Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
presents a method of reallocating farm animals or land from ruminant to
non-ruminant production systems. With the inclusion of changes in soil
carbon storage, the ULICEES model can provide a more comprehensive
comparison of the negative impact of enteric methane emissions with the
benefit of protecting soil carbon under permanent cover. Similarly, other
livestock commodities or non-enteric related GHG emission issues, such
as manure management systems or tillage practices, can also be compared
with changes in soil carbon with ULICEES. With the soil carbon interface,
ULICEES can provide a more comprehensive comparison of GHG emis-
sion intensities of protein production among Canadian livestock types.
Although it introduces an additional parameter to the GHG mitigation
policy dialogue, the payback period approach was shown to be a poten-
tially valuable indicator. For example, whereas reseeding all of the re-
sidual areas from displaced beef to annuals released the largest amounts
of soil carbon, the savings in annual GHG emissions showed that this op-
tion could be a positive GHG emissions mitigation strategy over 40 years.
However, given the vast reserve of grassland in western Canada that can-
not support grain production, the lower carbon footprint of non-ruminants
cannot override the fact that this land is only suitable for forage based beef
production.
This study has illustrated the complex interactions between livestock
production industries that must be considered when attempting to balance
agricultural production, land use and mitigation strategies. ULICEES
shows promise as being an effective modeling tool for a wide range of
land use and GHG mitigation policies in Canada. The results of the sce-
narios assessed in this paper suggest that conserving soil carbon stock did
not compensate for the annual GHG emissions from forage based beef
production in much of Canada. These fi ndings should not, however, be
interpreted as an indication that all farmland should be converted from
beef to pork production. Assessments similar to this Canadian analysis
could be done in other countries. However, in countries whose lack of
food security would not justify grain based livestock production, or where
most of the land resources are only suited to perennial forage production,
ruminant livestock would continue to be the most sustainable, and often
the only viable, food production system, regardless of the carbon footprint
of that system.
