There is growing evidence on the extent to which projected changes in climate, including increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, higher temperatures, changes in amount, seasonality and variability of precipitation and increases in extreme weather events, may affect future availability of ruminant animal products. Elements of climate change affect livestock systems through direct impacts on animal physiology, behaviour, production and welfare and indirectly through feed availability, composition and quality. These impacts may be positive or negative and will vary across geographical regions, animal species and with adaptive capacity. However, adverse impacts are likely to be greatest in tropical and sub-tropical regions including countries where both current need and future growth in demand for nutrition is greatest. The complexity of effects means that effective adaptation strategies to mitigate negative impacts on ruminant production systems to climate changes will need to be multi-dimensional. Although predictions of future climate, particularly on regional and local scales, have a degree of uncertainty, adaptation planning is starting to be informed by changes already being observed and adjustments in management being made by farmers to maintain productivity and profitability. Regional case studies illustrate the benefits and limitations of adaptive management: potential mitigation through heightened awareness of heat stress-related mortality in French cattle; evidence of a drop in milk production in south-eastern Australian dairies during a January 2014 heat wave, from the theoretical potential of 53% to only 10% across the state; and limitations in response options to climate-induced thermal, nutritional and water stress for sheep and goat farmers in northern Ethiopia. Review of research on climate change impacts on ruminant livestock and effective adaptation together with evidence of practical adaptive management provide insights into potential strategies and gaps in knowledge to address challenges and improve future decisions.

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.

The livestock industry accounts for a considerable proportion of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and in response, the Australian red meat industry has committed to an aspirational target of net-zero emissions by 2030. Increasing soil carbon storage in grazing lands has been identified as one method to help achieve this, while also potentially improving production and provision of other ecosystem services. This review examined the effects of grazing management on soil carbon and factors that drive soil carbon sequestration in Australia. A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was used to compare effects of stocking intensity (stocking rate or utilisation) and stocking method (i.e, continuous, rotational or seasonal grazing systems) on soil organic carbon, pasture herbage mass, plant growth and ground cover. Impacts on below ground biomass, soil nitrogen and soil structure are also discussed. Overall, no significant impact of stocking intensity or method on soil carbon sequestration in Australia was found, although lower stocking intensity and incorporating periods of rest into grazing systems (rotational grazing) had positive effects on herbage mass and ground cover compared with higher stocking intensity or continuous grazing. Minimal impact of grazing management on pasture growth rate and below-ground biomass has been reported in Australia. However, these factors improved with grazing intensity or rotational grazing in some circumstances. While there is a lack of evidence in Australia that grazing management directly increases soil carbon, this meta-analysis indicated that grazing management practices have potential to benefit the drivers of soil carbon sequestration by increasing above and below-ground plant production, maintaining a higher residual biomass, and promoting productive perennial pasture species. Specific recommendations for future research and management are provided in the paper.

The use of nitrogen (N) fertiliser on dairy pastures in south-eastern Australia has increased exponentially over the past 15 years. Concerns have been raised about the economic and environmental impact of N loss through volatilisation and denitrification. Emissions of NH3, N2, and N2O were measured for 3 years in the 4 different seasons from a grazed grass/clover pasture, with or without 200 kg N fertiliser/ha, applied as ammonium nitrate and urea. Nitrogen-fertilised treatments lost significantly more N than the control treatments in all cases. More NH3 was lost from urea-fertilised treatments than from either the control or ammonium nitrate treatments, whereas ammonium nitrate treatments lost significantly more N through denitrification than the control or urea treatments in all seasons, except for summer. More NH3 was lost in summer than in the other seasons, whereas denitrification and N2O losses were highest in winter and lowest in summer. The total annual NH3 loss from the control, ammonium nitrate, and urea treatments averaged 17, 32, and 57 kg N/ha.year, respectively. Annual denitrification losses were estimated at around 6, 15, and 13 kg N/ha.year for the control, ammonium nitrate, and urea treatments, respectively. Total gaseous N losses were estimated to be 23, 47, and 70 kg N/ha.year from the control, ammonium nitrate, and urea treatments respectively. Although the use of ammonium nitrate fertiliser would significantly reduce NH3 volatilisation losses in summer, this fertiliser costs 45% more per unit N than urea, so there is no economic justification for recommending its use over urea for the other seasons. However, the use of urea during the cooler, wetter months may result in significantly less denitrification loss. The results are discussed in terms of potential management strategies to improve fertiliser efficiency and reduce adverse effects on the environment.

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.

Enteric methane (CH ₄ ) is a by-product from fermentation of feed consumed by ruminants, which represents a nutritional loss and is also considered a contributor to climate change. The aim of this research was to use individual animal data from 17 published experiments that included sheep ( n = 288), beef cattle ( n = 71) and dairy cows ( n = 284) to develop an empirical model to describe enteric CH ₄ emissions from both cattle and sheep, and then evaluate the model alongside equations from the literature. Data were obtained from studies in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, which measured enteric CH ₄ emissions from individual animals in calorimeters. Animals were either fed solely forage or a mixed ration of forage with a compound feed. The feed intake of sheep was restricted to a maintenance amount of 875 g of DM per day (maintenance level), whereas beef cattle and dairy cows were fed to meet their metabolizable energy (ME) requirement (i.e., production level). A linear mixed model approach was used to develop a multiple linear regression model to predict an individual animal’s CH ₄ yield (g CH ₄ /kg dry matter intake) from the composition of its diet. The diet components that had significant effects on CH ₄ yield were digestible organic matter (DOMD), ether extract (EE) (both g/kg DM) and feeding level above maintenance intake: CH ₄ (g/kg DM intake) = 0.046 (±0.001) × DOMD − 0.113 (±0.023) × EE − 2.47 (±0.29) × (feeding level − 1), with concordance correlation coefficient ( CCC ) = 0.655 and RMSPE = 14.0%. The predictive ability of the model developed was as reliable as other models assessed from the literature. These components can be used to predict effects of diet composition on enteric CH ₄ yield from sheep, beef and dairy cattle from feed analysis information.