UNE Partnerships (Australia)

Livestock have long been integral to food production systems, often not by choice but by need. While our knowledge of livestock greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation has evolved, the prevailing focus has been-somewhat myopically-on technology applications associated with mitigation. Here, we (1) examine the global distribution of livestock GHG emissions, (2) explore social, economic and environmental co-benefits and trade-offs associated with mitigation interventions and (3) critique approaches for quantifying GHG emissions. This review uncovered many insights. First, while GHG emissions from ruminant livestock are greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC; globally, 66% of emissions are produced by Latin America and the Caribbean, East and southeast Asia and south Asia), the majority of mitigation strategies are designed for developed countries. This serious concern is heightened by the fact that 80% of growth in global meat production over the next decade will occur in LMIC. Second, few studies concurrently assess social, economic and environmental aspects of mitigation. Of the 54 interventions reviewed, only 16 had triple-bottom line benefit with medium-high mitigation potential. Third, while efforts designed to stimulate the adoption of strategies allowing both emissions reduction (ER) and carbon sequestration (CS) would achieve the greatest net emissions mitigation, CS measures have greater potential mitigation and co-benefits. The scientific community must shift attention away from the prevailing myopic lens on carbon, towards more holistic, systems-based, multi-metric approaches that carefully consider the raison d'être for livestock systems. Consequential life cycle assessments and systems-aligned 'socio-economic planetary boundaries' offer useful starting points that may uncover leverage points and cross-scale emergent properties. The derivation of harmonized, globally reconciled sustainability metrics requires iterative dialogue between stakeholders at all levels. Greater emphasis on the simultaneous characterization of multiple sustainability dimensions would help avoid situations where progress made in one area causes maladaptive outcomes in other areas.

Australia is the sixth largest producer of beef and the second largest exporter of beef. Average beef exports from Australia are approximately 65 per cent of the total amount of beef produced, about 1.3 million tonnes. Australia is particularly vulnerable to diseases that are not endemic to the country and could close or disrupt its export markets for beef. In this study, we construct a bioeconomic optimisation model of the Australian beef industry that captures production and consumption decisions, domestically and internationally, and the impacts on the beef industry of a potentially catastrophic disease, foot‐and‐mouth disease (FMD). This study analyses localised to large‐scale outbreaks and suggests that changes in economic surplus because of FMD range from a positive net gain of $57 million to a net loss of $1.7 billion, with impacts on producers and consumers varying depending on the location of the outbreak, control levels and the nature of any trade ban.

Soils of Cambodia are low in fertility and conventional rice cultivation destroys any structure that they have. Usage of inorganic fertilizers is low and farmers are encouraged to use animal manure. Much of the research conducted on crop responses to manure is based on trials where unrealistically high application rates have been used so the farmers are given false hopes as to what they might achieve through its use. Little response curve data exists on which to base fertilizer rate recommendations and general recommendations have been formulated for the different soil groups. An economic analysis comparing the general recommendation with site specific nutrient management (SSNM) recommendations has been made on the results of a published experiment and shown substantial increases in both profitability and benefit/cost ratio in using the SSNM recommendations on four soil types. Cambodian farmers, like many in the developing world, have to be careful with their limited cash resources in purchasing plant nutrients and more attention need to be paid to producing profitable and reliable fertilizer and manure recommendations.