Base year and projected emissions from livestock systems shown as a waterfall chart with a range of mitigation measures applied to 2050 with their technical potential. Source: United Nations FAO Pathways towards lower emissions report, 2023. Click on image for a larger view.

IN 2023, the United Nations published a report examining the most effective pathways for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the global livestock sector.

The report identified that the changes most likely to have the greatest impact were increasing livestock productivity, enhancing genetic selection and improving animal health.

Encouraging consumers to change diets and reduce consumption was one of the least effective pathways, according to the analysis.

Yet, that was not how the report’s findings were reported by the mainstream media following its launch at the COP28 climate change conference in Dubai in December 2023.

“The media announced the report suggested to the world we need to change what we eat, and we need to eat less animal source foods,” US livestock and air quality expert Dr Frank Mitloehner told this week’s World Angus Forum in Brisbane.

“I was there when the report was released and I couldn’t believe what the world media said this report was saying, namely that we should all stop eating meat and dairy and eggs and so on.”

The above chart outlines what the report actually did say – showing that pathways that involve improving livestock sector productivity, breeding and animal welfare were found to have the highest potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, while dietary change was the second least effective way of reducing the impact of animal food systems.

Media reporting “ends with emissions”

Dr Frank Mitloehner addressing the 2025 World Angus Forum in Brisbane this week.

Dr Mitloehner also drew attention to other examples of reporting misrepresenting livestock’s role in climate change, which included a widespread and ongoing failure to distinguish between short-lived methane and long-lasting carbon dioxide, which in turn lead to public debates and Government policies based on incomplete information.

He said it was often reported that methane is much more potent in trapping heat from the sun than carbon dioxide, and “that is the end of the story in much of the reporting world wide around methane”.

That left out a “very important nuance” on methane.

Illustrating his point with a slide (below left), he said the various sources of global methane emissions, which include fossil fuel production, agriculture, biomass, burning wetlands etc – amount to a total of 558 teragrams of methane being produced per year.

“That is where reporting by the media ends on methane.

“But it shouldn’t end there, because if you look to the right side of this slide, you would see there are very significant sinks. And sinks are processes that destroy a gas. And if you look at the second half number in white, it is almost 550 teragrams that are destroyed.

“In other words, 560 teragrams are produced by sources, but 550 teragrams, globally are destroyed by sinks

“If you want to know what the net contribution of all sources is, you need to subtract the one from the other, and then you arrive at the net and that is 10.

“Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying because it is 10 it is not a big issue, we have to deal with that, but it is drastically different whether we need to deal with 560 or with 10.”

Why livestock methane and fossil fuel methane have different warming outcomes

Dr Mitloehner said methane is not only produced but is also destroyed when it comes into contact with hydroxyl radical molecule, which means methane molecules have a short-life span in the atmosphere, around 10 years, versus more than 1000 years for CO2.

“Let’s say you have a beef operation with a 1000 cows, and it was 1000 cows in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and it is still 1000 cows today.

“Then you are a constant a source of methane because you have a constant herd of cattle.

“An equal amount of methane that is produced by those animals is also destroyed by these radicals, and that means a constant source of methane leads to constant warming.

“If you grow you herd over time, then you grow methane. If you learn to manage methane and you reduce methane, then you can actually reduce warming.

“The same is not true for CO2. So every time we burn oil and gas, for example when we drive from A to B, we put CO2 in the air, that CO2 is in addition to what we put in the air yesterday, and last week and last month, and last year, that your parents and your grandparents put into the air, all of that will be in the air for a long time, 1000 years, and it accumulates.

“Currently methane is treated by most agencies throughout the world as if it were to accumulate too, as if every time your cows belch, that were in addition to last year’s, last decade’s, and so on.

“That is not true, because methane is not a stock gas accumulating, methane is a flow gas, it is not just produced but also destroyed.”

Difference between fossil carbon and biogenic carbon

Dr Mitloehner also emphasised the importance of recognising the difference between fossil carbon and biogenic carbon, which cycles through plants, animals, and the atmosphere.

Carbon emitted from burning oil, coal and gas originated from plants and animals such as dinosaurs which died and decayed eons ago before being released into the atmosphere by humans in the past century or so.

The biogenic carbon cycle on the other hand starts with CO2 in the air, which is then absorbed into plants via photosynthesis. 10 percent of the carbon remained above ground, while 90pc moved below ground into the roots and was then taken up by soil microbes, a process referred to as soil carbon sequestration.

Bovines eating grass belched out enteric methane, which is carbon that was previously in the atmosphere as CO2, and which will be converted back into CO2 by the process of hydroxyl oxidation.

“That methane is not new and additional, it was CO2 at the beginning of the cycle.

“So on the livestock side we have the biogenic carbon cycle, that roughly takes a decade, on the fossil side we have a one way street of carbon from the ground up into the air.

“It is a big difference, nobody should compare cows versus cars, or else they run the risk of being deceptive around the topic.”

NZ’s “smart move”

Dr Mitleohner has just returned from New Zealand which he said has “just done something really smart” in this space.

“They have really researched this topic and they have arrived at public policies that separate these gases.

“They have a so-called split gas approach – they have inventories for methane and CO2 separately, and that is very important, you don’t want to mix them up into CO2 equivalents like they do in many other parts of the world.”

Livestock indispensible to global food security

Dr Mitloehner also challenged the narrative that reducing animal agriculture is necessary for climate action, stressing that with the human population heading toward 9.5 billion, the world’s capacity to grow food efficiently—especially on marginal land—will become increasingly vital.

Cattle and other ruminants transformed inedible biomass into nutrient-rich food, making them indispensable to global food security.

“Without ruminants, humanity could not make use of two-thirds of all agricultural land in the world.”

California’s dairy industry showing the way

He also cited the success of California’s incentive-based methane reduction policy, which has used financial incentives in the form of carbon credits  rather than penalties to encourage the State’s large dairy industry to produce 40 percent less methane than the year 2013 by 2030.

The industry has made substantial progress particularly through the use of manure digesters so far and also expects to make further gains through feed additives which cut methane, selective breeding for lower methane emitting cattle and other technologies being developed such as vaccines and boluses.

“We have reduced a total 5 million metric tonnes. In five years from now we have to have achieved 7.2 million. So we are two-thirds along the way.”

“If your government works with you and develops a market approach that incentivises you, you can be part of that. And if you do reduce methane, then I want to remind you what that looks like: if you reduce methane, you reduce warming.”

The public story needs to be told

Dr Mitloehner said that before his father died five years ago, he passed on this advice: “He looked me in the eyes and he said to me Frank, do good things, and talk about them”.

“And I thought wow, what does that really mean? Well you all know what that means right, we often times do good things, and we’re proud of what we do, but are we very good at communicating them?

“Would you say the agricultural sector is great at communicating with the public at large, the influencers, the politicians, high school students? I see people shaking their heads.”

In order to improve that situation Dr Mitloehner five years ago established the CLEAR Center at University of California Davis, which focuses on communicating research to help more people around the world understand the story of animal agriculture.

He closed by urging producers to be more proactive in the same space.

“Remember what my father said: ‘do good things, and talk about them’, because for us to say, ‘oh that’s great’, that is not good enough. We have to get the word out. And don’t expect just a few individuals like myself to do that job. It is every body’s responsibility.

“I want to encourage you to not stick your head in the sand on this topic. Instead, grab that beast by the horns.

“And if you manage it you can be a very important part of a societal topic that is not going away no matter who is in the capital, who is in power, the topic will not go away.”

Methane does matter

He also emphasised the point that the industry could not conclude that “methane does not matter”.

“Methane does matter. If you produce methane, if you increase methane you cause a lot of additional warming.

“If you are methane constant you don’t add additional warming. If you reduce methane you reduce warming. And that really puts a key into our pockets of being a potential part of the climate solution.

“If we manage methane, we can manage warming. The fossil fuel sector can’t do it. The other sectors can’t do it. We can do it because our main methane gas is methane.”