The White Meat Industry in Dubai through a One Health Lens

White meat is one of the most commonly consumed animal-source foods in the Emirate of Dubai and is one of 21 main foods listed in the National Food Security Strategy of UAE and the Emirate of Dubai. Although fresh white meat is produced locally, the quantities are very limited, so, to meet market needs, chilled and frozen white meat is imported. The aim of this chapter is to examine the existing white meat supply networks and market in Dubai and understand the flow of fresh chickens from the local market and the shipment dynamics for imported frozen chickens under the One Health concept. Data from documents, publications and surveys of the Dubai Government, representatives of the Food Safety Department and Veterinary Service Section (via focus group discussions) and direct interviews with local small farmers, food importers, food manufacturers and retailers and animal feed manufacturers and retailers were used to describe the value chain for white meat in the Emirate of Dubai. The data were collected through detailed questionnaires in the interview with the focus groups and interviews of groups of stakeholders selected by the Food Safety Department in Dubai Municipality. Data from government strategies and reports were collected and analysed to understand the government’s position and the size of the white meat sector. The data provided by representatives of local small farmers, food importers, food manufacturers and retailers and animal feed manufacturers and retailers were used to understand the value chain of white meat from the private sector perspective. After studying the value chain and the results of this research, areas were identified in the value chain of the white meat sector at the level of the Emirate of Dubai that can be improved, for example, the need for better marketing of local products. Some areas are already strong such as the inclusion of white meat products in the Dubai strategy for Food Security approved at the level of the Emirate of Dubai. The results of this chapter highlight critical opportunities for changes in policies and best practices that if implemented by the Dubai Government would ensure that the white meat industry is able to meet local market demands. Recommendations to the Dubai Government are presented in support of enhancing Dubai’s economic sustainability and efficient contributions to food and nutrition security.

The Role of Soil Carbon Sequestration as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy: An Australian Case Study

Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) is a key priority in the Australian government’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan. Under the government’s Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), farmers are encouraged to change to a management practice that will increase their soil carbon (C) stock and earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). The projections of net C abatement nationally range from 17 to 103 Mt carbon dioxide equivalent annually up to 2050. This huge range reflects the uncertainties in achieving net SCS due to biophysical constraints, such as those imposed by the paucity and variability of Australian rainfall and the difficulty of measuring small changes in soil C stock. The uptake by farmers is also uncertain because of compliance costs, opportunity costs of a practice change and the loss of business flexibility when a farmer must commit to a 25-year permanence period. Since the program’s inception in 2014, only one soil C project has been awarded ACCUs. Nevertheless, an increase in soil C is generally beneficial for farm productivity. As a voluntary C market evolves, the government is expecting that farmers will sell their ACCUs to businesses seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. The risk is that, in buying cheap offsets, businesses will not then invest in new energy-efficient technologies to reduce their emissions at source.

Carbon myopia: The urgent need for integrated social, economic and environmental action in the livestock sector

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.

Potential solutions to the major greenhouse-gas issues facing Australasian dairy farming

The Australasian dairy industry is facing the dual challenges of increasing productivity, while also reducing its emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHG) methane and nitrous oxide. Following the COP21 Paris Agreement, all sectors of the economy will be expected to contribute to GHG abatement. Enteric methane is the major source of GHG emissions from dairy production systems (>70%), followed by nitrous oxide (13%) and methane (12%) from animal waste, with nitrogen (N)-fertiliser use contributing ~3.5% of total on-farm non-carbon dioxide equivalent (non-CO2e) emissions. Research on reducing methane emissions from dairy cattle has focussed on feeding dietary supplements (e.g. tannins, dietary oils and wheat), rumen modification (e.g. vaccine, inhibitors), breeding and animal management. Research on reducing nitrous oxide emissions has focussed on improving N fertiliser efficiency and reducing urinary N loss. Profitable options for significant abatement on farm are still limited, with the industry focusing instead on improving production efficiency, while reducing emission intensity (t CO2e/t product). Absolute emission reduction will become an imperative as the world moves towards carbon neutrality by 2050 and, thus, a priority for research. However, even with implementation of best-practice abatement, it is likely that some residual emissions will remain in the foreseeable future. The soil organic carbon content of dairy soils under well fertilised, high-rainfall or irrigated permanent pastures are already high, therefore limiting the potential for further soil carbon sequestration as an offset against these residual emissions. The Australasian dairy industry will, therefore, also need to consider how these residual emissions will be offset through carbon sequestration mainly in trees and, to a more limited extent, increasing soil organic carbon.

Offsets required to reduce the carbon balance of sheep and beef farms through carbon sequestration in trees and soils

The sustainability of farming is important to ensure that natural resources remain available into the future. Ruminant livestock production generates more greenhouse gas emissions than other types of agricultural production and most livestock mitigation options to date have a modest greenhouse gas reduction potential (<20%). Trees and soils, by comparison, can sequester large amounts of carbon depending on the availability of land. Previous studies on carbon neutral livestock production have shown that farms with a stocking rate of 8 dry sheep equivalents (DSE)/ha can be carbon neutral or carbon positive by sequestering more carbon than is emitted from the farm. However, the carbon offsets required by farms with higher stocking rates (>20 DSE/ha) has yet to be studied in Australia. The challenge is to sequester enough carbon to offset the higher level of emissions that these higher stocked farms produce. This study calculated the carbon balance of wool, prime lamb and beef enterprises using a range of stocking rates (6–22 DSE/ha) and levels of tree cover in two agroecological zones. Emissions from livestock, energy and transport were offset by the carbon sequestered in trees and soils. Additionally, the carbon balance was calculated of a case study, Jigsaw Farms, an intensive sheep and beef farm in south-eastern Australia. The methods used to calculate emissions and carbon stocks were from the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The majority of stocking rates were carbon positive over a 25-year period when 20% of the sheep or beef enterprises were covered with trees. This study demonstrated that substantial reductions can be made in greenhouse gas emissions through the use of carbon sequestration, particularly in trees. The results showed that from 2000 to 2014 Jigsaw Farms reduced its emissions by 48% by sequestering carbon in trees and soil. The analysis of different stocking rates and tree cover provides an important reference point for farmers, researchers and policy analysts to estimate the carbon balance of wool, prime lamb and beef enterprises based on stocking rate and the area of tree cover.