**1. Introduction**

Since its early origins, mankind adapts to the prevailing climatic conditions (from the arctic to the tropical rainforest) and copes fairly successfully with natural climate variability. It is very old wisdom that climate dictates farm management strategies. Fairly new, however, is the idea that agriculture, livestock husbandry, and food consumption habits are forcing supposedly the climate to change. This idea spread across the globe when thousands of media reports picked up the central message of the famous FAO report "Livestock's Long Shadow" [1], which blamed domestic livestock of causing serious environmental hazards such as climate change, through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Another FAO report [2] basically transmitted the same message, reducing, however, somewhat the livestock contribution to global GHG emissions from 18 to 14.5%. But dramatic figures of emission intensity were still maintained particularly for South American pasture-based beef production (**Figure 1**).

**2. Methodological procedure**

**3. Results and discussion**

*3.1.1. Carbon dioxide (CO2*

interventions.

kg−<sup>1</sup>

0.05 CO<sup>2</sup>

CO<sup>2</sup>

To answer this question, we did extensive review work, cross-checking critically coherence and (in)compatibilities between several published papers and data, and came to distinct results to what one would expect when listening to environmentalists and political climate change activists.

emitted by human consumption of cereals, meat, and milk, by livestock respiration and

atmosphere, as it has previously been captured through photosynthesis. The amount of CO<sup>2</sup>

• fossil fuel consumption during production, processing, and marketing, such as transporta-

• soil organic matter decomposition from degrading grasslands and arable lands, as determined by the difference of ecosystemic carbon stocks before and after certain human

Usage of fossil fuels is considerable in industrial livestock production systems which rely on forage cropping and feed transportation to the confined animals. In grazing systems, however, fuel consumption is rather low. Fossil fuel-related emission intensity of feed is less than

widespread perception that only feedlot intensification can reduce the overall GHG emission intensity (per kg of beef produced) was recently challenged by Paige et al. [5] who found considerable soil organic carbon sequestration in certain grazing systems which even offset methane emissions from enteric fermentation. However, after any sort of land use change, the rate of soil carbon sequestration or of carbon loss is changing over time until a new equilib-

and decomposition of woody vegetation. For emission intensity calculations, deforestationborn emissions have to be shared out over the accumulated animal products generated during the total utilization period of the very pasture, which replaced the forest. This may easily

of dry matter intake in grazing systems and around 0.3 in feedlots [4]. The

levels, as this is part of the natural carbon


release from burning

molecule is additionally released into the

Domestic Livestock and Its Alleged Role in Climate Change

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80389

73

emissions caused by agriculture and livestock

**3.1. About GHG emissions in the context of livestock husbandry**

released annually by humans and livestock is offset by regrowing CO<sup>2</sup>

tion, soil tillage, harvesting, and fertilizer manufacturing, • deforestation for reclamation of pasture and cropland, and

rium level is reached for each kind of land management [6].

Deforestation for pasture establishment causes a unique one-time CO<sup>2</sup>

*)*

forage digestion, does not increase atmospheric CO<sup>2</sup>

cycle. Not a single human- or livestock-born CO<sup>2</sup>

and crops. The only sources of *additional* CO<sup>2</sup>

husbandry, beyond the natural carbon cycle, are:

The worrisome messages launched by the FAO were eagerly disseminated by several environmentalist and even ecclesiastic organizations. They also triggered political action: there was a public audience in the European Parliament in November 2009 about the topic "Less Meat = Less Heat." And at the Conference of Partners in Paris COP21 in 2015, this topic was also subject in the climate negotiations. And even in scientific literature, reduction of livestock numbers and meat consumption was recommended [3]. These concerns expressed by public institutions, the media, politics, and even science evoke the question: is global climate really at risk from livestock husbandry and cropping?

**Figure 1.** Key conclusions from Gerber et al. [2].
