Effects of climate change on livestock

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For contributions of livestock activities to climate change, see Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
Map of countries considered most and least vulnerable to adverse impacts of climate change on their grazing livestock.[1]
Multi-faceted impacts of climate change on livestock.[2]

There are numerous interlinked effects of climate change on livestock rearing. This activity is both heavily affected by and a substantial driver of anthropogenic climate change due to its greenhouse gas emissions. As of 2011, some 400 million people relied on livestock in some way to secure their livelihood.[3]: 746  The commercial value of this sector is estimated as close to $1 trillion.[4] As an outright end to human consumption of meat and/or animal products is not currently considered a realistic goal,[5] any comprehensive adaptation to effects of climate change must also consider livestock.

The observed adverse impacts on

vector-borne diseases are also spreading further than they had before, and the data indicating this is frequently of superior quality to one used to estimate impacts on the spread of human pathogens.[3]

While some areas which currently support livestock animals are expected to avoid "extreme heat stress" even with high warming at the end of the century, others may stop being suitable as early as midcentury.

human development index and other measures of national resilience and widely varying importance of pastoralism to the national diet as it is an outcome of direct impacts of climate on each country.[1]

Proposed adaptations to climate change in livestock production include improved cooling at animal shelters and changes to animal feed, though they are often costly or have only limited effects.

subsidies currently offered to livestock farmers in many places worldwide.[11]

Heat stress in livestock

Projected worldwide increases

Increased intensity of global climate change causes even greater increases of thermal heat index in Jamaican farm animals. High thermal heat index is one of the more widely used indicators of heat stress.[12]

In general, the preferred ambient temperature range for domestic animals is between 10 and 30 °C (50 and 86 °F).

heat stress. Under the climate change scenario of highest emissions and greatest warming, SSP5-8.5, "cattle,sheep, goats, pigs and poultry in the low latitudes will face 72–136 additional days per year of extreme stress from high heat and humidity".[3]
: 717 

In Jamaica, considered representative of the Caribbean region, all livestock animals besides layer hens are already exposed to "very severe" heat stress in the present climate, with pigs being exposed to it at least once per day during the 5 summer and early autumn months, while ruminants and broilers only avoid daily exposure to very severe heat stress during the winter. it has been projected that even at 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) of global warming, "very severe" heat stress would become a daily event for ruminants and broilers. By 2 °C (3.6 °F), it would be felt for a longer duration, and extensive cooling systems would likely become a necessity for livestock production in the Caribbean. At 2.5 °C (4.5 °F), only layer hens would avoid daily exposure to "very severe" heat stress during the winter months.[12]

Studies of heat stress and livestock had historically focused on cattle, as they are often kept outdoors and so are immediately exposed to changes in climate. On the other hand, a little over 50% of all pork production and 70% of all poultry production worldwide originated from animals kept entirely in confined buildings even around 2006, and the raw numbers were expected to increase by 3–3.5 times for pigs, by 2–2.4 times for

midlatitude regions, indoor temperatures were already higher than the outdoor temperatures even in summer, and as the increased heating exceeds these systems' specifications, confined animals are left more vulnerable to the heat than those kept outdoors.[13]

Health impacts of heat stress

Impacts of heat stress on livestock animals.[2]

Once the body temperature of livestock animals is 3–4 °C (5.4–7.2 °F) above normal, this soon leads to "

Pays-de-la-Loire alone.[2]

Livestock can also suffer multiple sublethal impacts from heat stress, such as reduced milk production. Once the temperatures exceed 30 °C (86 °F), cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens all begin to consume 3–5% less feed for each subsequent degree of temperature increase.

sweating rates, and the combination of these responses can lead to metabolic disorders. One examples is ketosis, or the rapid accumulation of ketone bodies, caused by the animal's body rapidly catabolizing its fat stores to sustain itself.[2] Heat stress also causes an increase in antioxidant enzyme activities, which can result in an imbalance of oxidant and antioxidant molecules, otherwise known as oxidative stress. Feed supplementation with antioxidants like chromium can help address oxidative stress and prevent it from leading to other pathological conditions, but only in a limited way.[15]

The immune system is also known to be impaired in heat-stressed animals, rendering them more susceptible to various infections.[2] Similarly, vaccination of livestock is less effective when they suffer from heat stress.[16] So far, heat stress had been estimated by researchers using inconsistent definitions, and current livestock models have limited correlation with experimental data.[17] Notably, since livestock like cows spend much of their day laying down, comprehensive heat stress estimation needs to take account of ground temperature as well,[18] but the first model to do so was only published in 2021, and it still tends to systematically overestimate body temperature while underestimating breathing rate.[19]

Economic impact and adaptation

This diagram shows a proposed design of a heat exchanger for indoor rearing facilities, whose installation would help to protect livestock from heat stress.[8]

In the United States alone, economic losses caused by heat stress in livestock were already valued at between $1.69 and $2.36 billion in 2003, with the spread reflecting different assumptions about the effectiveness of contemporary adaptation measures.[20] Nevertheless, some reviews consider the United States to be the least vulnerable nation to food security shocks caused by the negative impacts of climate change on livestock, as while it rates in the middle of the pack in terms of exposure of its livestock and the societal sensitivity to that exposure, it has the highest adaptive capacity in the world due to its GDP and development status. Japan and the nations in Europe have low vulnerability for similar reasons.

Meanwhile the exposure of Mongolian livestock to climate change is not very different from that of American livestock, but the enormous importance of pastoralism in Mongolian society and its limited capacity to adapt still renders it one of the most vulnerable countries in the world. Nations in sub-Saharan Africa generally suffer from high exposure, low adaptive capacity and high sensitivity due to the importance of livestock in their societies, with these factors particularly acute in Eastern African countries,[1] where between 4 and 19% of livestock-producing areas are expected to suffer "significantly" more "dangerous" heat stress events after 2070, depending on the climate change scenario.[21] There is high confidence that under the most intense scenario, SSP5-8.5, the net amount of land which can support livestock will decline by 2050 as heat stress would already become unbearable for them in some locations.[3]: 748 

A range of climate change adaptation measures can help to protect livestock, such as increasing access to drinking water, creating better shelters for animals kept outdoors and improving air circulation in the existing indoor facilities.[22] Installing specialized cooling systems is the most capital-intensive intervention, but it may be able to completely counteract the impact of future warming.[8]

Difficulties in feeding livestock

Climatic impacts on feed and forage

Fall River County
, South Dakota.

Livestock is fed either by letting them directly graze

rangelands support over twice their sustainable capacity, and this leads to mass mortality in poor years, such as when around 800,000 goats and sheep in Iran perished due to the severe 1999 − 2001 drought. This was then exceeded by millions of animal deaths during the 2007–2008 drought.[25]

Climate change can impact livestock animals' food supply in multiple ways. First, the direct effects of temperature increase affect both fodder cultivation and productivity of rangelands, albeit in variable ways. On a global scale, there is confidence that with all else equal, every single 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming would decrease the yields of the four most important crops by between ~3% for rice and

tall fescue,[28] or for crops. Some studies suggest that high water availability through irrigation "decouples" crops from climate as they become much less susceptible to extreme weather events,[29] but the feasibility of this approach is obviously limited by the region's overall water security, especially once the warming reaches levels of 2 or 3 °C (3.6 or 5.4 °F).[30]
: 664 

Worldwide production of alfalfa, an important fodder plant.

While climate change increases precipitation on average, regional changes are more variable, and variability alone adversely impacts "animal fertility, mortality, and herd recovery, reducing livestock keepers' resilience".[3]: 717  In Zimbabwe, uncertainty about rainfall under different climate change scenarios could mean the difference between 20% and 100% of farmers negatively affected by 2070, while the average livestock revenue could potentially increase by 6%, yet may also plunge by as much as 43%.[31]

Many places are likely to see increased drought, which would affect both the crops and the pastural land.

glacier melt can also affect pasture, as it first floods the land, and then retreats entirely.[3]
: 724 

Atmospheric CO2 and livestock forage

The abundance of fodder and forage strongly benefits from the

ppm (nearly 50% larger than the ~420 ppm levels of 2023) during the same experiment. 96% of overall forage growth on such prairies stems from just six plant species, and they become 38% more productive largely in response to the increased CO2 levels, yet their nutritious value to livestock also declines by 13% due to the same, as they grow less edible tissue and become harder to digest.[37]

Warming and water deficit also affect nutritional value, sometimes synergistically. For instance,

Guinea grass, an important forage plant in the tropics, already gains more inedible lignin in response to water deficit (+43%), as well as in response to warming (+25%). Its lignin content increases the least in response to both stressors (+17%),[38] yet elevated CO2 further reduces its nutritional value, even as it makes the plant less susceptible to water stress.[39] Similar response was observed in Stylosanthes capilata, another important forage species in the tropics, which is likely to become more prevalent with warming, yet which may require irrigation to avoid substantial losses in nutritional value.[40][41]

Global impacts of lowered livestock nutrition

Impacts of one possible scenario of climate change on agricultural costs between 2005 and 2045, under a range of assumptions about the role of CO2 fertilization effect and the effectiveness of adaptation strategies.[42]

Altogether, around 10% of current global pasture is expected to be threatened by water scarcity caused by climate change, as early as 2050.[30]: 614  By 2100, 30% of the current combined crop and livestock areas would become climatically unsuitable under the warmest scenario SSP5-8.5, as opposed to 8% under the low-warming SSP1-2.6, although neither figure accounts for the potential shift of production to other areas.[3]: 717  If 2 °C (3.6 °F) of warming occurs by 2050, then 7–10% of the current livestock are predicted to be lost primarily due to insufficient feed supply, amounting to $10–13 billion in lost value.[3]: 748 

Similarly, an older study found that if 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) of warming occurs between 2005 and 2045 (rate comparable to hitting 2 °C (3.6 °F) by 2050), then under the current livestock management paradigm, global agricultural costs would increase by 3% (an estimated $145 billion), with the impact concentrated in pure pasturalist systems. At the same time, mixed crop-livestock systems already produced over 90% of the global milk supply as of 2013, as well as 80% of ruminant meat,[43] yet they would bear the minority of the costs, and switching all pure livestock systems to mixed crop-livestock would decrease global agricultural costs from 3% to 0.3%, while switching half of those systems would reduce costs to 0.8%. The full shift would also reduce future projected deforestation in the tropics by up to 76 million ha.[42]

Pathogens and parasites

See also: Climate change and infectious diseases

While climate-induced heat stress can directly reduce domestic animals' immunity against all diseases,

helminths in Europe which have now spread further towards the poles, with higher survival rate and higher reproductive capacity (fecundity).[44]: 231  Detailed long-term records of both livestock diseases and various agricultural interventions in Europe mean that demonstrating the role of climate change in the increased helminth burden in livestock is actually easier than attributing the impact of climate change on diseases which affect humans.[44]
: 231 

A sheep infected with bluetongue virus.

Temperature increases are also likely to benefit

Rift Valley Fever outbreaks in East African livestock are also expected to increase.[3]: 747  Ixodes ricinus, a tick which spreads pathogens like Lyme disease and tick-borne encephalitis, is predicted to become 5–7% more prevalent on livestock farms in Great Britain, depending on the extent of future climate change.[45]

The impacts of climate change on

Tsetse flies, the hosts of trypanosoma parasites, already appear to be losing habitat and thus affect a smaller area than before.[3]
: 747 

By type of livestock

Aquaculture

Under high warming, there will be a global decline in area suitable for

Farmed fish can be affected by heat stress as much as any other animal, and there has already been research on its effects and ways to mitigate it in species like tambaqui or blunt snout bream.[47][48]

Camels

Along with camels, goats are more resilient to drought than cattle. In Southeastern Ethiopia, some of the cattle pastoralists are already switching to goats and camels.[49]

Cattle

Various pathologies which can be caused by heat stress, many specific to cattle.[2]

As of 2009, there were 1.2 billion cattle in the world, with around 82% in the

cow milk: research in Sweden found that average daily temperatures of 20–25 °C (68–77 °F) reduce daily milk yield per cow by 200 g (0.44 lb), with the loss reaching 540 g (1.19 lb) for 25–30 °C (77–86 °F).[53] Research in a humid tropical climate describes a more linear relationship, with every unit of heat stress reducing yield by 2.13%.[54] In the intensive farming systems, daily milk yield per cow declines by 1.8 kg (4.0 lb) during severe heat stress. In organic farming systems, the effect of heat stress on milk yields is limited, but milk quality suffers substantially, with lower fat and protein content.[55] In China, daily milk production per cow is already lower than the average by between 0.7 and 4 kg (1.5 and 8.8 lb) in July (the hottest month of the year), and by 2070, it may decline by up to 50% (or 7.2 kg (16 lb)) due to climate change.[56] Some researchers suggest that the already recorded stagnation of dairy production in both China and West Africa can attributed to persistent increases in heat stress.[3]
: 747 

Heatwaves can also reduce milk yield, with particularly acute impacts if the heatwave lasts for four or more days, as at that point the cow's thermoregulation capacity is usually exhausted, and its core body temperature starts to increase.

lipidosis.[2]

E. coli
mastitis in cow (left), in comparison to normal milk (right).

Cattle are suspectible to some specific heat stress risks, such as

lameness, defined as "any foot abnormality that causes an animal to change the way that it walks". This effect can occur "weeks to months" after severe heat stress exposure, alongside sore ulcers and white line disease.[2] Another specific risk is mastitis, normally caused by either an injury to cow's udder, or "immune response to bacterial invasion of the teat canal."[2] Bovine neutrophil function is impaired at higher temperatures, leaving mammary glands more vulnerable to infection,[60] and mastitis is already known to be more prevalent during the summer months, so there is an expectation this would worsen with continued climate change.[2]

One of the vectors of bacteria which cause mastitis are

temperate countries once their autumns and winters become warmer by about 2–2.75 °C (3.60–4.95 °F).[62] On the other hand, the brown stomach worm, Ostertagia ostertagi, is predicted to become much less prevalent in cattle as the warming progresses.[63]

By 2017, it was already reported that farmers in Nepal kept fewer cattle due to the losses imposed by a longer hot season.

hydrological cycle becomes more variable and affects forage growth. Even though the annual mean precipitation is not expected to change much, there will be more unusually dry years as well as unusually wet years, and the negatives will outweigh the positives. Keeping smaller herds to be more flexible when dry years hit was suggested as an adaptation strategy.[64] Since more variable and therefore less predictable precipitation is one of the well-established effects of climate change on the water cycle,[65]: 85  similar patterns were later established across the rest of the United States,[66] and then globally.[67]

All but two or three of the top 10 beef-producing countries are likely to see lower production with greater warming.[7]

As of 2022, it has been suggested that every additional millimeter of annual precipitation increases beef production by 2.1% in the tropical countries and reduces it by 1.9% in temperate ones, yet the effects of warming are much larger. Under SSP3-7.0, a scenario of significant warming and very low adaptation, every additional 1 °C (1.8 °F) would decrease global beef production by 9.7%, mainly because of its impact on tropical and poor countries. In the countries which can afford adaptation measures, production would fall by around 4%, but by 27% in those which cannot.[68] In 2024, another study suggested that the impacts would be milder - a 1% decrease per every additional 1 °C (1.8 °F) in low-income countries and 0.2% in high-income ones, and a 3.2% global decline in beef production by 2100 under SSP3-7.0.[7] The same paper suggests that out of the top 10 beef-producing countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, Mexico, Russia, Turkey and the U.S.), only China, Russia and the U.S. would see overall production gains with increased warming, with the rest experiencing declines.[7] Other research suggests that east and south of Argentina may become more suitable to cattle ranching due to climate-driven shifts in rainfall, but a shift to Zebu breeds would likely be needed to minimize the impact of warming.[69]

Equines

Diagram of heat regulation in horses.[70]

As of 2019, there are around 17 million horses in the world. Healthy body temperature for adult horses is in the range between 37.5 and 38.5 °C (99.5 and 101.3 °F), which they can maintain while ambient temperatures are between 5 and 25 °C (41 and 77 °F). However, strenuous exercise increases core body temperature by 1 °C (1.8 °F)/minute, as 80% of the energy used by equine muscles is released as heat. Along with

anhidrosis, heat stroke, or brain damage, potentially culminating in death if not addressed with measures like cold water applications. Additionally, around 10% of incidents associated with horse transport have been attributed to heat stress. These issues are expected to worsen in the future.[70]

flying fox hosts to horses is also likely to increase, as future warming would expand the hosts' geographic range. It has been estimated that under the "moderate" and high climate change scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the number of threatened horses would increase by 110,000 and 165,000, respectively, or by 175 and 260%.[74]

Goats and sheep

Sheep are known for tolerating heat better than cattle.

Goats and sheep are often collectively described as small ruminants, and tend to be studied together rather than separately.[75] Both of them are known to be less affected by climate change than cattle,[3]: 747  with goats in particular considered one the most climate-resilient domestic animals, being second only to camels.[76] In Southeastern Ethiopia, some of the cattle pastoralists are already switching to goats and camels.[49]

Even so, the 2007–2008 drought in Iran had already resulted in the country's sheep population declining by nearly 4 million – from 53.8 million in 2007 to 50 million in 2008, while the goat population declined from 25.5 million in 2007 to 22.3 million in 2008.[25] Some researchers expect climate change to drive genetic selection towards more heat- and drought-adapted breeds of sheep.[77] Notably, heat-adapted sheep can be of both wool and hair breeds, in spite of the popular perception that hair breeds are always more resistant to heat stress.[78]

Parasitic worms

sub-Arctic.[79]

Pigs

Pig farm in Taiwan, in 2020.

For pigs, heat stress varies depending on their age and size. Young and growing pigs with the average body mass of 30 kg (66 lb) can tolerate temperatures up to 24 °C (75 °F) before starting to experience any heat stress, but after they have grown and are fattened to about 120 kg (260 lb), at which point they are considered ready for slaughter, their tolerance drops to just 20 °C (68 °F).[8]

One paper estimated that in Austria, at an intensive farming facility used to fatten up about 1800 growing pigs at a time, the already observed warming between 1981 and 2017 would have increased relative annual heat stress by between 0.9 and 6.4% per year. It is considered representative of other such facilities in Central Europe.[13]

A follow-up paper considered the impact of several adaptation measures. Installing a

night shift work. Similarly, stocking fewer pigs per facility is the absolute simplest intervention, yet it has the lowest effectiveness, and necessarily reduces profitability.[8]

Poultry

Photo of an egg farm in New England, taken around 2009.

It is believed that the thermal comfort zone for poultry is in the 18–25 °C (64–77 °F) range. Some papers describe 26–35 °C (79–95 °F) as the "critical zone" for

wood sorrel.[81][82][83][84][85][86] Resveratrol is another popular antioxidant administered to poultry for these reasons.[87] Though the effect of supplementation is limited, it is much cheaper than interventions to improve cooling or simply stock fewer birds, and so remains popular.[88] While the majority of literature on poultry heat stress and dietary supplementation focuses on chickens, similar findings were seen in Japanese quails, which eat less and gain less weight, suffer reduced fertility and hatch eggs of worse quality under heat stress, and also seem to benefit from mineral supplementation.[89][90][91]

Around 2003, it was estimated that the poultry industry in the United States already lost up to $165 million annually due to heat stress at the time.[80] One paper estimated that if global warming reaches 2.5 °C (4.5 °F), then the cost of rearing broilers in Brazil increases by 35.8% at the least modernized farms and by 42.3% at farms with the medium level of technology used in livestock housing, while they increase the least at farms with the most advanced cooling technologies. On the contrary, if the warming is kept to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), costs at moderately modernized farms increase the least, by 12.5%, followed by the most modernized farms with a 19.9% increase, and the least technological farms seeing the greatest increase.[92]

Reindeer

By mid-2010s, indigenous people of the Arctic have already observed reindeer breeding less and surviving winters less often, as warmer temperatures benefit biting insects and result in more intense and persistent swarm attacks. They also become more susceptible to parasites spread by such insects, and as the Arctic becomes warmer and more accessible to invasive species, it is anticipated that they will come in contact with pests and pathogens they have not encountered historically.[44]: 233 

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock activities

Livestock produces the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and demands around 30% of agricultural fresh water needs, while only supplying 18% of the global calorie intake. Animal-derived food plays a larger role in meeting human protein needs, yet is still a minority of supply at 39%, with crops providing the rest.[3]: 746–747 

Out of the

net zero transition plans now involve limits on total livestock headcounts, including substantial reductions of existing stocks in some countries with extensive animal agriculture sectors like Ireland.[10] Yet, an outright end to human consumption of meat and/or animal products is not currently considered a realistic goal.[94] Therefore, any comprehensive plan of adaptation to effects of climate change, particularly the present and future effects of climate change on agriculture
, must also consider livestock.

This section is an excerpt from Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture § Livestock.[edit]

Livestock and livestock-related activities such as deforestation and increasingly fuel-intensive farming practices are responsible for over 18%[95] of human-made greenhouse gas emissions, including:

Livestock activities also contribute disproportionately to land-use effects, since crops such as corn and alfalfa are cultivated in order to feed the animals.

In 2010, enteric fermentation accounted for 43% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from all agricultural activity in the world.[96] The meat from ruminants has a higher carbon equivalent footprint than other meats or vegetarian sources of protein based on a global meta-analysis of lifecycle assessment studies.[97] Small ruminants such as sheep and goats contribute approximately 475 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to GHG emissions, which constitutes around 6.5% of world agriculture sector emissions.[98] Methane production by animals, principally ruminants, makes up an estimated 15-20% global production of methane.[99][100] Research continues on the use of various seaweed species, in particular Asparegopsis armata, as a food additive that helps reduce methane production in ruminants.[101]

Worldwide, livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the Earth.[95] The way livestock is grazed also affects future fertility of the land. Not circulating grazing can lead to unhealthy compacted soils. The expansion of livestock farms affects the habitats of native wildlife and has led to their decline. Reduced intake of meat and dairy products is another effective approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Slightly over half of Europeans (51%) surveyed in 2022 support reducing the amount of meat and dairy products people may buy to combat climate change - 40% of Americans and 73% of Chinese respondents felt the same.[102]

See also

References

  1. ^
    PMID 24692268
    .
  2. ^
    PMID 32002236
    .
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Kerr R.B., Hasegawa T., Lasco R., Bhatt I., Deryng D., Farrell A., Gurney-Smith H., Ju H., Lluch-Cota S., Meza F., Nelson G., Neufeldt H., Thornton P., 2022: Chapter 5: Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US, pp. 1457–1579 |doi=10.1017/9781009325844.012
  4. ^ "FAOStat". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  5. S2CID 239376124
    .
  6. ^
    S2CID 256256647
    .
  7. ^
    doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01232-x
    .
  8. ^
    S2CID 201103432
    .
  9. ^
    S2CID 258751271
    .
  10. ^ a b Lisa O'Carroll (3 November 2021). "Ireland would need to cull up to 1.3 million cattle to reach climate targets". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  11. ^ a b "just-transition-meat-sector" (PDF).
  12. ^
    S2CID 158167267
    .
  13. ^
    S2CID 58951606
    .
  14. ^
    PMID 28040271
    .
  15. S2CID 209447429
    .
  16. S2CID 201204108
    .
  17. PMID 35821443
    .
  18. PMID 30368680
    .
  19. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.06.009
    .
  20. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74040-5
    .
  21. S2CID 234031623
    .
  22. ^ "Caring for animals during extreme heat". Agriculture Victoria. 18 November 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
  23. ^
    S2CID 254151318
    .
  24. ^
    PMID 31174286
    .
  25. ^
    S2CID 246211499
    .
  26. PMID 28811375
    .
  27. PMID 18077401
    .
  28. S2CID 238826178
    .
  29. S2CID 155053302
    .
  30. ^ a b Caretta M. A., Mukherji A., Arfanuzzaman M., Betts R. A., Gelfan A., Hirabayashi Y., Lissner T. K., Gunn E. L., Liu J., Morgan R., Mwanga S., Supratid S., 2022: Chapter 4: Water. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US, pp. 1457–1579 |doi=10.1017/9781009325844.012
  31. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.05.004
    .
  32. doi:10.1108/09653561111161752
    .
  33. S2CID 10035895
    .
  34. ^ Milius S (13 December 2017). "Worries grow that climate change will quietly steal nutrients from major food crops". Science News. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
  35. S2CID 91727337
    .
  36. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.06.014
    .
  37. PMID 29297964
    .
  38. S2CID 54489631
    .
  39. PMID 36544868
    .
  40. S2CID 237893829
    .
  41. S2CID 246421715
    .
  42. ^
    S2CID 7651989
    .
  43. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2014.02.002
    .
  44. ^ a b c Parmesan, C., M.D. Morecroft, Y. Trisurat, R. Adrian, G.Z. Anshari, A. Arneth, Q. Gao, P. Gonzalez, R. Harris, J. Price, N. Stevens, and G.H. Talukdarr, 2022: Chapter 2: Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and Their Services. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 257–260 |doi=10.1017/9781009325844.004
  45. S2CID 252247062
    .
  46. S2CID 247970053
    .
  47. S2CID 216361328
    .
  48. S2CID 244058372
    .
  49. ^
    PMID 35257034
    .
  50. ^
    S2CID 10134761
    .
  51. ^ "Number of cattle, 1961 to 2021". Our World in Data.
  52. S2CID 246655199
    .
  53. S2CID 253764271
    .
  54. S2CID 255113614
    .
  55. S2CID 221283658
    .
  56. S2CID 214783104
    .
  57. S2CID 252736195
    .
  58. S2CID 73450919
    .
  59. PMID 26805989
    .
  60. PMID 27863557
    .
  61. S2CID 3892520
    .
  62. S2CID 250252036
    .
  63. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.11.033
    .
  64. S2CID 89379400
    .
  65. ^ Arias, P.A., N. Bellouin, E. Coppola, R.G. Jones, G. Krinner, J. Marotzke, V. Naik, M.D. Palmer, G.-K. Plattner, J. Rogelj, M. Rojas, J. Sillmann, T. Storelvmo, P.W. Thorne, B. Trewin, K. Achuta Rao, B. Adhikary, R.P. Allan, K. Armour, G. Bala, R. Barimalala, S. Berger, J.G. Canadell, C. Cassou, A. Cherchi, W. Collins, W.D. Collins, S.L. Connors, S. Corti, F. Cruz, F.J. Dentener, C. Dereczynski, A. Di Luca, A. Diongue Niang, F.J. Doblas-Reyes, A. Dosio, H. Douville, F. Engelbrecht, V. Eyring, E. Fischer, P. Forster, B. Fox-Kemper, J.S. Fuglestvedt, J.C. Fyfe, et al., 2021: Technical Summary. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US, pp. 33–144. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.002.
  66. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103212
    .
  67. S2CID 247877540
    .
  68. S2CID 253544787
    .
  69. S2CID 159286875
    .
  70. ^
    PMID 37060454
    .
  71. ^
    ISSN 0749-0739
    .
  72. PMC 2684629
    .
  73. PMID 34760364
    .
  74. PMID 29556762
    .
  75. S2CID 250577585
    .
  76. PMID 37060454
    .
  77. PMID 36471796
    .
  78. S2CID 220631038
    .
  79. S2CID 5838454
    .
  80. ^
    S2CID 252361675
    .
  81. PMID 29108563
    .
  82. S2CID 254914487
    .
  83. PMID 29931080
    .
  84. S2CID 255452740
    .
  85. S2CID 10630678
    .
  86. S2CID 244583811
    .
  87. S2CID 254723325
    .
  88. PMID 19762873
    .
  89. PMID 27712658
    .
  90. S2CID 233555119
    .
  91. S2CID 24775551
    .
  92. S2CID 246211499
    .
  93. Cosmos
    . Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  94. S2CID 239376124
    .
  95. ^
    ISBN 9789251055717. Archived from the original
    on 25 June 2008 – via Google Books.,
  96. ^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013) "FAO STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2013 World Food and Agriculture". See data in Table 49.
  97. doi:10.1038/nclimate2081
    .
  98. ISSN 2071-1050
    .
  99. S2CID 56396847
    .
  100. ^ Yavitt JB (1992). "Methane, biogeochemical cycle". Encyclopedia of Earth System Science. 3. London, England: Academic Press: 197–207.
  101. ^ Hughes, Lesley (2 September 2022). "From designing clothes to refashioning cow burps: Sam's $40 million career switch". The Sydney Morning Herald. pp. 8–11. Retrieved 22 March 2023.
  102. ^ "2022-2023 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 2: Majority of young Europeans say the climate impact of prospective employers is an important factor when job hunting". EIB.org. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_livestock&oldid=1217201831"