfilling was the third largest source of methane emissions, after enteric fermentation and natural gas & oil systems. A broad range of topics about methane emissions from landfill are covered in this report, including the gas-generating processes in landfill, the theories about modeling landfill gas generation and emission, the developed models and the current estimates of landfill emissions, as well as the calculation and analysis on several aspects: 1) theoretical maximum methane generation per ton of MSW and actual methane emission per ton of MSW; 2) climate zone statistics about landfill gas generation model parameter, landfill methane generation, emission and recovery; 3) the time series of global landfill methane emissions with regional analysis and per capita analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pig and Chicken Supply Chains – a Global Life Cycle Assessment
    Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains A global life cycle assessment Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains A global life cycle assessment A report prepared by: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Animal Production and Health Division Recommended Citation MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B. & Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specic companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views or policies of FAO. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107944-7 (PDF) © FAO 2013 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land
    Manure Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land Marc Ribaudo, Noel Gollehon, Marcel Aillery, Jonathan Kaplan, Robert Johansson, Jean Agapoff, Lee Christensen, Vince Breneman, and Mark Peters Chapter 1–Introduction Livestock and poultry manure can provide valuable sion affecting the potential for contamination of water organic material and nutrients for crop and pasture resources by manure nutrients (Mulla et al., 1999). growth. However, nutrients contained in animal manure can degrade water quality if they are over- Recent policies and programs for increasing the effi- applied to land and enter water resources through cient use of nutrients and protecting water quality from runoff or leaching. The nutrients of greatest water nutrient runoff all emphasize the importance of proper- quality concern are nitrogen and phosphorus. Animal ly handling animal manure. The Unified Strategy for waste is a source of both. Animal Feeding Operations, jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the A shift in the livestock and poultry industry over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999, past several decades toward fewer, larger operations states: “Land application is the most common, and has prompted public concern over the use and disposal usually most desirable method of utilizing manure of animal manure. Manure lagoon spills in North because of the value of the nutrients and organic mat- Carolina and pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks in North ter. Land application should be planned to ensure that Carolina and Maryland have raised public concerns the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied in a about the way manure is stored and handled.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Inventory South Africa
    GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY SOUTH 1990 TO AFRICA 2000 COMPILATION UNDER THE NATIONAL UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC) INVENTORY REPORT MAY 2009 Greenhouse gas inventory South Africa PREFACE This report is the result of work commissioned by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) to develop the 2000 national inventory of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for South Africa. Information on energy and industrial processes was prepared by the Energy Research Centre (ERC) of the University of Cape Town, while information on agriculture, land use changes, forestry and waste was provided by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). This report is published by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa. An electronic version of the report, along with the Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables, is available on the website of DEAT: http://www.saaqis.org.za/. Information from this report may be reproduced, provided the source is acknowledged. AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS General responsibility: Stanford Mwakasonda (ERC), Rina Taviv (CSIR), Peter Lukey (DEAT) Jongikhaya Witi (DEAT),argot Richardson (DEAT), Tsietsi Mahema (DEAT), Ajay Trikam (ERC). Individual chapters: Summary Stanford Mwakasonda Chapter 1 Stanford Mwakasonda, Stephen Davies (Section 1.5) Chapter 2 Stanford Mwakasonda Chapter 3. Stanford Mwakasonda, Thapelo Letete, Philip Lloyd (section 3.2.1) Chapter 4 Stanford Mwakasonda, Thapelo Letete, Mondli Guma Chapter 5 Rina Taviv, Heidi van Deventer, Bongani Majeke, Sally Archibald Chapter 6 Ndeke Musee Report reviews: Harald Winkler, Marna van der Merwe, Bob Scholes Report compilation: Stanford Mwakasonda, Ajay Trikam Language editor: Robert Berold Quality assurance: TBA i Greenhouse gas inventory South Africa SUMMARY SOUTH AFRICA’S GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES In August 1997 the Republic of South Africa joined the majority of countries in the international community in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    [Show full text]