Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-5 (section)

=== 5.5.4 Adaptation in Livestock-Based Systems ===

<div id="h2-15-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Livestock adaptation options are increasingly being studied with methods such as agent-based household models ( [[#Hailegiorgis--2018|Hailegiorgis et al., 2018]] ), household models that disaggregate climate scenarios as well as differentiate farms of varying types and farmer attributes ( [[#Descheemaeker--2018|Descheemaeker et al., 2018]] ), new meso-scale grassland models ( [[#Boone--2018|Boone et al., 2018]] ) and modelling approaches that capture decision making at the farm level for sample populations ( [[#Henderson--2018|Henderson et al., 2018]] ).

Many grassland-based livestock systems have been highly resilient to past climate risk, providing a sound starting point for current and future climate change adaptation ( [[#Hobbs--2008|Hobbs et al., 2008]] ). These adaptations include more effective matching of stocking rates with pasture or other feed production; adjusting herd and watering point management to altered seasonal and spatial patterns of forage production; managing diet quality, which also helps reduce enteric fermentation in ruminants and thus GHG emissions (using diet supplements, legumes, choice of introduced pasture species and pasture fertility management); more effective use of silage, rotational grazing or other forms of pasture spelling; fire management to control woody thickening; using better-adapted livestock breeds and species; restoration of degraded pastureland; migratory pastoralist activities; and a wide range of biosecurity activities to monitor and manage the spread of pests, weeds and diseases ( [[#Herrero--2015|Herrero et al., 2015]] ; [[#Godde--2020|Godde et al., 2020]] ). Combining adaptations can result in increases in benefits in terms of production and livelihoods over and above those attainable from single adaptations ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Bonaudo--2014|Bonaudo et al., 2014]] ; [[#Thornton--2015|Thornton and Herrero, 2015]] ; [[#ul%20Haq--2021|ul Haq et al., 2021]] ).

The adaptations that livestock keepers have been undertaking in Asia ( [[#Hussain--2016|Hussain et al., 2016]] ; [[#Li--2017|Li et al., 2017]] ) and Africa ( [[#Belay--2017|Belay et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ouédraogo--2017|Ouédraogo et al., 2017]] ) are largely driven by their perceptions of climate change. Keeping two or more species of livestock simultaneously on the same farm can confer economic and sustainability benefits to European farmers ( [[#Martin--2020|Martin et al., 2020]] ). Some livestock producers are changing and diversifying management practices, improving access to water sources, increasing uptake of off-farm activities, trading short-term profits for longer-term resilience benefits and migrating out of the area ( [[#Hussain--2016|Hussain et al., 2016]] ; [[#Berhe--2017|Berhe et al., 2017]] ; [[#Merrey--2018|Merrey et al., 2018]] ; [[#Thornton--2018|]] [[#Thornton--2018|Thornton et al., 2018]] ; [[#Espeland--2020|Espeland et al., 2020]] ). Others are adopting more climate-resilient livestock species such as camels ( [[#Watson--2016a|Watson et al., 2016a]] ), using climate forecasts at differing time scales, and benefitting from innovative livestock insurance schemes, though challenges remain in their use at scale ( [[#Dayamba--2018|Dayamba et al., 2018]] ; [[#Hansen--2019a|Hansen et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Johnson--2019|Johnson et al., 2019]] ).

In West Africa, cattle and small ruminant producers and traders are changing strategies in response to emerging market opportunities as well as to multiple challenges including climate change ( [[#Gautier--2016|Gautier et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ouédraogo--2017|Ouédraogo et al., 2017]] ). Niles (2017) found that reduced food insecurity in 12 countries was associated with livestock ownership, providing cash for food purchases. Livestock ownership or switching to smaller, local breeds does not automatically translate into positive nutrition outcomes for women and children, although it may if communities see such animals as suitable for husbandry by women ( [[#Chanamuto--2015|Chanamuto and Hall, 2015]] ); the relationship is complex ( [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2015|Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2015]] ; [[#Dumas--2018|Dumas et al., 2018]] ).

Options for adapting domestic livestock systems to increased exposure to heat stress (Table 5.7) include breeding and crossbreeding strategies, species switching, low-cost shading alternatives and ventilation and building-design options ( [[#Chang-Fung-Martel--2017|Chang-Fung-Martel et al., 2017]] ; [[#Godde--2021|Godde et al., 2021]] ). ''In utero'' exposure to heat stress may increase adaptive capacity in later life, though the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood ( [[#Skibiel--2018|Skibiel et al., 2018]] ). For confined livestock systems in temperate regions, the economic consequences of adapting to heat stress are still being quantified.

'''Table 5.7 |''' Selected adaptations to heat stress in livestock systems.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Adaptation'''

! '''Example'''

! '''Reference'''

|-
| Breeding for heat stress tolerance

| Sheep and cattle farming systems in southern Australia under IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2. Projected not to improve livestock productivity by 2070, even in drier locations.

| [[#Moore--2014|Moore and Ghahramani (2014)]]

|-
| ‘Slick hair’ breeding

| In the Caribbean, introduction of a ‘slick hair’ gene into Holstein cows by crossbreeding with Senepols to increase thermo-tolerance and productivity. An integrated approach to heat stress adaptation will still be needed, including shading strategies, for example.

| ( [[#Ortiz-Colón--2018|Ortiz-Colón et al. (2018)]]

|-
| Crossbreeding

| Crossbreeding with Indigenous sheep breeds as an adaptation option in Mongolia produced some benefits in productivity and improved adaptation to winter cold. Best combined with other improved management interventions. In general, effectiveness of crossbreeding as an adaptation strategy will be dependent on context.

| [[#Wilkes--2017|Wilkes et al. (2017)]]

|-
| Species switching

| Switching from large ruminants to more heat-resilient goats for dairy production in Mediterranean systems to adapt to increasing heat stress.

Switching from cattle to more heat- and drought-resilient camels in pastoral systems of southern Ethiopia as an adaptation to increasing drought.

| [[#Silanikove--2015|Silanikove and Koluman (2015)]]

Wako et al. (2017)

|-
| Shading, fanning, bathing

| Low-capital relief strategies (shading with trees or different types of shed; bathing animals several times each day; installing electric fans in sheds) are effective at reducing heat stress impacts on household income in smallholder dairy systems in India.

Different tree arrangements in silvopastoral systems in Brazil were effective in reducing thermal loads by up to 22% for animals compared with full-sun pasture.

| [[#York--2017|York et al. (2017)]]

[[#Pezzopane--2019|Pezzopane et al. (2019)]]

|-
| Ventilation and cooling systems

| A wide range of different ventilation systems, cooling systems and building designs for confined and seasonally confined intensive livestock systems (pigs, poultry, beef, dairy) in temperate regions. Economic consequences and profitability of different options under different RCPs are still being assessed.

| [[#Vitt--2017|Vitt et al. (2017)]]

[[#Derner--2018|Derner et al. (2018)]] ,

[[#Hempel--2019|Hempel and Menz (2019)]] , [[#Mikovits--2019|Mikovits et al. (2019)]] , [[#Schauberger--2019b|Schauberger et al. (2019b)]]

|-
| ''In utero'' exposure to heat stress

| Potential as an adaption option is uncertain, as there are different effects of ''in utero'' heat stress exposure and the mechanisms are not completely understood:

* Cows may be better adapted to heat stress conditions at maturity via improved regulation of core body temperature
* Cow milk yield at first lactation was reduced
* Nutrient partitioning and carcass composition were altered in pigs

| [[#Ahmed--2017|Ahmed et al. (2017)]]

[[#Monteiro--2016|Monteiro et al. (2016)]] ,

[[#Boddicker--2014|Boddicker et al. (2014)]]

|}

New research is investigating the prospects for accelerating traditional and novel breeding processes for animal traits that may be effective in improving livestock adaptation as well as production ( [[#Stranden--2019|Stranden et al., 2019]] ; [[#Barbato--2020|Barbato et al., 2020]] ). Even if the technical challenges of using new tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 for genome editing in livestock are overcome, the granting of societal approval to operate in this research space may be elusive ( [[#Herrero--2020|Herrero et al., 2020]] ; [[#Menchaca--2020|Menchaca et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="5.5.4.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="contributions-of-indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge"></span>
==== 5.5.4.1 Contributions of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge ====

<div id="h3-31-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Indigenous knowledge has a role to play in helping livestock keepers adapt ( ''medium confidence'' ), though the transferability of this knowledge is often unclear. Pastoralists’ local knowledge of climate and ecological change can complement scientific research ( [[#Klein--2014|Klein et al., 2014]] ), and local knowledge can be mobilised to inform adaptation decision making ( [[#Klenk--2017|Klenk et al., 2017]] ). While Indigenous weather forecasting systems among pastoralists in Ethiopia ( [[#Balehegn--2019|Balehegn et al., 2019]] ; [[#Iticha--2019|Iticha and Husen, 2019]] ) and Uganda ( [[#Nkuba--2020|Nkuba et al., 2020]] ) are effective, synergies can be gained by combining traditional and modern knowledge to help pastoralists adapt. Sophisticated knowledge of feed resources among agro-pastoralists in West Africa is being used to increase system resilience ( [[#Naah--2019|Naah and Braun, 2019]] ). Understanding local knowledge for adaptation can present research challenges, for which new multi-disciplinary research methods may be needed ( [[#Reyes-Garcia--2016|Reyes-Garcia et al., 2016]] ; Roncoli et al., 2016). In particular, the complexities of knowledge, practice, power, local governance and politics need to be addressed ( [[#Hopping--2016|Hopping et al., 2016]] ; [[#Scoville-Simonds--2020|Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="box-5.5:-alternative-sources-of-protein-for-food-and-feed" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 5.5: Alternative Sources of Protein for Food and Feed'''
<div id="h2-64-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Alternative protein sources for human food and livestock feed are receiving considerable attention. Laboratory or ‘clean meat’ is one potential contributor to the human demand for protein in the future (SRCLL). Such technology may be highly disruptive to existing value chains but could lead to significant reduction in land use for pastures and crop-based animal feeds ( [[#Burton--2019|Burton, 2019]] ; [[#Rosenzweig--2020|Rosenzweig et al., 2020]] ). The impacts on GHG emissions depend on the meat being substituted and the trade-off between industrial energy consumption and agricultural land requirements ( [[#Mattick--2015|Mattick et al., 2015]] ; [[#Alexander--2017|Alexander et al., 2017]] ; [[#Rubio--2020b|Rubio et al., 2020b]] ; [[#Santo--2020|Santo et al., 2020]] ). Livestock feeds can make use of other protein sources: insects are generally rich in protein and can be a significant source of vitamins and minerals. Black soldier fly, yellow mealworm and the common housefly have been identified for potential use in feed products in the EU, for example ( [[#Henchion--2017|Henchion et al., 2017]] ). Replacing land-based crops in livestock diets with some proportion of insect-derived protein may reduce the GHG emissions associated with livestock production, though these and other potential effects have not yet been quantified ( [[#Parodi--2018|Parodi et al., 2018]] ; [[#5.13.2|Section 5.13.2]] ). Other sources are high-protein woody plants such as paper mulberry ( [[#Du--2021|Du et al., 2021]] ) and algae, including seaweed. While microalgae and cyanobacteria are mainly sold as a dietary supplement for human consumption, they are also used as a feed additive for livestock and aquaculture, being nutritionally comparable to vegetable proteins. The potential for cultivated seaweed as a feed supplement may be even greater: some red and green seaweeds are rich in highly digestible protein. ''Asparagopsis taxiformis'' , for example, also decreases methane production in both cattle and sheep when used as a feed supplement ( [[#Machado--2016|Machado et al., 2016]] ; [[#Li--2018b|Li et al., 2018b]] ). Novel protein sources may have considerable potential for sustainably delivering protein for food and feed alike, though their nutritional, environmental, technological and socioeconomic impacts at scale need to be researched and evaluated further.

<div id="5.6" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="forestry-systems"></span>