Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
Sec. Climate-Smart Food Systems
Volume 8 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1390047

Environmental and Food Security Implications of Livestock Abortions and Calf Mortality: A Case Study in Kenya and Tanzania

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya
  • 2 Mekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray Region, Ethiopia
  • 3 Roslin Institute at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • 4 Washington State University, Paul G. Allen School for Global Health, Washington, United States
  • 5 Global Animal Health Tanzania, Dodoma, Tanzania
  • 6 Livestock Climate Solutions, The Hague, Netherlands
  • 7 Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, United States
  • 8 Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Arusha, Tanzania
  • 9 Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • 10 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Palmerston North, Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    This study investigates the environmental and food security implications of livestock abortions and calf mortality in Tanzanian dairy systems and Kenyan beef systems by utilizing data from previously published studies. The environmental impact of livestock abortion is assessed in Tanzanian dairy systems, examining indigenous and exotic breeds of cattle and goats in Northern Tanzania. Calf mortality's impact is evaluated in Kenyan beef systems, involving local cattle breeds in western Kenya. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity (EI) is estimated for both countries. The GHG emissions in Tanzania consider enteric fermentation, manure management, and feed production in different cattle and goat groups, as well as total milk production. In Kenya, enteric methane (CH4) EI related to calf mortality is assessed by estimating lifetime enteric CH4 emissions and total carcass production from dams and their offspring. The EI is compared between the observed scenario (16% calf mortality) and alternative scenarios (8%, 4%, and 0% calf mortality). A life cycle assessment using the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model-interactive (GLEAM-i) examines GHG sources and potential tradeoffs. Estimates are made for milk and carcass losses due to abortions and calf mortality, scaled to represent the entire country. Abortion increases milk EI by 4-18% in Tanzania, while Kenya's EI ranges from 25.9 to 27.6 kg CO2 eq per kg carcass weight. Animal protein loss due to abortions is equivalent to the potential annual animal protein requirements of approximately 649 thousand people in Tanzania, while a 16% calf mortality rate in Kenya is equivalent to per capita consumption of 4.5 million people. The findings highlight the significant impact of abortions and calf mortality on GHG emissions and animal protein availability, emphasizing the potential for reduced emissions and improved food security through mitigation efforts. The contribution of emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management is significant across both countries, underscoring the importance of a systems perspective in evaluating the environmental impact of livestock production. This study provides insights into the environmental and food security implications of livestock abortions and calf mortality in Tanzania and Kenya, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions in sustainable livestock production.

    Keywords: Abortion, Calf mortality, GHG, Methane, Emission intensity, Animal protein, Food security, Animal Health

    Received: 22 Feb 2024; Accepted: 05 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Balcha, Bronsvoort, Cook, Lankester, Özkan, Rosenstein, Semango, Wheelhouse, Wilkes and Arndt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Felix Lankester, Washington State University, Paul G. Allen School for Global Health, Washington, United States
    Şeyda Özkan, Livestock Climate Solutions, The Hague, Netherlands
    Andreas Wilkes, New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Palmerston North, Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand
    Claudia Arndt, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, 00100, Kenya

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.