Abstract
The relationship between livestock agriculture and climate is complex, with major differences between livestock types and production approaches; regional variation in climate, soils, alternative land use, and culture; and a good deal of uncertainty. As a result, solutions that do not take this variation into account are unlikely to have the promised effect. However, the fact that there is no one simple solution to the climate impacts of livestock has a strong silver lining, which is that everyone can take action to reduce their food and agriculture greenhouse gas emissions – their carbon hoofprint – including anyone who eats and anyone who farms. This chapter focuses on actions individual eaters and farmers can take, from vegans to meat lovers, and from concentrated animal feeding operation farmers to committed graziers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Rowntree et al. (2020).
- 3.
A quick web search reveals waste reduction tips from government agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/tips-reduce-food-waste and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/recycle/reducing-wasted-food-home, as well as from nonprofit environmental and health organizations and media outlets.
- 4.
Meat from dairy herds has lower emissions than meat from beef herds because the cows are producing milk at the same time that they are bearing calves, so their manure and enteric and feed emissions are divided between the milk and meat they produce.
- 5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2020). Although beef cattle numbers are higher than dairy cow populations, their manure has much lower methane emissions because it is stored in dry packs rather than in liquid form. Liquid manure storage facilities provide an ideal environment for methanogenic microbes.
- 6.
The proportion of livestock greenhouse gas emissions that are biogenic depends on the production practices of the farm. In most cases farms with stored manure rely on fossil fuels to produce their fertilizer and power the equipment to plant and harvest feed, and so their greenhouse gas emissions include both biogenic and non-biogenic carbon. Many grass-based farms use some fossil fuel, but typically less than industrial or mixed livestock systems.
- 7.
While very small-scale manure digesters can be built relatively cheaply and have been adopted in smallholdings (Montes et al., 2013), the cost of building and managing a system that can handle the manure from even 50 cows escalates rapidly (Vance Haugen 2012, personal communication).
- 8.
Two of the Wisconsin digesters are community digesters, each serving three farms near the CAFO threshold, so the total number of CAFOs served may be slightly higher than the number of digesters. Twenty-two of the digesters constructed in Wisconsin received U.S. Department of Agriculture grants, and many digesters also received tax credits and other grant funding. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c)
- 9.
Oehmichen and Thrän (2017). Europe is the only region in the world where methane emissions declined in a global survey of methane sources, and it seems likely that Germany’s commitment to manure digesters was a factor in that decline. The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017 (2020), https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/index.htm
- 10.
In addition to cost, another advantage of manure covering and methane flaring is that it poses less risk of actually increasing total manure methane emissions. In contrast, manure digesters are designed to favor methane production, so it is critical that they be well-managed to prevent methane leaks and to use the methane they generate. (Veltman et al., 2018)
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Sala et al. (2021).
- 15.
- 16.
Even with precision farming equipment, human error or equipment malfunction can result in too much fertilizer in some places and too little in others.
- 17.
Houser et al. (2019).
- 18.
Schulte et al. (2017).
- 19.
- 20.
The additional nitrogen is needed because the soil microorganisms that decompose the dead cover crop use nitrogen, and so reduce the amount of nitrogen available to the growing cash crop (Grint et al., 2020).
- 21.
Massy (2018).
- 22.
- 23.
Maize is the primary feed crop in the U.S. and is used increasingly in European livestock production. But almost all grains consumed by humans are used in great quantities for livestock feed, including wheat, barley, oats, millet, and soybeans as well as maize or corn. From 2015 to 2020 roughly 46% of maize, 35% of sorghum, 52% of barley, and 47% of oats, rye, millet, and mixed grains grown outside the U.S. were used as animal feed. During that same period 45% of corn, sorghum, barley, and oats grown in the U.S. were fed to livestock, and most of the rest was made into ethanol (biofuel) or exported (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2021a, b).
- 24.
For example, in Wisconsin grazing farmers mostly plant cool-season grasses and legumes from Europe. These fast-growing species usually crowd out native warm-season grasses when they are mixed together, but a mix of native warm-season grasses planted in a separate pasture can provide good forage later in the year and increase soil health. (Gene Schriefer, personal communication)
- 25.
- 26.
Toensmeier (2016), Gabriel (2018). Feeding tree and shrub foliage is a common traditional practice in many parts of the world but was discouraged in North America and much of Europe for most of the past century or more with the rise of professional forest management and the intensification of livestock production. In recent years, however, rising interest in regenerative agricultural systems, including agroforestry, has prompted both farmer and researcher interest in the topic.
- 27.
- 28.
Aguirre-Villegas et al. (2017).
- 29.
Adam Abel personal communication (2018).
- 30.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2021a, b), U.S. Department of Agriculture NASS (2021).
- 31.
Noble Research Institute (n.d.), NRCS (2021a, b). One great model that has emerged in Wisconsin and some other states is for groups of farmers to support each other in doing this work. Five or more farmers in the same watershed can apply for a little bit of state funding to help them try actions that reduce water pollution and build soil health. Fortunately, almost all of these actions also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though that was not the intent of the enabling legislation. This program has inspired farmers to try a range of sustainable practices, from reducing their use of tillage and planting cover crops to fine-tuning nitrogen applications (DATCP, n.d.).
- 32.
There are surely hundreds of environmentally and socially progressive farm groups just in the U.S., and apologies to the many not mentioned here (NSAC, n.d.).
Bibliography
Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Larson, R., & Reinemann, D. J. (2015). Effects of management and co-digestion on life cycle emissions and energy from anaerobic digestion: Modeling and analysis: Effects of management and co-digestion on life cycle emissions and energy from anaerobic digestion. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 5(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1506
Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Passos-Fonseca, T. H., Reinemann, D. J., & Larson, R. (2017). Grazing intensity affects the environmental impact of dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(8), 6804–6821. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12325
Baah-Acheamfour, M., Carlyle, C. N., Bork, E. W., & Chang, S. X. (2014). Trees increase soil carbon and its stability in three agroforestry systems in Central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 328, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.031
Baah-Acheamfour, M., Carlyle, C. N., Lim, S.-S., Bork, E. W., & Chang, S. X. (2016). Forest and grassland cover types reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 1115–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.106
Blanco, J., Sourdril, A., Deconchat, M., Ladet, S., & Andrieu, E. (2019). Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: A multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 188, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.005
Bossio, D. (2020, November 30). Solid ground: Earth’s soils reveal climate, biodiversity & food security solutions. Nature.Org. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/soils-revealed-climate-biodiversity-food-solutions/?src=s_two.exc.x.x.&sf133754315=1
Bossio, D. A., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Wood, S., Zomer, R. J., von Unger, M., Emmer, I. M., & Griscom, B. W. (2020). The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nature Sustainability, 3(5), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z
Broom, D. M., Galindo, F. A., & 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), –20132025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025
DATCP. (n.d.). Producer-led watershed Protection Grants impact report FY 2018–19. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Services/ProducerLedImpactReport.aspx
Gabriel, S. (2018). Silvopasture: A guide to managing grazing animals, forage crops, and trees in a temperate farm ecosystem. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Grint, K., Smith, D., Arneson, N., DeWerff, R., Conley, S., & Werle, R. (2020, April 24). 2020 considerations for cover crop termination. Wisconsin Weed Science. https://www.wiscweeds.info/post/2020-considerations-for-cover-crop-termination/
Hawken, P. (Ed.). (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
Houser, M., Gunderson, R., & Stuart, D. (2019). Farmers’ perceptions of climate change in context: Toward a political economy of relevance. Sociologia Ruralis, 59(4), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12268
Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Firkins, J. L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., Makkar, H. P. S., Adesogan, A. T., Yang, W., Lee, C., Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., & Tricarico, J. M. (2013). SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science, 91(11), 5045–5069. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6583
Kebreab, E., & Roque, B. (2021, March 17). Feeding cows a few ounces of seaweed daily could sharply reduce their contribution to climate change. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/feeding-cows-a-few-ounces-of-seaweed-daily-could-sharply-reduce-their-contribution-to-climate-change-157192
Kim, D., Stoddart, N., Rotz, C. A., Veltman, K., Chase, L., Cooper, J., Ingraham, P., Izaurralde, R. C., Jones, C. D., Gaillard, R., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Larson, R. A., Ruark, M., Salas, W., Jolliet, O., & Thoma, G. J. (2019). Analysis of beneficial management practices to mitigate environmental impacts in dairy production systems around the Great Lakes. Agricultural Systems, 176, 102660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102660
Massy, C. (2018). Call of the reed warbler: A new agriculture, a new earth. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mayerfeld, D., Rickenbach, M., & Rissman, A. (2016). Overcoming history: Attitudes of resource professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in Southwest Wisconsin. Agroforestry Systems, 90(5), 723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9954-7
Min, B. R., Solaiman, S., Waldrip, H. M., Parker, D., Todd, R. W., & Brauer, D. (2020). Dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from ruminants: A review of plant tannin mitigation options. Animal Nutrition, 6(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.05.002
Montes, F., Meinen, R., Dell, C., Rotz, A., Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Waghorn, G., Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H. P. S., & Dijkstra, J. (2013). SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options1. Journal of Animal Science, 91(11), 5070–5094. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6584
Montgomery, D. (2017). Growing a revolution. W.W. Norton & Co.
Noble Research Institute. (n.d.). What is regenerative agriculture? Noble Research Institute. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.noble.org/regenerative-agriculture/
NRCS. (2021a). NRCS conservation programs: Conservation stewardship program (CSP). US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_cstp.html
NRCS. (2021b). NRCS conservation programs: Environmental quality incentives program (EQIP). US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_eqip.html
NSAC. (n.d.). National sustainable agriculture coalition members. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://sustainableagriculture.net/about-us/members/
Oehmichen, K., & Thrän, D. (2017). Fostering renewable energy provision from manure in Germany – Where to implement GHG emission reduction incentives. Energy Policy, 110, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.014
Patel-Weynand, T., Bentrup, G., & Schoeneberger, M. M. (2018). Agroforestry: Enhancing resiliency in U.S. In Agricultural landscapes under changing conditions: Executive summary (WO-GTR-96a). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-96a
Roque, B. M., Venegas, M., Kinley, R. D., de Nys, R., Duarte, T. L., Yang, X., & Kebreab, E. (2021). Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLoS One, 16(3), e0247820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247820
Rowntree, J. E., Stanley, P. L., Maciel, I. C. F., Thorbecke, M., Rosenzweig, S. T., Hancock, D. W., Guzman, A., & Raven, M. R. (2020). Ecosystem impacts and productive capacity of a multi-species pastured livestock system. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 13. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full
Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R. B., Atwood, T. B., Auber, A., Cheung, W., Costello, C., Ferretti, F., Friedlander, A. M., Gaines, S. D., Garilao, C., Goodell, W., Halpern, B. S., Hinson, A., Kaschner, K., Kesner-Reyes, K., Leprieur, F., McGowan, J., … Lubchenco, J. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z
Schulte, L. A., Niemi, J., Helmers, M., Liebman, M., Arbuckle, J. G., James, D. E., Kolkag, R. K., O’Nealh, M. E., Tomerf, M. D., Tyndalla, J. C., Asbjornseni, H., Drobneyj, P., Nealk, J., Van Ryswykl, G., & Wittec, C. (2017). Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(50), E10851. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719680114
Toensmeier, E. (2016). The carbon farming solution: A global toolkit of perennial crops and regenerative agriculture practices for climate change mitigation and food security. Chelsea Green Publishing.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2021a). Feed grains yearbook tables. Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains-yearbook-tables/
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2021b). U.S. Bioenergy Statistics. U.S. Bioenergy Statistics. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/u-s-bioenergy-statistics/
U.S. Department of Agriculture NASS. (2021). Livestock slaughter 2020 summary (ISSN: 0499-0544; p. 68). National Agricultural Statistics Service.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Dane County community digester – Waunakee, WI. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/dane_county_agstar_site_profile_final_508_093015.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-a). Clean water act Section 404 and agriculture. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved September 3, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-404-and-agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-b). Livestock anaerobic digester database. Retrieved September 3, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/agstar/livestock-anaerobic-digester-database
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-c). Nonpoint source: Agriculture. Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution. Retrieved September 3, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-agriculture
Veltman, K., Rotz, C. A., Chase, L., Cooper, J., Ingraham, P., Izaurralde, R. C., Jones, C. D., Gaillard, R., Larson, R. A., Ruark, M., Salas, W., Thoma, G., & Jolliet, O. (2018). A quantitative assessment of beneficial management practices to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints and phosphorus losses on dairy farms in the US Great Lakes region. Agricultural Systems, 166, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.07.005
Wattiaux, M. A., Uddin, M. E., Letelier, P., Jackson, R. D., & Larson, R. A. (2019). Invited review: Emission and mitigation of greenhouse gases from dairy farms: The cow, the manure, and the field. Applied Animal Science, 35(2), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2018-01803
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mayerfeld, D. (2023). Lightening Our Carbon Hoofprint. In: Mayerfeld, D. (eds) Our Carbon Hoofprint. Food and Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09023-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09023-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-09022-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-09023-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)