Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy

Farms Santiago García-Yuste pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-and-environmentally-friendly-dairy-farms-santiago-
garcia-yuste/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (46 reviews) ✓ 146 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy Farms
Santiago García-Yuste pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Sheepgrass Leymus chinensis An Environmentally Friendly

Native Grass for Animals Gongshe Liu

Wind Farms Marian Dunn

ADA Programming Everything you need to know about ADA

Programming language 2nd Edition Claudia Alves

Sustainable Home Practical Projects Tips And Advice for

Maintaining A More Eco Friendly Household Christine Liu
The Santiago Trilogy (The Santiago Trilogy #1-3) 1st
Edition Catherine Wiltcher

Reliable Software Technologies Ada Europe 2018 António

Casimiro

Offshore wind farms technologies design and operation 1st

Edition Ng

Environmentally Oriented Modernization of Power Boilers

1st Edition Marek Pronobis

Operations in an Omnichannel World Santiago Gallino

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN
APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Santiago García-Yuste

Sustainable and
Environmentally
Friendly Dairy
Farms
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical publications can be:
• A timely report of state-of-the art methods
• An introduction to or a manual for the application of mathematical or computer
techniques
• A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles
• A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
• An in-depth case study
• A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,
standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting
guidelines, and expedited production schedules.
On the one hand, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology are
devoted to the publication of fundamentals and applications within the different
classical engineering disciplines as well as in interdisciplinary fields that recently
emerged between these areas. On the other hand, as the boundary separating
fundamental research and applied technology is more and more dissolving, this
series is particularly open to trans-disciplinary topics between fundamental science
and engineering.
Indexed by EI-Compendex, SCOPUS and Springerlink.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8884

Santiago García-Yuste

Sustainable
and Environmentally
Friendly Dairy Farms

123
Santiago García-Yuste
Faculty of Chemical Sciences
and Technology
University of Castilla-La Mancha
Ciudad Real, Spain

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISBN 978-3-030-46059-4 ISBN 978-3-030-46060-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Introduction

Rapid climate change is driving global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking
ice sheets, retreating glaciers, decreasing snow cover, rising sea levels, declining artic
sea ice, acidification of oceans and extreme weather events. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change stated that “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate
system is unequivocal”.
The current warming trend is threatening us, and we must find the tools to
combat it as soon as possible. We do have to be concerned about the emission of
any GHGs on the Earth. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that traps most heat, and its
emissions have increased since the industrial revolutions. CO2 is released through
burning fossil fuel, deforestation, volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic activities.
Every day, international institutions such as the UN, FAO, NASA, USEPA, USDA
or IEA warn us about the need to transform anthropogenic actions to more sus-
tainable processes, whatever the activity.
Data reveal that more than half of all CO2 emissions originate from small and
dispersed sources, such as agricultural operations or the transportation sector.
Husbandry processes are the dispersed source of greatest concern to the interna-
tional community. In fact, an estimate of c. 6,500.0 kg of CO2 per dairy cow per
year is reported. Any novel carbon capture strategy to mitigate CO2 emissions from
relatively minor sources should be warmly welcomed.
The authors of the book consider that the best way to make people aware of the
hazardousness of emissions from husbandry requires an understanding of the
structure of the CO2 molecule, the different strategies proposed to remove it and
everyday husbandry activities. This book is intended to change the way people
think about emissions from relatively dispersed and minor sources.
The book is divided into five interrelated chapters. In Chap. 1, the authors
describe the current situation of the global dairy livestock industry, according to the
Paris Agreement, and analyse the potential of the current environmental solutions
and bioeconomic alternatives. Chapter 2 is discussing physiology and how the
cow’s metabolism produces CO2. In Chap. 3, the authors describe the production
systems of dairy farms and the management and treatment processes of the waste
they generate, highlighting the most commonly used means of mitigating

v
vi Introduction

environmental impact. The aim of Chap. 4 is to update the readership on the

different strategies that have been developed, are in development or are merely
proposed for dealing with the reduction of CO2 from the atmospheric pool. Finally,
Chap. 5 describes the ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’, as an innovative carbon dioxide use
proposal for the dairy industry. The predictable CO2 and NH3 emissions from the
dairy cow in a barn, can be converted into ammonium bicarbonate, one of the most
widely used fertilizers in the world. The implementation of the ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’
will transform a conventional dairy farm into a ‘sustainable and environmentally
friendly farm’.

Dr. Santiago García-Yuste

Contents

1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock Systems . ........ 1

Jorge Zafrilla, Ángela García-Alaminos, and Fabio Monsalve
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 1
1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development
Goals and Climate Change Framework . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 3
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Carbon Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 The Ruminant: Life History and Digestive Physiology
of a Symbiotic Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19
Francisco Javier Pérez-Barbería
2.1 Taxonomy, Evolution and Feeding Styles
of the Ruminant Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Domestication of the Ruminant Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Why the Ruminant Is Different: Adaptations to Diet . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.1 Mouth, Teeth, Body Size and Salivary Glands . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.2 The Ruminant Stomach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.3 Small Intestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.4 Caecum and Large Intestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 Cattle: A Large Contributor to Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4.1 Cattle Taxonomy, Habitat and Diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.5 Ruminant: The Efficient Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6 Use of Structural and Non-structural Plant Cell Components . . . . 33
2.7 Carbohydrate Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.8 Protein Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

vii
viii Contents

2.9 Lipid Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 Husbandry: Milk Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 47
Abdessamad Gueddari and Jesús Canales Vázquez
3.1 Introduction to the Dairy Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1.1 Extensive Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1.2 Intensive Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.1.3 Mixed Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.1 Tied-Stall Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2 Parlour Milking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.3 Automated Milking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3 Farm Construction Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.1 Enclosures and Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.2 Flooring Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4 Environmental Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.1 Heat Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.2 Ventilation and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.3 Heating and Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.5 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.5.1 Manure Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.2 Anaerobic Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.5.3 Future Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4 Quick Fire Set of Questions About CO2 that Need
to Be Answered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
Carlos Alonso-Moreno and Santiago García-Yuste
4.1 Is the Molecule of CO2 Dangerous? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
4.2 So, Should I Be Worried About the CO2 Concentration
in the Atmosphere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 81
4.3 What Is the Carbon Cycle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 82
4.4 Can We Do Something to Balance the Global Carbon
Budget Again? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 84
4.5 Are There Any Technologies Able to Capture the CO2
Directly from the Air? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.6 What About Making Useful Products from CO2? . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7 Should We Forget About CDU Strategies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8 What Are the Most Important CDU Strategies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9 Can We Use the CO2 After Storage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Contents ix

4.10 Can You Explain a Little Bit More About the CO2-NH3
System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 88
4.11 Are There Any CDU Strategies Proposed for Minor
Sources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 89
4.12 What Is the Meaning of NETs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 91
4.13 How Can We Analyse the Sustainability of the Different
Strategies Proposed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 94
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 96
5 The ‘CO2-RFP Strategy’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Carlos Alonso-Moreno and Santiago García-Yuste
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
5.2 CO2 and NH3 Estimated Emissions from Intensive Husbandry
Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2.1 Regarding CO2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2.2 Regarding NH3 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3 The CO2-RFP Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3.1 The CO2-RFP Strategy as a Business Model . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.2 The CO2-RFP Strategy Regarding Negative
Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.3 The CO2-RFP Strategy with Regard
to Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Chapter 1
The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy
Livestock Systems

Jorge Zafrilla, Ángela García-Alaminos, and Fabio Monsalve

Abstract In this chapter, the authors describe the current situation of the global
dairy livestock industry under the influence and challenge of the commitments of
the so-called Paris Agreement. Firstly, the key points of the Agreement affecting the
livestock and dairy systems are discussed within the framework of the Sustainable
Development Goals. Next, a detailed analysis of the evolution of the activity and the
greenhouse gas emissions of the industry is presented. Finally, a summary of current
environmental solutions and bioeconomy alternatives will contribute to enriching the
discussion.

1.1 Introduction

Recent estimates from the United Nations (UN) expect an increase from 7.6 billion
people today to 9.8 billion people by 2050 (UN 2019). Together with the population
increase, food demand is expected to more than double by 2050 because of increases
in living standards (Rojas-Downing et al. 2017). Agricultural systems are called on
to produce the extra food required to secure the food supply of millions of people.
Considering that one of the bases of the current global diet is consumption of animal
products, especially liquid or processed milk products, which are consumed by more
than 6 billion people, the challenge for the dairy sector is very clear (FAO and GDP
2018).
However, the current state of climate crisis jeopardises the ability of agricultural
systems to provide this additional new and secure supply of food within the standards
set by Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015b). The role played by the agricul-
tural sector in the coming decades will be crucial, as at the same time they will have
to deal with goals related to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Agricul-
tural systems find themselves in a situation where, on the one hand, it is one of the
industries at the greatest risk of facing extreme climate events that may endanger the
basic livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people; and, on the other hand, agricul-
tural activities are considered to be one of the main drivers of global greenhouse gas

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

S. García-Yuste, Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy Farms,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0_1
2 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

emissions (GHG). Although there is no international agency reporting official fig-

ures about the GHG of agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), in the way
that there do exist precise figures provided by, for example, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) for fossil fuel combustion-related emissions (Tubiello et al. 2013),
some studies set global agricultural emissions at 10–12% according to Reisinger and
Clark (2018) or 15% according to Persson et al. (2015), with 80% of total emissions
due to ruminants. To these emissions should be added emissions from deforestation,
energy use and animal-feed production, so that the total percentage of emissions
from agricultural activity seems to be key given the current situation.
A deeper depiction of the emissions of agricultural systems is needed, as this
represents the highest non-CO2 emissions source. Agriculture accounts for more
than 40% of global methane (CH4 ) emissions, and 60% of nitrous oxide (N2 O).
These emissions come from the increasing use of synthetic fertilizers, manure use
and enteric fermentation. However, agricultural production increased by 70% over
the period 1990–2015, which indicates a significant improvement in GHG efficiency
(Frank et al. 2019). Also, the increase in agricultural emissions is taking place at
a slower rate than fossil fuel emissions, which results in a reduction of the share
of agriculture’s contribution to GHG global emissions (Tubiello et al. 2013). It is
important to highlight that notable differences arise when the source of emissions,
or the region where they are generated, is analysed. Emissions derived from the use
of fertilizers have grown more than from the use of manure. By regions, emissions
in developing countries have grown more than in developed regions, and they have
even fallen in wealthy regions, as is the case of Europe (Tubiello et al. 2013).
Most of the emissions from agriculture come from livestock, mainly ruminants,
and action in this sub-sector is thus key to achieving climate objectives (Reisinger
and Clark 2018). In the same way as the whole agriculture sector, GHG livestock
inventories have significant measurement problems. In most cases, emissions esti-
mates use global warming potentials (GWPs), which may lead us to underestimate
the effects on climate of other non-CO2 gases such as CH4 from enteric fermentation
and manure management, and N2 O from manure management and nitrogen deposi-
tion (Reisinger and Clark 2018). The case of CH4 is clear; it does not accumulate
and behaves in the same way as CO2 in the atmosphere. Its life cycle is shorter, but
the warming potential is much higher per molecule and kilogram. Other studies such
as Persson et al. (2015) also identify problems with the use of these GWP measures,
as they can return poor estimates.
The Paris Agreement (UN 2015a), the most ambitious global agreement on the
fight against climate change, sets clear targets for GHG emissions to achieve the goal
of at most a 2 °C rise by 2100. Among other goals, it aims at net-zero CO2 emissions
derived from anthropogenic action, mainly through the decarbonisation of energy,
which seems a relatively plausible medium-term goal (Peters et al. 2017). This may
cause the share of other non-CO2 gases in the GHG total to increase decisively
towards the 2100 scenarios. Action to reduce emissions will have to be encompassed
in parallel with dealing with the special characteristics of livestock systems as they
play a key role in meeting the commitments of the Sustainable Development Goals
1.1 Introduction 3

(SDGs), such as ensuring food security and other areas related to draught power,
nutrient cycling, social and capital insurance, and so on (Reisinger and Clark 2018).
Countries need to have good GHG inventories for livestock in order to be able to
properly identify the objectives of their nationally determined commitments (NDCs),
and to be transparent. Given the difficulties and challenges posed by the livestock
industry, especially in developing countries, direct emissions measurement systems,
including measures such as productivity with more advanced inventories, are essen-
tial for success in the fulfilment of climate and sustainable development objectives
(GRA and CCAFS 2016). The productivity measures and the control of energy intake
that the animal needs will return better estimates of GHG that will help countries to
provide better measures of emissions, and will not jeopardise food security, since the
levels of milk or meat production in animals can be maintained or even increased;
thus the goal of reducing GHG emissions will be attained by improving efficiency
and productivity (GRA and CCAFS 2016).
In the dairy sector, an 18% increase in emissions was observed between 2005
and 2015, resulting from a 30% overall increase in production, motivated by the
rise in final demand. These figures show an improvement in efficiency resulting
from the increase in production that is far greater than the increase in emissions.
Improvements in efficiency have helped to avoid reaching an expected increase of
38% of total emissions, causing the intensity per unit of output to fall (FAO and GDP
2018). These data are found qualitatively in all regions, although the improvement in
intensity in developing regions is less than in developed regions. In developed regions
emissions range from 1.3 to 1.4 kg CO2 -eq., kg fat-and-protein corrected milk; while
in developing regions, the range is from 4.1 to 6.7 kg CO2 -eq., per kg fat-and-protein
corrected milk in 2015. Management practices used in these countries are behind
these differentials, so there is room for improvement in the medium term to further
reduce emissions (FAO and GDP 2018).

1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development

Goals and Climate Change Framework

Sustainable Development Goals. The dairy sector emerges as a key industry in

ensuring commitment to most of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
listed by the United Nations (UN 2015b). The Global Dairy Agenda for Action
(GDAA 2015) identifies a list of key elements that differentiate the dairy sector
from others in terms of sustainability: Currently, about 1 billion people make their
living in or around the dairy sector; billions of people enjoy the nutritional bene-
fits of consuming milk and dairy products; rural communities created around the
sector improve quality of life and reduce social inequality, alleviating poverty and
unemployment; and measures such as yield improvements, feed efficiencies, the use
of by-products for human consumption and manure as fertilizer are the basis of an
economic, socially and environmentally friendly model.
4 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

From the institutional sphere, a number of initiatives have appeared to show

this alignment of the dairy sector with sustainability. One of these is the Dairy
Sustainability Framework (DSF), launched in 2013, which is a pre-competitive and
globally recognised sustainability initiative which helps the industry to improve its
sustainability under 11 criteria related to GHG emissions, animal care and market
development (Rabobank 2016). The DSF is a holistic approach to sustainability
which is completely aligned with SDG’s, with clear links and synergies between
them. The dairy value chain participants in the DSF initiative benefit from it because
it takes into account regional and local issues connected at the global level, promotes
the alignment of the sector’s actions regardless of the level, size or location, fosters
the sharing of best practice, establishes a common language to monitor and share the
progress and improvements, and provides a reference for in-depth communication
on the actions and results obtained (DSF 2019).
From a broader perspective, the bioeconomy strategy is probably one of the most
important and ambitious initiatives to integrate the livestock industry into the correct
sustainability path. ‘Bioeconomy’ is understood as ‘an economy using biological
resources from the land and sea, as well as waste, including food waste, as inputs
to industry and energy production. It also covers the use of bio-based processes by
green industries, those parts of the economy that use renewable biological resources
from land and sea—such as crops, forests, fish, animals, and micro-organisms—to
produce food, materials and energy’ (European Commission 2015). The potential of
the livestock sector as a key piece of a circular bioeconomic model is well-known,
since this industry can generate multiple benefits, such as regulating the ecological
cycles by recycling biomass, and using manure as a bio-resource, fostering landscape
and biodiversity preservation, generating employment and innovation in rural areas
or producing protein-rich and safe food, among others (Peyraud 2016).
Paris Agreement. Livestock industries play a crucial role in addressing the chal-
lenge of climate change. The biggest global agreement to fight the current climate
crisis, the so-called Paris Agreement, achieved great consensus with 197 signatory
countries (UN 2015a). To date, 185 countries have ratified the agreement to keep
the increase in global average temperature well below 2 °C by the end of the cur-
rent century. Each country’s efforts have to be described and designed within each
country’s nationally determined commitments (NDCs). The goal of reducing anthro-
pogenic emissions through the decarbonisation of the energy systems is only one part
of the list of policies recommended. The Paris Agreement also considers potential
strategies for negative emissions that involve the removal of CO2 from the atmo-
sphere, either through technologies such as afforestation and agricultural practices,
or through direct CO2 removal from the atmosphere using chemical innovations
(Anderson and Peters 2016; Peters and Geden 2017; Williamson 2016). Livestock
systems possess the perfect characteristics to promote actions along all the lines set
out in the Paris Agreement.
In current state of NDC development, 92 countries around the world have included
the livestock sectors within their future strategies for reducing environmental pres-
sures. Developing countries have the opportunity to take the lead in implementing
their NDCs as climate action in agricultural sectors. The strategies could result in
1.2 Dairy Sector Within the Sustainable Development Goals … 5

positive outcomes for the fight against climate change, but could also be a key driver
to achieve other SDGs related to the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutri-
tion (FAO 2016). This task must be undertaken with the help of the international
community, as the Paris Agreement incentivises international cooperation between
signatory countries to ensure the success of the implementation of climate actions and
policies. All international machinery, in terms of financial institutions, R&D organ-
isations and agencies and any other actors should enhance the commitment of the
goals in developing countries and open up efficient mechanisms to give transparency
to these processes, implement coherent policies, provide research tools, generate
enough capacity to implement the actions and guarantee enough investment flows
(FAO 2016).
The challenge does not only affect low-income, developing countries; climate
change is also a threat in areas such as Europe and Central Asia, because of issues
related to food security, nutrition and ecosystem services (FAO 2018). Extreme cli-
mate events are endangering the economic stability of those areas, mostly in middle-
income regions. The identification of proper commitments, policy and finance gaps,
and opportunities for enhancing climate change mitigation strategies is also crucial
at a global level. Most of the European and Central Asian countries have ratified
the Paris Agreement and have submitted NDCs together with SDG targets. Imple-
mentation of these actions will take place in the coming years. The success of these
actions will depend on the quality of national planning tools, together with insti-
tutional coordination and correct technological improvements to ensure technical
capacity within sectors. Developed countries within the EU-28 are setting adequate
legislative and institutional frameworks to ensure commitment to the goals. How-
ever, the development of regulations in middle-income countries is still in process
(FAO 2018).
Within this framework, agriculture in general, and, in particular, livestock systems,
need a proper way to address their national GHG inventories, in order to improve the
quality of their NDC commitments. However, many countries lack relevant data on
the way they compute GHG inventories for their agriculture sectors (Wilkes and van
Dijk 2018). Indicators based on the inclusion of productivity and efficiency promoted
in the so-called Tier 2 approaches to estimating livestock emissions in the inventories
are the keys to success in achieving goals such as the Global Research Alliance on
Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) (GRA and CCAFS 2016). Wilkes and van
Dijk (2018) report a complete collection of livestock Tier 2 inventory practices by
countries. Networks such as the GRA facilitate links across organisations, research
institutes and governments to share information, knowledge and inventories in order
to improve the results of each country’s NDC implementation (GRA and CCAFS
2016).
6 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Carbon Footprint

Global dairy activity. Global figures show the production of almost 669,000,000
tonnes in 2017 of fresh cow’s milk. According to FAO and GDP (2018) and FAOSTAT
(2019b), raw cow milk production experienced an average growth of 2.8% per year
in the period 2005–2017, which has accelerated in the last seven years. Figure 1.1
identifies the main raw cow’s milk producers in 2017. The main actors are not only
the emerging countries with high populations like India, Brazil or China, but also
developed nations such as the USA, Germany, France or New Zealand. The European
Union and NAFTA (Mexico, USA and Canada) account for almost 40% of worldwide
production. Africa is the major region with lower production, together with some
countries in South-East Asia and South America. The left-hand panel in Fig. 1.1
shows that worldwide production has increased since 1995, especially in emerging
regions like India, China or the Rest of the World (RoW). As FAO and GDP (2018)
state, the most growth observed is concentrated in regions such as West Asia and
Northern Asia, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa with 4.5, 4.0 and 3.6% growth
rates per year, respectively. Whereas in the two major developed areas, NAFTA and
EU, generally considered as traditional dairy cattle regions, production growth rates
are below the global average, 1.5 and 1.6%, respectively, while the global average
over the period 2005–2015 is about 2.8% (FAO and GDP 2018; FAOSTAT 2019b).

Fig. 1.1 Production of whole fresh cow’s milk (tonnes), 2017 Source Prepared by the authors using
FAO livestock primary datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 7

Fig. 1.2 Animals producing whole fresh cow’s milk (head). Evolution in major regions in 1995
(left panel) and 2017 (right panel)1 Source Prepared by the authors using FAO livestock primary
datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)

The production shares of both developed regions have declined because of the boost
in production in emerging countries.
The measurement of productivity in the dairy industry is generally considered to
be milk production per cow per year, which gives a measure of the yield. Figure 1.2
shows that the common trend in the period 1995–2017 is to reduce the number of
cows producing fresh milk in developed regions such as Europe (both the European
Union and the other European countries), NAFTA and Russia, while increasing it in
emerging regions like Africa, India, China, RoW America, and RoW Asia-Pacific.
On the one hand, the reduction in developed regions can be justified by the high
values of the average yield achieved by these areas in 2017 with respect to 1995: as
Fig. 1.3 shows, these regions exhibit yields above the worldwide average in 2017.
On the other hand, emerging regions have increased not only the number of cows
producing milk but also their average yields (see Fig. 1.3). Therefore, these patterns
could be indicating that developed areas are following an increasing trend of import-
ing raw cow’s milk from developing regions as a primary input to be introduced into
their production chains.
Looking more closely at Fig. 1.3, the case of China is very notable. Its yield used
to be below the world average, but from the mid-2000 onwards it surpassed this mean
value. An increasing demand for dairy products in the Chinese market has motivated
the rise of domestic milk output in the period analysed (shown in the left panel of

1 Forthe sake of visual clarity, Figs. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 show a regional aggregation proposal: EU
all EU-28 countries; NAFTA includes USA, Mexico and Canada; RoW Europe all non-EU-28
countries; RoW America all Central and South-American countries, with the exception of Mexico;
RoW Asia-Pacific all Asian and Pacific countries with the exception of India, China and Russia.
8 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
1995
2005
2017
Africa India RoW Brazil RoW Asia- China RoW Russia EU NFT
America Pacific Europe

Region yield (average) 1995 World average yield 2017 World average yield

Fig. 1.3 The average yield of animals producing whole fresh cow’s milk, hectograms per head.
Evolution of major regions 1995–2017 and worldwide average Source Prepared by the authors using
FAO livestock primary datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b)

Fig. 1.1), which has been sustained not only by the growth of the dairy herd shown
in Fig. 1.2, but also by the significant upturns in productivity seen in Fig. 1.3.
Conversely, Fig. 1.3 shows that regions like Africa, RoW America or RoW Asia-
Pacific have barely increased their yields, which are below the world average over
the whole period considered. Smallholder dairy production systems are common
in developing areas like Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, but these
small exploitations suffer constraints to production related to access to technological
progress (for instance, the choice of species, new feed resources, improved breeding
and animal health care and so on), which causes difficulties in making improvements
in the production yield (Devendra 2001). Brazil had, in 1995, a similar yield to Africa
or India, and much lower than RoW America’s yield, but its increase has been much
faster.
The productivity differentials by region are explained by the different industry
structures among regions, the access to new technological developments and the
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 9

140000
21% 19% 20%
120000

100000
14%
14% 15%
80000
11%
60000 10%
10% 10% 9%
8% 8% 7%
40000 6% 6% 61% 61% 59%
4% 74%
3% 4% 59% 60%
20000 70% 73% 59%
69% 2% 86% 94% 72% 72% 61% 61%
67% 70% 68%
0 68%
19952016199520161995201619952016199520161995201619952016199520161995201619952016
RoW Russia China RoW Brazil NFT India EU RoW Africa
Europe America Asia-
Pacific
Rest of direct emissions in raw caƩle milk exploitaƟons (Gg eq.CO2)
Emissions from enteric fermentaƟon (dairy caƩle) (Gg eq.CO2)

Fig. 1.4 Direct emissions from whole fresh cow’s milk production: emissions from enteric fer-
mentation and other direct emissions. Evolution of major regions 1995–20162 Source Prepared by
the authors using FAO livestock primary and enteric fermentation datasets (FAOSTAT 2019b) and
(FAOSTAT 2019a), respectively

unique characteristics of each region that modulate the structure of the dairy systems
(FAO and GDP 2018).
The dairy greenhouse gas emissions. Dairy systems manifest increasing effi-
ciency as emissions per unit of output are declining (Frank et al. 2019). However, the
remarkable increase in milk production around the world has increased the global
numbers in terms of emissions derived from dairy activities (Rojas-Downing et al.
2017; Frank et al. 2019; FAO and GDP 2018). The evolution of global emissions in
the dairy sector shows an increase of about 18%, 256 million tonnes CO2 -eq. in 2015
relative to 2005 levels according to FAO and GDP (2018) figures. The amount of
emissions generated differs by region and type of source considered. Figure 1.4 shows
direct emissions generated within the dairy milk sector, which are disaggregated into
emissions from enteric fermentation (methane gas produced in the digestive systems
of the cattle) and other direct emissions. For most countries, emissions generated
directly by the animal account for more than 60% of the total, and in some regions

2 The lower percentage represents the participation of emissions from enteric fermentation over total

direct emissions of each region. The upper percentage represents the participation of each region’s
total direct emissions over worldwide raw milk industry direct emissions.
10 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

where traditional production methods predominate this is even higher (in RoW Amer-
ica, emissions from enteric fermentation accounted for 94% of total direct emissions
in 2016). This means that, although applying sustainable practices to farming and
exploitation methods is always a positive action, the most effective way to reduce
direct emissions from cow’s milk production is to reduce the herd by increasing the
yield since the bulk of emissions comes directly from the cattle’s digestive system.
Looking at the different regions, it is outstanding that Europe (both the EU and other
countries), Russia and Brazil are the only regions that have reduced the absolute and
relative values of their direct emissions in 2017 with respect to 1995. This fall can be
explained by looking at the reduction in the number of animals in these regions set
out in Fig. 1.2. On the other hand, RoW Asia-Pacific and Africa have moved from
15 to 11%, respectively, in total emissions in 1995 to a participation of 19 and 20%
in 2016. Again, China’s case is remarkable as it is the region that has most increased
its direct emissions.
The continuous gains in productivity have limited the rise in emissions intensities.
As stated by Gerber et al. (2011), productivity increases constitute not only a way
of satisfying the increasing demand for milk but also a suitable mitigation method,
especially in regions with milk yields below 2000 kg/cow/year. According to FAO
and GDP (2018) measures, the emissions intensity of milk decreased by 11% over the
ten years period considered, 2005–2015, from 2.8 to 2.5 kg CO2 -eq. Improvements in
grassland management and feeding practices, together with improved animal genetics
management, are behind these results. As FAO and GDP (2018) state, higher milk
yields transform the cow’s metabolism in favour of milk production and reproduction
rather than maintenance. The energy intake of a high-producing dairy cow for milk
production is greater than for maintenance (47%); in the case of a low-producing
dairy cows the intake of energy for maintenance (75%) is greater than for milk
production, which contributes, in the first case, to lowering the emissions intensity
per animal (FAO and GDP 2018). More specifically, methane—which constitutes the
bulk of direct emissions generated within the sector—and nitrous oxide emissions
fall with increasing productivity while carbon dioxide emissions increase but to a
lower extent (Gerber et al. 2011).
The global dairy carbon footprint. Common analyses accounting for dairy sys-
tems emissions use the producer criterion by region to estimate the contribution of
the sector to the generation of GHG emissions. Current developments in the allo-
cation of responsibilities change the perspective of the analysis by focusing on the
consumer side using measures of carbon footprint. The concept of carbon footprint
is an appropriate tool in the allocation of responsibilities as it accounts for all the
emissions generated in the production chain, considering not only direct emissions
but also indirect emissions, both those generated domestically and those imported
from other regions. In this section, using the common modelling of environmentally
extended multi-regional input–output models (EE-MRIO)3 , we have estimated the

3 Thecarbon footprint estimates given in this chapter were developed using the common envi-
ronmentally extended multi-regional input–output models (EE-MRIO) developed in papers like
(Hertwich and Peters 2009; Minx et al. 2009; G. Peters et al. 2016). Both the world multi-regional
1.3 Global Dairy Activity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon … 11

carbon footprint of the global raw milk sector (mostly represented by cow’s milk pro-
duction) differentiating between the regions where the highest footprint is generated
and also between domestic and imported emissions flows.
Figure 1.5 uses a Sankey diagram to show the flow of the total amount of carbon
footprint (kt CO2 -eq.) by emissions source, the countries where the bulk of the carbon
footprint is triggered by their raw milk final demand patterns and the domestic or
imported origin of the footprint for the available period 1995–2011. The total carbon
footprint of the raw milk sector grew by 16% over the whole period. The left panels
of Fig. 1.5 show that the most significant part of the GHG footprint in the raw milk
sector (around 80% for the four years considered) corresponds to methane (CH4 ),
which comes mainly from enteric fermentation in the digestive systems of cattle. The
right panels show that the origin of this footprint is mainly domestic. Raw milk is a
perishable primary input that might not be worth importing due to its high transport
costs, and so, as might be expected, a vast part of the carbon footprint of the sector is
generated domestically (96.4% in 2011). The remaining imported part of the global
footprint shows limited growth in the period considered, mainly generated in more
developed regions such as the European Union and NAFTA. Similar but smaller
trends are observed for RoW Asia-Pacific and Russia.

Fig. 1.5 GHG footprint of the raw milk industry in major regions. Disaggregation into GHG gases
(kt CO2 -eq) and domestic/imported origin of emissions. 1995–2011 Source Prepared by the authors
based on EXIOBASE (Stadler et al. 2018)

input–output table and the environmental satellite accounts come from the EXIOBASE. A global,
detailed multi-regional environmentally extended supply-use table (MR-SUT) and input–output
table (MR-IOT) (Stadler et al. 2018).
12 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

Looking at how major regions contribute to these footprints with their demand
for raw milk, no big changes have occurred at the top of the list. India has by far the
highest and most rapidly increasing figures in terms of carbon footprint, accounting
for about 29% of the total footprint over the period. Emerging regions, like Africa,
China and RoW Asia-Pacific, have expanded their footprints notably because of their
increasing demand for domestic production of dairy products and, due to exports,
they also supply to developed regions. Despite its vast population, China had a
relatively small footprint in 1995 (7.5% of the total footprint), as it has traditionally
been described as a ‘lactophobe’ society (Harris 1998), but it has climbed up the
ranking over the period analysed, passing other regions like the European Union. This
increase in the footprint of certain developing regions might be linked to the so-called
‘livestock revolution’ (Delgado 2003), which is primarily driven by the increasing
demand for meat and milk in developing regions as they achieve higher income levels
(FAO 2017). In addition, other authors point out socio-cultural changes and global
advertising campaigns behind this increase in milk consumption in developing Asian
regions such as India and China (Fuller et al. 2006; Wiley 2011).

1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy

The regulatory framework. The environmental impact of livestock and its regula-
tion is not a new issue, especially in the sphere of the European Union. Since the late
1990s, regulatory development has constantly attempted to reduce the environmental
impacts associated with the activity. As Loyon et al. (2016) stated, in the last 30 years
there have been successive legislative efforts in the European Union to deal with the
environmental impacts of the livestock systems. Problems derived from the presence
in the water of nitrates and phosphorus have led to actions such as the implemen-
tation of the National Emissions Ceiling Directive (EC 2001, 2016)—which, since
2001, sets targets for the contention of NH3 pollution, emissions regulations for CH4
and N2 O livestock set out in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol (UN 1997)—
sector-specific actions detailed in the Emissions Directive (EC 2010), and, of course,
all actions derived from the most recent implementation of the goals of the Paris
Agreement (UN 2015a).
FAO recommendations and policy actions. As we have seen in the preced-
ing sections, the livestock sector generates more emissions than any other food-
related industry, mainly from animal feed production, enteric fermentation, waste
and changes in land use. The solutions to reducing the environmental impact of this
sector exist, but we must act quickly as it is an intensively growing sector motivated
by population growth, rising incomes and demand from developing countries. FAO
considers three main lines of action to reduce the pollution intensity of the livestock
sector (FAO 2017):

(1) Improvements in productivity: The central objective is the reduction of pollu-

tion intensities. FAO estimates that improved practices can contain emissions
1.4 Environmental Solutions and the Bioeconomy 13

between 20 and 30%. They recommend, on the one hand, improving the quality
of animal feed and to prefer local options in doing so, and on the other, better
reproductive efficiency and better veterinary care are desirable, to prolong the
reproductive life of the animal. Finally, better planning of animal husbandry pro-
grams, as well as conservation of genetic diversity, is recommended to increase
productivity and allow the animal to adapt to changing environments.
(2) Carbon sequestration: The maintenance of permanent pasture should be the
strategy followed, given its high capacity to contain carbon. Grazing naturally
plays an essential role in this. There are many options for improving the quality
of pastures; for example, their efficiency can be improved by balancing, spa-
tially and temporally, the presence of livestock, or other solutions related to
fertilisation, nutrient management, and so on. However, approximately 20% of
the world’s grasslands have been degraded, reducing the possibility of adapting
them to climate change.
(3) Integration in the circular bioeconomy: The productive model of livestock must
avoid linearity; leaks of materials and energy must be redirected back to the
production process. On the one hand, the correct use of crop residues and agro-
industrial by-products must be guaranteed, as they represent a high percentage
of the animal food base, and this is even more true at a time of expansion
of world production. The use of nutrients derived from livestock manure for
fertilizer production is another key to the development of a production model
based on bioeconomy, because it helps producers to improve efficiency in the
use of natural resources, making them more resilient to adverse climatic events.
Government regulation is key in this sense, as it has to assist, encourage and
certify the integration of actions that favour the bioeconomic circular model.

The bioeconomy in livestock activities. The third of these strategies is undoubt-

edly the most ambitious, and the one that can generate the best results in terms of
sustainability, understood in a broad sense. The commitment to bioeconomy in the
livestock sector in the European Union is presented in Lutzeyer (2019). Since 2005,
through the 7th Framework Program, the ‘Knowledge-based Bioeconomy’ line has
been launched, which has been followed by a multitude of meetings, programs and
funding lines for bioeconomic goals. In 2012, the European Commission proposed
a strategy called ‘Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe’,
which takes a bioeconomic view of the challenges facing the livestock industry, as
it is expected to be increasingly affected by competition for natural resources and
by the urge to reduce its environmental impact (European Commission 2012). The
bioeconomy today is thus an economic sector including a multitude of activities that
go beyond the agricultural sectors, such as textiles, wood and furniture, paper, the
biochemical and plastic industries and energy, which by 2016 had generated almost
19 million jobs. Financing and regulatory programs currently maintain the commit-
ment to bioeconomics in the European Union. The priorities set by the Union in this
respect are job creation, mitigation of climate change, renewal and improvement of
the European Union’s industrial base, strengthening the circular economy based on
bioeconomy and the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity (Lutzeyer 2019).
14 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

Specifically, the European Union is focused on the livestock sector as one of the
main motors of the new bioeconomic model, given that the sector is a perfect exam-
ple of a circular model for the use of waste and its reincorporation into production
processes (Peyraud 2016). The European Union highlights the benefits brought by
this sector in terms of food security and healthy diets, given that it represents the
nutritional base of millions of households. Current EU bioeconomy programs con-
sider actions for basic livestock, with the aim of contributing to improving efficiency
in the agricultural sectors, as synergies between crops and livestock are key, and even
more so at a local level (Peyraud 2016). In addition, farming systems can provide
public goods such as agricultural landscape, farmland biodiversity, air and water
quality, food security and rural vitality, so a public good-oriented bioeconomy can
bring additional opportunities to society, as it empowers small-size exploitations to
make their own contribution to the SDG (Schmid et al. 2012). The European Union
promotes the improvement of ecological cycles derived from the more efficient use
of manure, as it is the base of key nutrients for crops. The idea of turning waste into
a good instead of a problem is encouraged and financed from the point of view of
research and technology. All these actions, beyond the economic and social gains
to which they contribute directly, are also implemented with the aim of alleviating
the environmental pressure of a sector that receives close attention because of its
high pollution intensity. Estimates from the European Union calculate an emission
reduction potential of between 30 and 40% (Peyraud 2016).

1.5 Conclusions

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), together with the Paris Agreement, are two
of the major challenges facing humanity today. Livestock systems, and in particular
dairy sectors, are called on to be main actors in the fulfilment of all the commitments
undertaken. At a time when the world population is growing, and with 80% of the
population basing their diet on the daily consumption of milk or milk products, the
implementation of actions in the dairy sector that ensure a secure supply of milk,
improve productivity, help the development of local communities and increasingly
reduce their environmental impact is highly necessary.
Although data in recent years show how the dairy sector has greatly reduced
its intensity of emissions, it has not been possible to reduce the total volume of
emissions, mainly due to the increase in global herd, especially in low-productivity
regions such as Africa or India. However, there are still possibilities for improvement
that need to be explored. Following the guidelines proposed by FAO and GDP (2018),
there are three lines of action required in the near future, taking into account the
population growth scenario. Firstly, an increase in productivity must remain a key
goal. All actions aimed at increasing efficiency in any section of the facilities must
be encouraged. Improvements in cow diets related to nutrients and proteins, feed
technology, the search for locally low-emission suppliers, the use of non-fossil fuels
on farms, or animal health are among the desirable actions. Secondly, the protection of
1.5 Conclusions 15

carbons sinks must be guaranteed. All livestock systems must avoid the degradation
of ecosystems and deforestation. Actions related to the feed of the animals, to better
grassland management and to optimised uses of low-carbon fertilizers and manure
would also be good practices. Thirdly, bioeconomic solutions for livestock and dairy
systems should be fostered as a holistic pathway to achieving sustainability in the
sector. The implementation of a circular model in livestock systems is quite feasible
and might bring a number of benefits aligned with the SDG. Recycling and reuse of
energy and waste must be a foundation of the productive model of these systems.
Fulfilling the Paris Agreement commitments will require much more than reduc-
ing fossil fuel emissions in the mid-term. Solutions closely tied up with the bioe-
conomy will be key in the near future, because it incentivises not only the reuse
and recycling of inputs, which reduces the environmental pressures, but also R&D
in new fields and applications that might lead to a transformation of the technology
and techniques, generating positive spillovers into society. Developed economies,
such as those of the European Union, show a clear commitment to the development
of the bioeconomy, not only to fulfil environmental targets but also as a potential
engine of economic and employment growth. The boost to the bioeconomy in devel-
oped regions should extend its influence on developing countries through technology
transfer. Such transfers are considered in the Paris Agreement to be of one of the
objectives and obligations of the countries that have ratified the accord.
Livestock and dairy will continue to play an important role in the solution to the
problem of production and distribution of food and nutrients globally. But now they
must also be part of the solution to the climate crisis. From governments to small-
size producers, there is a series of possibilities for moving towards more sustainable
industry.

References

K. Anderson, G. Peters, The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354(6309), 182–183 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
C.L. Delgado, Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food
revolution. J. Nutr. 133(11), 3907S–3910S (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.11.3907S
C. Devendra, Smallholder dairy production systems in developing countries: Characteristics, poten-
tial and opportunities for improvement—review. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 14(1), 104–113
(2001). https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2001.104
DSF, Dairy Sustainability Framework. (2019). https://dairysustainabilityframework.org/2019
EC, Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on
National Emission Ceilings for Certain Atmospheric Pollutants, ed. by E. Commission (2001)
EC, Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010
on Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), ed. by E. Commission
(2010)
EC, Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of The Council of 14 December 2016
on the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants, Amending Directive
2003/35/EC and Repealing Directive 2001/81/EC, ed. by E. Commission (2016)
European Commission, Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe, ed. by D.-G.
f. R. a. I. E. Commission, (EU Publications, Brussels, 2012)
16 1 The Sustainability Challenge of Dairy Livestock …

European Commission, Bioeconomy for Europe Communication. (European Comission Publica-

tions Office, 2015)
FAO, The Agricultural Sectors in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Priority Areas for
International Support. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2016)
FAO, Livestock Solutions for Climate Change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2017), (p. 8)
FAO, Policy analysis of nationally determined contributions (NDC) in Europe and Central Asia.
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Budapest, 2018), p. 84
FAO and GDP, Climate Change and the Global Dairy Cattle Sector–The Role of the Dairy Sector
in a Low-carbon Future. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Global
Dairy Platform Inc, Rome, 2018), (p. 36)
FAOSTAT, Enteric Fermentation Dataset, ed. by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2019a)
FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary Dataset, ed. by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, (FAO, 2019b)
S. Frank, P. Havlík, E. Stehfest, H. van Meijl, P. Witzke, I. Pérez-Domínguez, et al., Agricultural
non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nature Climate Change,
9(1), 66–72. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8
F. Fuller, J. Huang, H. Ma, S. Rozelle, Got milk? The rapid rise of China’s dairy sector and its future
prospects. Food Policy 31(3), 201–215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.03.002
GDAA, The Dairy Sector: Ready to Help Achieve The Sustainable Development Goals. (The Global
Dairy Agenda for Action, 2015)
P. Gerber, T. Vellinga, C. Opio, H. Steinfeld, Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions
intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Sci. 139(1), 100–108 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.
2011.03.012
GRA and CCAFS, Livestock development and climate change: The benefits of advanced greenhouse
gas inventories. Global Res. Alliance Agric. Greenhouse Gas. (2016)
M. Harris, Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. (Waveland Press, 1998)
E.G. Hertwich, G.P. Peters, Carbon footprint of Nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 43(16), 6414–6420 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a
L. Loyon, C.H. Burton, T. Misselbrook, J. Webb, F.X. Philippe, M. Aguilar et al., Best available tech-
nology for European livestock farms: Availability, effectiveness and uptake. J. Environ. Manage.
166, 1–11 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.046
H.-J. Lutzeyer, Introduction to the European Bioeconomy Strategy. Paper presented at the SCAR-
CASA Workshop, (Carcavelos, Portugal, 2019)
J.C. Minx, T. Wiedmann, R. Wood, G.P. Peters, M. Lenzen, A. Owen et al., Input-output analysis
and carbon footprint: An overview of applications. Econ. Syst. Res. 21(3), 187–216 (2009)
U.M. Persson, D.J.A. Johansson, C. Cederberg, F. Hedenus, D. Bryngelsson, Climate metrics and
the carbon footprint of livestock products: where’s the beef? Environ. Res. Lett. 10(3), 034005
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034005
G. Peters, R. M. Andrew, J. Karstensen, Global Environmental Footprints. A Guide to Estimat-
ing, Interpreting and Using Consumption-Based Accounts of Resource Use and Environmental
Impacts. (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016)
G. P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, J.G. Canadell, S. Fuss, R.B. Jackson, J.I. Korsbakke, et al., Key indi-
cators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate
Change, 7, 118. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3202. https://www.nature.com/articles/
nclimate3202#supplementary-information
G.P. Peters, O. Geden, Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nature Climate
Change 7, 619 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3369
J.-L. Peyraud, The Role of Livestock in an EU-Bioeconomy, (Animal Task Force (ATF), 2016)
Rabobank. Dairy and the Sustainable Development Goals. The Dairy Sector’s Contributions and
Opportunities, Trans. by RaboResearch, (Rabobank Industry Note #574: Rabobank, 2016)
References 17

A. Reisinger, H. Clark, How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global
warming? 24(4), 1749–1761. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13975
M.M. Rojas-Downing, A.P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, S.A. Woznicki, Climate change and live-
stock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Manage 16, 145–163 (2017). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
O. Schmid, S. Padel, L. Levidow, The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods
and farmer perspective. Bio-based Appl Econ 1(1), 47–63 (2012)
K. Stadler, R. Wood, T. Bulavskaya, C.-J. Södersten, M. Simas, S. Schmidt et al., EXIOBASE 3:
Developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables.
J. Ind. Ecol. 22(3), 502–515 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12715
F.N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore, S. Rossi, A. Ferrara, N. Fitton, P. Smith, The FAOSTAT database of
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8(1), 015009 (2013). https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009
UN, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (United
Nations, New York, USA, 1997)
UN, The paris agreement, in U. N. F. C. O, ed. by C. Change, (United Nations, Paris, 2015a), (pp. 25)
UN, Sustainable development goals. (2015b). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/
sustainabledevelopmentgoals. Accessed 30 July 2017
UN, Revision of world population prospects. (2019). https://population.un.org/wpp/
A.S. Wiley, Milk for “Growth”: global and local meanings of milk consumption in China, India,
and the United States. Food Foodways 19(1–2), 11–33 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.
2011.544159
A. Wilkes, S. van Dijk, Tier 2 inventory approaches in the livestock sector: A collection of
agricultural greenhouse gas inventory practices. UNIQUE forestry and land use GmbH. (2018)
P. Williamson, Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature 530, 153–155 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1038/530153a
Chapter 2
The Ruminant: Life History
and Digestive Physiology of a Symbiotic
Animal

Francisco Javier Pérez-Barbería

Abstract Ruminants are the main pillar of our animal stock, and were crucial to the
process of human Neolithization, as the first species to be domesticated for husbandry.
They are an important element of the world’s economy and cultural heritage, and
also play a significant role in promoting biodiversity within the habitats they occupy.
They have evolved a digestive system that relies entirely on a symbiotic relation-
ship with micro-organisms, most of their energy comes from the end-products of
microbial digestion, enabling ruminants to make use of the plant cell wall, which
is something that no other vertebrate can do to such an extent. This, together with
an efficient mechanism of nitrogen recycling, converts the ruminant into an efficient
animal able to subsist on plant fibre, one of the most abundant organic resources
in nature. Ruminants also have dental and behavioural (rumination) adaptations to
comminute food and so facilitate the activity of ruminal micro-organisms, and very
long intestines and caeca to increase the time food is exposed to enzymatic diges-
tion and absorption. Brief descriptions of food energy losses and the main metabolic
paths of the transformation of dietary carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are given
here. Food digestion, mainly of fibre, comes at the cost of gas emissions, especially
methane, which reduce food use efficiency and contribute to global greenhouse gas
emissions. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the ruminant
animal, its taxonomic diversity and life history traits, the relevance of domestication,
and its adaptations to the use of plant-based diets and digestive physiology, in order
to gain a better understanding of the relationships between diet and gas and solid
emissions. We focus on the ruminant over monogastric species for two reasons: (i)
the greater biomass contribution of ruminants to livestock, and (ii) the very complex
ruminant digestive system, which includes both foregut and hindgut enteric fermen-
tation, while monogastric species have only hindgut fermentation. Comments on
dietary components and their metabolic transformations refer to roughage natural
diets, rather than concentrate or supplemented diets. Although in many cases these
are equivalent, we remark the importance of roughage diets because they have been
the driver of the evolutionary adaptation of the ruminant symbiotic digestive system,
and because of the importance of the use of roughage resources in reducing the car-
bon footprint of these species as compared to concentrate feeds, the production of
which is high in carbon.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 19

S. García-Yuste, Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Dairy Farms,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46060-0_2
20 2 The Ruminant: Life History and Digestive Physiology …

2.1 Taxonomy, Evolution and Feeding Styles

of the Ruminant Animal

A ruminant is any member of the mammalian order Artiodactyla (suborder Ruminan-

tia), which is characterised by a digestive system with a multi-chambered stomach
formed by rumen, reticulum, omasum and abomasum diverticula. Other anatomical
traits are lack of upper incisors, presence of incisiform lower canine teeth, and a
tarsus constituted by the fusion of the navicular and cuboid bones (Gentry 2000).
There are some 193 species of extant ruminants, in six families, namely Tragulidae
(3 genera, 4 species), Moschidae (1 genus, 5 species), Bovidae (49 genera, 140
species), Giraffidae (2 genera, 2 species), Antilocapridae (1 genus, 1 species) and
Cervidae (17 genera, 41 species) (Nowak 1999). The group is characterised by a
wide inter-species range in body mass, from 2 kg in Tragulidae up to over 1000 kg
in the male giraffe, and a median body mass of 45 kg (Van Wieren 1996) (Fig. 2.1).
Wild ruminants contribute to promoting biodiversity in the habitats they occupy,
due to their grazing, trampling and nutrients mobilisation activities, which creates
habitat heterogeneity (Gordon and Prins 2008).
Primitive ruminants have their extant representatives in the Tragulidae family
(Janis 1984), which were forest dwellers with relatively simple social behaviour.
Bovidae is the family with the greatest number of species, which are generally
highly gregarious and with complex social behaviour, and among them were the
wild species on which livestock domestication was based. It is suggested that there
are five extinct families of Ruminantia: Dromomerycidae, Hypertragulidae, Geloci-
dae, Leptomerycidae and Palaeomerycidae (Carroll 1990), whose main habitat might
have been subtropical forest with mixed clear-outs (Janis and Manning 1998). The
most primitive family is Hypertragulidae, whose origins can be traced back to the

Fig. 2.1 Average, minimum and maximum body mass (kg) of the six extant families of ruminant
species. Average: thick-black horizontal line; box top side: maximum, box bottom side: minimum
Westcott the p

ections well

coincidence

was the contains

through revolted
that in with

later to

second

should

a in also
undertakings the of

studying of

Mr

use larger

she there hidden

freezing namely

by propriety

in
breakers strange all

presence with

before was s

semi

April

or It

quaecumque

of

classical proportion

decorations
acturi Act

advanced as

cura

case the considerably

again concluded

in the passengers

to prose not

are tower

his the

000 way
aid

on

the disclosure out

the

frequency in

tiny

of of

the great of

and the be

One
starts

ensemble some

on view as

to

with other
the House

his works are

said of

as the the

system according

Moran the motions

on must conspicuous

who and were

October the
and by

verses Wardotjr

these luxury Family

as social English

particularly work die

The four

the

It

of

dicta moderation primordial

Lollards one strange

parts

by present engrossed

tiny

among drinking

contemporaries

of the
was welcome was

to

furnace They

by deposits of

kinds name
the their sea

the lurks a

of beginning

hold iterum

than

bring criticism

it Casa horn

into bees

various

of Ocean from
and later

print

debouches

if

intervention turn est

meant

we

as Aethiopiam
on

season many

a beside to

reproach character

of

The

the

are

qualities and for

same Our

the

with

of 85 believe

limitations mixed

the mission our

hold of

clearly of

however
else in who

Wirth

of His

in Christians

showing part
18

of

readers year

eminently much preacher

destroyer this

for
page

before of

were will veroCochinensis

them are evil

there

of Dahomey

The
of rules obtain

strange

book of

always the to

The should Petersburg

to Critias generations

Chinese Catholic

the meaning were

universal
of though its

guarantees

of thousands would

Babylon

fact
of

if Mrs

cathedral

said such should

all

Coon this the

and ivrath

manner
end the this

year perfect to

morrow of at

the

speak public water

has

a oath
nearly The last

says

his limits vote

was the

instinctively

The have and

from at scantily

of of ripe

to to not

description

this of
like to way

eternal writing

showing part

1886 Plato temple

men doors
Africanus

healthy

all

to to Lives

as by addressed
and

that gave the

develops

denial through Jordan

392 e
engaging explaining

or of

ratione

examine can

rough build

Present is of

of Repeal is

of respect answer

consumed

from place accusations

made

Sorensen of hereditary

any

thus from name

but silly

item laid the

found nominis diameter

tent his
proof

that defending

consideration Julien

even

problem Fahrenheit figures

Opposition and

ending to takes

measures though heads

with
his

with slick

scene both expedient

His feels

and

Geologically

Unusual human
it

boy with

door in lighter

a struck

Born

faith bred
Glossary the

No Life

one

the in the

wei

the
in

was generally

our Co

reigned

his which being

the Englishmen 10x10

it his

we in
YIL the

by provides his

justly coerce

divinities of where

the

halfpast if

by

Tahpanhes
Kegan and

Mediaeval gain

160

when

is one entry

place

the to

and which are

Dr the
3 hideous

Ages

such in

temporal viz dimension

Andure questions to
him acquaintance

times to struggle

hands Indian those

of

at without
of we

They bags

glance

months into

est

the

of m of

but line important

productive intervention

expectations Why and

rest

OF

on used

in

On

their

PCs decus perhaps

a killed

though

and

200

to

Son politics and

the outside

whole liglits this

changes

the variations into

the

eyeSj the

Bengalico of

close poetry

s not

or

valuable
the of

Hallarn as

the in nameless

with

blue fresh

whole at

Let is The

general

loca
with of

the

may could

only the burning

to great Pope

to over

which

silly not
on wall

multo

as a hoped

the not

India shrunk

certainly

Tauler would

held a a

Third only
points

great

but an a

of

the gain

their but
has

that

electro unitate of

ideas of

the invective in

absolute of does

Lives

and brought
pointed is Church

the of time

laborum

he

to
in on

had

with use the

In

possessionum

Canadian

the Vivis

right not pending

capable and that

advertised

to book dramatic

is in London

who Communion

s It persons
river

be continued in

home Roman

above 130 the

dwelt one

well the where

at

future
in giving stood

Lives

and fully suggests

at and places

was

noise without

certificates
of maintain

only by

prevails

time upon Mandans

mere not discretion

the and

its

Hosmini Dame

the of He

to devised
A understood

by the and

Simple

Prayer

appeared On

of the

to as et

expense stars

Seas

as is
race

Room

seen victor Rosmini

has said

oil

The as them

DISTURBANCES

through the of

and raL not

relapse and
She or

choosers and speeches

Mr no

taken

and year ever

by

the
who of

promise

destroys type

Nentre opening

shrinks

Earl

the notes

men Life the

direction

answer plantations
surprised which

Dr

so

subjects often

was

of sin may

here younger inflicted

sun
magical have of

he Dr have

idleness

of months

many any own

were one

form p then
When Lord

never usefulness of

two

pass men course

loyal

wheels

Scotland

of murder some