By Greg Odogwu
THERE is one thing missing in the picture painted by the Federal Government on the proposed Ministry of Livestock Development. When President Bola Tinubu recently set up the committee for the implementation of livestock reforms in Nigeria, he was enthusiastic in his affirmations that the solution was here. He said the eventual creation of the ministry would lead to increased meat and dairy production as well as reduce the violence between herders and farmers which has led to thousands of deaths in many states of the federation.
I agree. But what about its capacity for aggravating our carbon emissions, thereby contributing to climate change?
At the event in Abuja, he was quoted as saying, “First and foremost, to provide impetus to enable Nigeria to finally take advantage of livestock farming, dairy product, cold chain logistics, collectively offers substantial commercial and economic advantages…. The dairy industry contributes significantly to nutrition and food security that supply essential proteins and vitamins through milk and its derivatives such as cheese, yoghurt, butter and economic advantages.”
Yet, the one thing the president did not factor in is climate change and the environmental impact of livestock, especially cattle. This should be of concern to every stakeholder because cattle breeding contributes significantly to global warming and climate change. And then, Nigeria is a signatory to the Paris Climate Pact of 2015 with our attendant commitment to carbon emissions reductions as encapsulated in the Nationally Determined Contribution.
For starters, as a country that is so much concerned about cattle, we must also know the environmental impact of cattle rearing and its potential to affect our climate change policies. Cattle produce methane. Methane is one of the greenhouse gases (that is, gases that cause global warming). It is a hydrocarbon, being the primary component of natural gas. According to the eco-think tank, Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research Centre, cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane.
It is instructive to note that methane from cattle is shorter-lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere. The methane from cattle, which are ruminant animals, is known as biogenic methane, and there are many characteristics that set it apart from the ordinary carbon dioxide we are familiar with. Biogenic methane stays in our atmosphere for about 12 years; it is derived from atmospheric carbon such as CO2; it is part of the biogenic carbon cycle; and it eventually returns to the atmosphere as CO2, making it recycled carbon.
Biogenic methane is methane produced and released from living organisms like plants and animals. Examples of where this gas comes from are cattle’s stomachs and decaying vegetation. It should be noted that methane from fossil fuels does not have all the same characteristics as biogenic methane. Aside from its short life span, fossil methane shares more traits with CO2 from fossil fuels in how it warms our planet since it is not derived from atmospheric carbon. It is pulled from the earth and is new to the atmosphere. This is the primary component of natural gas and a by-product of oil and coal production and use.
Today, we are all waiting for the national deployment of Compressed Natural Gas for transportation. This CNG is an example of methane from fossil fuel, because it is simply natural gas – mainly comprised of methane – that is stored under high pressures while remaining in its gaseous form.
So, next time you walk or drive through the streets and you see a herd of cattle strolling lazily past, leaving steaming droppings in their trail, just know that you are looking at a carbon-emitting cauldron. Moreover, the horizon is volatile considering that the cattle herders inherited their parents’ legacy of livestock stewardship, and shall eventually transmit the same to their offspring. Fulani pastoralists commonly practise this tradition, passing it down through generations; and as our population grows while grazing space shrinks, many troubles emerge to confront the country. As it stands today, the distresses from cattle rearing dwarf the economic blessings that it brings.
This is why it is troubling that climate change has been thrown into the mix. But the good news is that there are advantages to be gained if the government handles it well, creatively and candidly.
Globally, the agriculture sector accounts for about 44 per cent of methane emissions, with livestock rearing, particularly cattle and sheep, contributing 14.5 per cent to global warming. Evidently, with more concentration on cattle rearing, the northern parts of Nigeria play a significant role in the country’s methane emissions profile. According to Climate Trace, an independent GHG emissions tracker, Nigeria contributed significantly to global agricultural emissions between 2015 and 2021, accounting for two per cent. Methane emissions totalled 21.3 million tonnes during this period. In 2021 alone, the country’s contribution rose to 4.9 per cent, with methane and nitrous oxide emitting 3.00 and 0.09 million tonnes, respectively.
The climate in northern Nigeria, characterised by semi-arid conditions, influences livestock farming practices and methane emissions. With an annual temperature of 29 degrees Celsius and a daily temperature of about 38 degrees Celsius, however, the often dry or hot weather accelerates the decomposition of manure. Water scarcity also confines cattle to smaller areas, causing more manure and higher emissions.
The situation is a vicious cycle of sort. Climate change driven by methane emissions disrupts local agricultural systems, via altered weather patterns, increased frequency of droughts, violent windstorms, among others. This in turn brings about low agricultural productivity, forcing herders to leave their natural habitats in the north and migrate with their cattle to the southern parts of the country. As a result, there is increased insecurity as the occupying herders clash with their hosts and land owners. And as the cattle feed on the natural grasses and crops which result in low feed conversion efficiency, enteric fermentation (i.e. the digestive process of breaking down food in a cow’s stomach) is increased, leading to methane production – starting the cycle all over again.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that as Tinubu and his committee (headed by Prof.AttahiruJega) embark on creating the livestock ministry, which in practical terms is the Ministry of Cattle, they should factor in the carbon ‘hoofprint’ of the Nigerian cattle sub-sector, and then plan accordingly on how to leverage its potential for green energy production and climate change mitigation. It does not make sense to have hundreds of millions of cattle just to develop products that are not commensurate to the troubles they create for society. We need smart thinking from the proposed ministry – when they finally decide to throw some cash in that direction.
While we are still stuck in the analogue mode of cattle rearing and meat production, there are several successful research works that have created more efficient nutrition regime for cattle. To be sure, the feeding and manure management techniques used in Nigeria contribute significantly to methane emissions from livestock farming. Cattle diets consisting of natural grasses and crop residues lead to higher methane production than optimised feed blends in more developed farming systems around the world. There are also techniques for using cattle ranching to fight climate change.
