• Extreme heat has gripped the northern hemisphere in recent months, and the year 2018 is on track to be among the hottest ever recorded. Higher global temperatures are expected to have detrimental effects on our natural environments and our physical health, but what will they do to our mental health? 

  • The dwindling agrarian and small farming communities around the world have certainly not had it easy during the last 50 years or so.

  • Climate scientists have understood for decades that unchecked, man-made global warming will wreak havoc on human civilization. The challenge has only grown more urgent as the scientific understanding expands and the world begins to feel the impacts.

  • Belching bovines are a primary culprit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Farmed livestock are responsible for 14.5% of all emissions related to human activity, and cows make up by far the largest proportion of that.

    Although vegan diets are on the rise in countries like the UK and US, and meat alternatives are increasingly available, cattle farming is still widespread.

    Image: FAO

    So attention has turned to putting a cork in the volume of methane cows produce, by targeting their gut microbes.

    Researchers looked at more than 1,000 cows on farms throughout Europe, and found they had a large proportion of their gut bacteria in common. By inoculating calves with targeted probiotics, the scientists suggest the mix of microbes could be altered, and the volume of methane produced limited. By eliminating the worst-offending gut bacteria, emissions could be cut in half, they say.

    Livestock production around the world.
    Livestock production around the world.
    Image: FAO

    Environmentally friendly cows?

    The researchers say the gas-causing bacteria in cows’ digestive systems are linked to their genetic make-up. Longer-term, this could mean some of the most problematic microbes could potentially be eliminated by selective breeding.

    Previous studies have suggested mixing seaweed into cattle feed could also be a way to cut the volume of methane produced. And it might also help cows grow bigger and stronger. However, there are still questions about how this might work in reality: growing seaweed on the scale necessary is likely to be problematic and environmentally damaging in itself.

    Dutch dairy cows produce an awful lot of milk but they also produce greenhouse gases. We can do something about that; emissions can be halved by some smart tinkering with genes, manure, housing and feed. 

    Cows are notorious for the greenhouse gases they produce. When they burp, fart and poo, they release methane. And when manure is used in fields, it produces nitrous oxide. Emissions of these two powerful greenhouse gases are often quantified by converting them to CO2 equivalents. Dutch dairy cows produce on average the equivalent of 1150 grams of CO2 per litre of milk. That needs to come down to 1020 grams per litre if we are to achieve the Dutch government’s climate targets by 2030.

    We can manage that easily, reckons researcher Theun Vellinga of Wageningen Livestock Research, who specializes in animal production systems and climate change. In fact, he says emissions of greenhouse gases from dairy cows could be halved in the next few years. These are the ‘levers’ we need to pull to achieve that.

    1 Feed

    When cows digest grass in the rumen, it releases methane. If farmers feed their cows less grass and more maize, then less methane is produced, says Vellinga. But there are downsides too. ‘If a farmer starts growing a lot of maize, grassland has to be converted into arable fields, with organic compounds in the soil evaporating as a result. Maize cultivation can also be a blot on the landscape. So you can only go so far in replacing grass with maize.’

    A less radical method for curbing methane production in cows is to add supplements to the fodder. ‘Many additives have been tried out, such as various herbs and nitrate,’ says Vellinga. The herbs did not have a lasting effect but the nitrate did. WUR experimental farm De Marke has run trials with the addition of low concentrations of nitrate to a diet of maize and silaged grass. This led to a drop of 30 to 40 per cent in methane emissions.

    2 Genetics

    You can breed cows that produce less methane, says Vellinga. To do that, you need to find out how efficiently cows digest their feed. That varies from one cow to the next, so cattle breeders can select bulls with efficient digestive systems. Researchers estimate that a targeted breeding programme could reduce methane production by one per cent per annum over the next few years. So over 20 years you could cut methane emissions by 20 per cent.

    You could also use genetics and selection to push up Dutch cows’ milk yields further still, so that cows produce more milk per kilo of feed and therefore less methane per kilo of milk. But you need to be careful with that, says Vellinga. For years, Dutch dairy cows have been bred mainly to maximize production, a strategy that has resulted in cows with low resistance and little meat on their bones. ‘We mustn’t repeat the mistake of focusing too much on one property of the cow. We want robust cows in our fields that don’t fall ill easily and don’t need loads of antibiotics.’

    3 Manure

    When cow manure is stored, nitrous oxide and methane are released as bacteria convert organic compounds into these gases. But there is variation in this. For example, methane emissions from manure fall if the manure is cooled. Separating out the poo from the urine also has a beneficial effect on greenhouse gas production. There are other benefits from manure separation too, as it helps farmers apply precision fertilization because the urine contains nitrogen in particular and the solid manure has lots of phosphate.

    4 Housing

    In theory you could reduce the impact cows have on the climate further by keeping them in hermetically sealed barns with equipment to remove the methane and nitrous oxide. But such a hermetically sealed barn is expensive and it would mean keeping the cows indoors all the time. That is why Vellinga does not advocate this solution. Many dairy cows are currently kept in open barns with natural ventilation and room for the cows to move around. Many cows also spend part of the year outdoors. Those circumstances limit the extent to which we can capture or prevent greenhouse gas emissions, says Vellinga, but having cows in fields is valuable in its own right. ‘There are some things you can’t control as a farmer,’ says Vellinga, ‘but there is no cheaper way of removing grass from the land than a cow.’

    ‘Don’t forget the full picture!’

    We won’t get there just by tinkering with the feed, the cow and the manure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, claims Vellinga. He warns that we need to keep focused on the full picture. According to him, Dutch livestock farming is caught in the trap of optimization: how can we maximize milk production with as few inputs as possible and with minimum environmental impact? Animal manure legislation is a deciding factor. The phosphate rules reward farmers for producing as much milk per kilo of output phosphate as possible, while reducing phosphate excretion per kilo of milk gives farmers scope for more milk and more cows.

    We need to wean ourselves off this approach, says Vellinga, because it comes at the expense of other aspects such as the landscape, biodiversity and animal welfare. ‘Dutch livestock farming makes full use of the phosphate quota but at the same time birds and insects are disappearing. The climate-friendly cow needs to be part of an approach to livestock farming that does justice to nature and the landscape and that closes cycles.’

    That broader picture should encompass a business model for farmers, says the researcher. ‘We should pay farmers for their services to the landscape and ecosystems. That is possible for the climate-friendly cow too. You can set requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gases in livestock farming, identify appropriate measures and reward farmers who implement those measures. The guiding principle is giving the cow room rather than getting the most out of the beast. But there is no single right solution; farmers can combine perspectives.’

  • Scientists released a report on global climate change this October that comes with the starkest warning yet: We have just 12 years to make radical changes in nearly every sphere of society if we are going to limit the average world temperature rise to 1.5°C.

  • Climate change happens when a location’s usual weather is altered.

  • Two things became immediately clear as the crisis unfolded. The first was that, as we’ve already noted, the municipal, provincial and national authorities had absolutely no idea how to deal with the looming disaster.

  • Population Flood Risk

    Risk of Flooding Mapped Around the World

    Devastating floods across Pakistan this summer have resulted in more than 1,400 lives lost and one-third of the country being under water.

    This raises the question: which nations and their populations are the most vulnerable to the risk of flooding around the world?

    Using data from a recent study published in Nature, this graphic maps flood risk around the world, highlighting the 1.81 billion people directly exposed to 1-in-100 year floods. The methodology takes into account potential risks from both inland and coastal flooding.

       Sea-level rise, drought, flooding, climate refugees and resource shocks,

    Asian Countries Most at Risk from Rising Water Levels

    Not surprisingly, countries with considerable coastlines, river systems, and flatlands find themselves with high percentages of their population at risk.

    The Netherlands and Bangladesh are the only two nations in the world to have more than half of their population at risk due to flooding, at 59% and 58%, respectively. Vietnam (46%), Egypt (41%), and Myanmar (40%) round out the rest of the top five nations.

    Besides the Netherlands, only two other European nations are in the top 20 nations by percentage of population at risk, Austria (18th at 29%) and Albania (20th at 28%).

    Rank Country Flood risk, by population exposed (%) Total population exposed
    #1 ?? Netherlands 58.7% 10,100,000
    #2 ?? Bangladesh 57.5% 94,424,000
    #3 ?? Vietnam 46.0% 45,504,000
    #4 ?? Egypt 40.5% 38,871,000
    #5 ?? Myanmar 39.9% 19,104,000
    #6 ?? Laos 39.7% 2,985,000
    #7 ?? Cambodia 38.1% 7,431,000
    #8 ?? Guyana 37.9% 276,000
    #9 ?? Suriname 37.7% 233,000
    #10 ?? Iraq 36.8% 16,350,000
    #11 ?? Thailand 33.9% 25,431,000
    #12 ?? South Sudan 32.5% 5,437,000
    #13 ?? Pakistan 31.1% 71,786,000
    #14 ?? Nepal 29.4% 11,993,000
    #15 ?? Republic of the Congo 29.3% 1,170,000
    #16 ?? Philippines 29.0% 30,483,000
    #17 ?? Japan 28.7% 36,060,000
    #18 ?? Austria 27.8% 2,437,000
    #19 ?? India 27.7% 389,816,000
    #20 ?? Albania 27.6% 771,000
    #21 ?? China 27.5% 394,826,000
    #22 ?? Chad 27.4% 4,547,000
    #23 ?? Indonesia 27.0% 75,696,000
    #24 ?? Croatia 26.9% 1,094,000
    #25 ?? Slovakia 26.7% 1,401,000

    The Southeast Asia region alone makes up more than two-thirds of the global population exposed to flooding risk at 1.24 billion people.

    China and India account for 395 million and 390 million people, respectively, with both nations at the top in terms of the absolute number of people at risk of rising water levels. The rest of the top five countries by total population at risk are Bangladesh (94 million people at risk), Indonesia (76 million people at risk), and Pakistan (72 million people at risk).

    How Flooding is Already Affecting Countries Like Pakistan

    While forecasted climate and natural disasters can often take years to manifest, flooding affected more than 100 million people in 2021. Recent summer floods in Pakistan have continued the trend in 2022.

    With 31% of its population (72 million people) at risk of flooding, Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to floods.

    In 2010, floods in Pakistan were estimated to have affected more than 18 million people. The recent floods, which started in June, are estimated to have affected more than 33 million people as more than one-third of the country is submerged underwater.

    The Cost of Floods Today and in the Future

    Although the rising human toll is by far the biggest concern that floods present, they also bring with them massive economic costs. Last year, droughts, floods, and storms caused economic losses totaling $224.2 billion worldwide, nearly doubling the 2001-2020 annual average of $117.8 billion.

    A recent report forecasted that water risk (caused by droughts, floods, and storms) could eat up $5.6 trillion of global GDP by 2050, with floods projected to account for 36% of these direct losses.

    As both human and economic losses caused by floods continue to mount, nations around the world will need to focus on preventative infrastructure and restorative solutions for ecosystems and communities already affected and most at risk of flooding.

  • The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

  • Later and more intense rainy seasons across parts of Africa due to climate change could have damaging consequences, a new study has found.

  •  A group of European researchers have found that current breeding programs and cultivar selection practices in Europe do not provide the needed resilience to climate change.

  • The world’s grain markets face a year of challenges and uncertainty, with weather and politics likely to drive trade flows and prices, said the keynote speaker at the Global Grain Conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

  • The World Bank Group today announced a major new set of climate targets for 2021-2025, doubling its current 5-year investments to around $200 billion in support for countries to take ambitious climate action.

  • Agriculture and climate change are deeply intertwined. The effects of global warming on food supply are dire, whilst world population is increasing. It's time to change the way agriculture affects the environment, and vice versa.

  • Extreme climate conditions, prolonged drought, weather anomalies and endangered species are just a few of the aspects to consider when talking about sustainable water supplies. Could precision agriculture be the answer?

  • The impact of climate change continues to have devastating effects on countries across the globe, and Namibia has not been spared.

  • The results of a new analysis by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) demonstrated a decrease in “emissions intensity” (emissions per unit of product) of GHG emitted in the production of milk.

  • As the science weighs more heavily toward a consensus that a) climate change is a real phenomenon and b) human-generated carbon emissions are playing at least a part in causing more volatile weather patterns, it is critical that the global agricultural community combat this phenomenon, to the extent that it can.

  • Rain is the glue that holds Namibia’s agriculture-based economy, especially for subsistence farmers in the semi-arid southern African nation.

  • Climate change has been blamed for the wild swings in agricultural crop yields, but it could also result in a doomsday scenario for drinkers: Beer, the world’s top-consumed alcoholic beverage by volume, may at some point be out of reach for hundreds of millions of people around the world, according to a new study.