Integrating climate-change adaptation and greenhouse-gas mitigation in the livestock industry: a review
Sineka Munidasa
A * , Brendan Cullen A * , Richard Eckard A , Long Cheng B and Natalie Doran-Browne C
A
B
C
Handling Editor: Arjan Jonker
Abstract
Climate actions in the livestock industry at regional, national, and international levels have historically focused on mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions, with adaptation often treated separately or lagging. With climate change already underway, there is an urgent need to integrate adaptation and mitigation strategies into policy and practice. This paper reviews adaptation and mitigation approaches in the livestock industry, highlighting co-benefits and trade-offs for their integration at the farm level by using two distinct studies from the Australian livestock industry. Treating adaptation and mitigation interventions as separate efforts is neither cost-effective nor reflective of their interconnected nature. Adaptation measures can influence mitigation outcomes in positive, negative, or neutral ways, just as mitigation strategies can affect the farms’ ability to adapt. To explore these interactions in practice, this paper examined two distinct livestock production systems, namely, pasture-based dairying in southern Australia and extensive beef production in northern Australia. These systems operate under unique conditions that shape their adaptation and mitigation options. Grazing-based southern Australian dairy farms offer more flexibility than do extensive beef farms in northern Australia, with differing proportions of emission sources. For example, enteric methane contributes about 56% of dairy farm emissions but approximately 95% of emissions from beef farms. These differences emphasize the need for tailored strategies that align with system characteristics while accounting for region-specific climate-change impacts. For instance, introducing deep-rooted, summer-active pasture species with plant secondary compounds can reduce enteric methane emissions and enhance climate resilience in both beef and dairy systems, but species selection must match regional conditions. Strategic tree planting not only sequesters carbon but also provides shade and shelter, improving animal welfare in warming climates. Despite the potential benefits, integrating adaptation and mitigation interventions remains underexplored in empirical research. Key research gaps include the need for long-term studies on the effectiveness of integrated strategies, analyses to assess cost-effectiveness and adoption barriers and region-specific research that accounts for diverse climatic and management conditions. Overall, strengthening the integration of adaptation and mitigation in livestock farming systems is not just an opportunity but a necessity for ensuring a resilient, low-emission, and economically viable future in an increasingly unpredictable climate.
Keywords: beef, climate change, dairy, global warming, greenhouse-gas emission, resilient, ruminant, sustainability.
Introduction
Climate change substantially challenges global ruminant livestock (hereafter, ‘livestock’ refers to ruminant livestock species) farming by causing rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (Nardone et al. 2010). At the same time, livestock farms are becoming pivotal players in the broader context of addressing climate change by minimizing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration (Sejian et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2017). Effectively addressing climate-change challenges and GHG emission reductions will require changes in livestock farming systems.
Globally, livestock industries contribute 16.5–21% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Crippa et al. 2021; Twine 2021; Xu et al. 2021), which is the largest contributor to food system emissions (Sinke et al. 2023). The most prominent GHGs from livestock farming systems are methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which have global warming potentials over a 100-year time horizon of 27 (non-fossil) and 273 respectively, compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) (IPCC 2021). Methane is mainly produced through enteric fermentation, followed by manure management. Nitrous oxide arises from practices such as manure management and the application of organic/inorganic fertilizers. Other emission sources associated with livestock production include land-use change, input production (before the farm gate), and processing and transport (after the farm gate) (Grossi et al. 2019).
There is a need to reduce GHG emissions from livestock production to reduce impacts on climate and also to meet targets set by government and industry sectors (Cadez et al. 2019; Garnett and Eckard 2024). According to Leahy et al. (2020), governments’ mitigation targets may be surpassed by more ambitious targets set by large international food and beverage companies because their on-farm supply-chain emissions often account for a substantial amount of their product GHG footprint. For instance, a leading food corporation, JBS, aims to contribute positively by achieving Net Zero status by 2040 (JBS 2021). Companies such as JBS are increasingly mandating that their suppliers provide inputs that meet the climate goals of the companies (Garnett and Eckard 2024). Ultimately, these pressures come to the individual farm level.
The changing climate also affects livestock farming systems in various ways, including changing patterns of forage production (Cullen et al. 2009; Harrison et al. 2016) and quality (Wheeler et al. 2000), increasing water demands of both animals and forages (Walsh et al. 2008; Thornton et al. 2009; Melissa Rojas-Downing et al. 2017), increased heat stress on animals (Nidumolu et al. 2010; Hempel et al. 2019), and changes in the occurrences of pests, diseases, and weeds (Howden et al. 2008; Thornton et al. 2009). Beyond the impacts of projected mean climate changes, increases in the frequency and severity of extreme climate events, such as droughts, floods, and storms, are expected to create additional challenges for future livestock production (Thornton et al. 2014).
Adaptation and mitigation are key strategies to tackle the challenges arising from climate change (Klein et al. 2005; Howarth and Robinson 2024). Klein et al. (2005) defined adaptation (human-directed adaptations unless otherwise stated) as any change that happens in natural or human-made systems that is targeted to minimize the negative impact or take advantage of beneficial opportunities owing to changing climates. Mitigation strategies involve reducing GHG emissions and enhancing activities that remove the GHGs from the atmosphere, such as carbon sequestration (IPCC 2023), to address the root causes of changing climates.
Addressing adaptation and mitigation separately is not cost-effective and fails to consider their complexity and multidimensionality (Howarth and Robinson 2024) because adaptation actions can have positive, negative, or neutral effects on mitigation, and vice versa (Locatelli et al. 2015). Integrating adaptation and mitigation actions together is key to avoiding possible imbalances in development and slow progress towards effective climate action in the livestock sector (Howarth and Robinson 2024). Despite this, adaptation and mitigation have often been treated separately, but the need for a more integrated approach is increasingly recognised (Locatelli et al. 2015; Ripple et al. 2022; Howarth and Robinson 2024). Integrating adaptation and mitigation at the farm level facilitates the design of solutions for livestock systems that optimize potential co-benefits and minimize trade-offs, ensuring that interventions are effective and sustainable in the long term. However, it is important to recognize that such a focus should not overshadow critical concerns related to food security, the livelihood of farmers, economic outcomes, and the long-term sustainability (Howarth and Robinson 2024) of livestock farming. The purpose of the paper is to explore current strategies for livestock farms to address both adaptation and mitigation, either individually or in combination. The review focuses on identifying region-specific and farm system-specific options, as illustrated by two examples from the Australian livestock industry, and outlines key areas for future research to support the effective integration of adaptation and mitigation practices within livestock farming systems.
Adapting farming systems in response to climate change
The impacts of climate change are predicted to reduce the productivity of livestock farming systems in many regions (Dunshea et al. 2013; Usman et al. 2013; Garner et al. 2017; Henry et al. 2018). Farmers who have experienced increasing pressure on their systems as a result of climate change have already started adapting to it (Loboguerrero et al. 2019). As climate change continues, the benefits of implementing adaptation strategies increase because they help maintain the productivity and profitability of the livestock farming systems (Klein et al. 2005; Koç and Uzmay 2021).
Adaptation strategies can be categorized into three as follows: incremental, system, and transformational (Rickards and Howden 2012) (Fig. 1). Incremental adaptation involves minor adjustments within existing systems to cope with climate-change impacts without fundamentally altering the system structure or function (Park et al. 2012). Incremental adaptations are suited to situations where the climate impacts are occasional or minor, and include changing livestock breeds or varieties of fodders and conserving feed through silage or haymaking. System adaptation involves restructuring or modifying livestock farms to adapt to climate change. It is more profound than are incremental changes; however, it does not fundamentally alter the farming system. Options may include introducing shade infrastructure, new irrigation systems, and integrated pest management strategies. Transformative adaptation aims to undertake major and purposeful modifications to the fundamental characteristics of a farming system in response to potential or actual climate-change impacts (Rickards and Howden 2012). Options include transitioning to alternative livestock species that are better suited to the changing conditions and diversifying the farming system (Loboguerrero et al. 2019). Transformative adaptation requires a greater degree of adaptive capacity and innovation than do incremental or systems-scale adaptation as a result of the greater risks and complexity of the change (Rickards and Howden 2012; Wilson et al. 2020), which may result in higher and longer-term benefits (Wilson et al. 2020) (Fig. 1).
Three levels of climate adaptation in livestock farming in relation to the degree of impact of changing climates. Adapted from Howden et al. (2010).
Greenhouse-gas emission mitigation
Livestock farms can adopt a range of strategies to mitigate net GHG emissions, that is, the total emissions produced by the farm system (e.g. enteric fermentation, manure, fertiliser use, energy consumption) minus any on-farm carbon sequestration (e.g. through soil or vegetation), effectively. Enteric CH4 is the largest source of GHG in ruminant production systems (Hristov et al. 2013). Dietary interventions to reduce CH4 include grazing plants with phytochemicals such as tannins and saponins (Grainger et al. 2009; Almeida et al. 2021), feeding dietary oils (Moate et al. 2011), feeding nitrate supplements, and using feed additives such as red seaweeds (Asparagopsis armata and Asparagopsis taxiformis) and 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) (Almeida et al. 2021). Enhanced efficiency fertilizer is another strategy that has been shown to reduce N2O emissions (Dai et al. 2013; Suter et al. 2020), either slowing the release or altering the reactions of soil nitrogen transformations (Thapa et al. 2016). The dietary additives, red seaweeds, and 3-NOP are considered to have the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions from livestock production at present (Almeida et al. 2021).
In some cases, mitigation options can result in leakage, where reducing GHG emissions in one place increases emissions elsewhere (Hristov et al. 2013; Grossi et al. 2019). For instance, the reduction of enteric CH4 emissions using concentrate feeds might be counteracted by GHG emissions in the production and transportation of concentrates into farms (Williams et al. 2014; Ludemann et al. 2016). Mitigation strategies should take into account the entire life cycle of the products and processes involved.
There is no single mitigation strategy that can eliminate all GHG emissions on farms. However, multiple existing mitigation options can be combined to maximize mitigation potential (Jayasundara et al. 2016; Llonch et al. 2017; Garnett and Eckard 2024). Mitigation strategies should be evaluated for their compatibility with current farm management practices, and the need for additional skills or training. A multidisciplinary approach that combines technological innovation, policy support, and local context is required to achieve sustainable GHG emissions mitigation in livestock farming (Sejian et al. 2015).
Adaptation and mitigation together at the livestock-farm level
Integrating adaptation and mitigation actions can lead to balanced development and effective climate action (Grafakos et al. 2018) that ensures that efforts to reduce GHG emissions are aligned with measures to build resilience against climate-change impacts (Howarth and Robinson 2024). However, climate action plans (Sharifi 2021), policies (Klein et al. 2005), and climate impact science (Berry et al. 2015) have traditionally focused on either adaptation or mitigation (Grafakos et al. 2018; Howarth and Robinson 2024). This is evident in research at the livestock farm level. A search of the Web of Science Core Collection, covering publications from 2000 to 2024, identified the following results based on the keywords ‘livestock* OR ruminant*,’ ‘farm*’ OR ‘farm-level*’ OR ‘grazing system*’ OR ‘production system*’ OR ‘livestock system*’, ‘greenhouse gas emission,’ ‘mitigation,’ ‘adaptation,’ and ‘climate change,’ with the restriction NOT TS=(agri)*: 531 papers focused on mitigation only, 576 papers examined adaptation only, and only 23 papers integrated both adaptation and mitigation simultaneously. The inclusion of NOT TS=(agri)* was important to avoid research in the results of the search that is broad or focused on the more general agricultural sector, ensuring that the results are more relevant to the livestock farm level. Of the 23 relevant papers identified, only four directly discussed the integration of adaptation and mitigation in livestock systems. The remaining studies tended to focus primarily on either adaptation or mitigation, only briefly mentioning the other aspect. This highlights the need for a more integrated approach to address climate-change challenges in the livestock industry.
Livestock farmers have opportunities to integrate adaptation strategies with mitigation measures, enhancing co-benefits and minimizing trade-offs in existing farming systems (Zhang et al. 2017). For instance, when altering livestock feeding practices or redesigning infrastructure to assist with adaptation to variable climates, farmers can incorporate systems that allow for the use of feed additives such as 3-NOP or other supplements to achieve desired CH4 mitigation effects because traditional grazing-based feeding systems do not guarantee uniform dosing of the supplement (Beauchemin et al. 2020). Similarly, implementing strategies to reduce net GHG emissions presents an opportunity to align those efforts with adaptation goals. For example, tree planting for carbon sequestration can provide shade for livestock. However, it is essential to carefully select tree species and management practices to avoid unintended consequences, such as increased water demand and competition with existing pastures or crops (Howarth and Robinson 2024). These examples highlight the opportunities for implementing integrated approaches that enhance co-benefits, minimize trade-offs, and ensure the overall sustainability of livestock production in a changing climate. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) (Campbell et al. 2014) and frameworks such as the one proposed by Jarvis et al. (2011) emphasize the need to integrate adaptation and mitigation, but tailored approaches are required to achieve both at the farm level.
Integrating adaptation and mitigation at the livestock farm level
Integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies in livestock farming is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Understanding the co-benefits and trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation actions on a particular livestock farm is essential for prioritizing complementary approaches to create a more robust and effective climate-change adaptation and mitigation plan (Homann-Kee Tui et al. 2023). These issues are demonstrated through examples of dairy and beef farming systems in Australia. Dairying is predominantly conducted in the temperate regions of southern Australia by using pasture-based production systems. These systems are similar to dairy production in other temperate climates, including in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa. Beef production in Australia occurs in a wide variety of regions, but the example used here is of extensive rangeland grazing systems in subtropical and tropical climates. The characteristics of these systems align with beef farming systems in countries such as Brazil and Argentina.
Southern Australian grazing-based dairy farming systems
The Australian dairy farming systems range from grazing-only to zero-grazing and high supplementary feeding-based systems (Clark et al. 2013). Among these, grazing-based systems with moderate to high levels of concentrate feeding are most common. The state of Victoria in south-eastern Australia contributes 64% of Australia’s total milk production (Agriculture Victoria 2024), with an estimated 60–65% of a cow’s diet coming from grazed pasture in ‘normal’ seasonal conditions (Joubran et al. 2021). However, these pastures are increasingly vulnerable to the challenges posed by climate change (Cullen et al. 2009).
Whereas the region has historically received high rainfall from April to October (cool season), a drying trend has been observed (Frederiksen and Osbrough 2022; McKay et al. 2023), with a 9% decrease in rainfall since 1994. These trends are likely to lead to more time in drought conditions in southern Australia (Wasko et al. 2021). As a result of these climate changes, spring pasture yields have decreased due to the contraction of the growing season caused by more frequent heat-stress and moisture-stress days. These changes have also caused increased variability in the inter-annual pasture growth rate, particularly during autumn and spring (Perera et al. 2020) (Fig. 2). In addition to these climate-related challenges, the dairy farming sector faces the issue of mitigating GHG emissions dominated by enteric CH4 emissions (56%) (Fig. 2). The high emissions per hectare (Fig. 2) in the south-eastern Australian dairy systems are largely attributed to factors such as high stocking rates, intensive nitrogen fertilizer use, and feed management practices commonly used in dairy farming. This section explores how simultaneously addressing both adaptation and mitigation goals can benefit grazing-based dairy farms in south-eastern Australia.
The greenhouse-gas emissions profiles of typical dairy (left) and beef (right) farms in Australia, along with observed and predicted climate changes in their respective regions (Christie et al. 2012; Taylor et al. 2016; Dey et al. 2019; Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO 2022; IPCC 2022).
Adaptation to the contraction of the growing season of traditional perennial ryegrass-based pastures caused by climate change can be achieved by maximising the growth during the reliable winter months and/or by using alternative species to extend the season. Both adaptation strategies present opportunities to integrate mitigation. Increasing growth during the reliable winter months encourages the application of more winter nitrogen fertilizer per hectare (Eckard et al. 2011), which leads to a greater level of N2O emissions per hectare (Cullen and Eckard 2011). However, managing the time of the fertilizer application (e.g. avoiding waterlogged soil) and split-application of fertilizer may reduce the emissions while adapting the system to existing climatic conditions (Nishimura et al. 2021).
Deep-rooted and summer-active forage species, such as chicory (Cichorium intybus) and lucerne (Medicago sativa), have the potential to extend the spring–summer growing period (Cullen et al. 2021) and reduce GHG emissions (Badgery et al. 2023). Both plants have the potential to mitigate enteric CH4 emissions from ruminants. Chicory contains secondary plant compounds such as tannins, saponins, and phenolics (Abbas et al. 2015; Sinkovič et al. 2020), and lucerne contains saponins and phenolics, which are thought to be responsible for reductions in CH4 (Badgery et al. 2023). However, introducing these to existing dairy production systems should be carefully planned by considering the agronomic factors that affect plant growth, because if there is a failure, it increases the use of supplementary feeds.
With more warming and changes to rainfall patterns, adding C4 species such as paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum) or Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) into pasture-based dairy systems may be required for adaptation (Havrilla et al. 2023). The inclusion of C4 forages into dairy cow diet could result in increased CH4 emissions (Archimède et al. 2011; Dairy Australia 2016) because most of the time the digestibility of C4 species is lower than that of C3 species (Cowie and Martin 2009). Although C4 grasses are often associated with lower digestibility, their nutritional value can closely match that of C3 species grown under changing climates, where C4 species tend to maintain their quality as C3 species struggle to thrive. Therefore, balancing diets by carefully managing the proportion of C3 versus C4 species, supplementing with high-quality forages, and using CH4 inhibitors such as 3-NOP, will help achieve the adaptation benefits from C4 pasture species while minimizing GHG emissions.
Dairy cows in pasture-based dairy systems are highly exposed to extreme temperatures, causing heat stress during summer. Heat stress can reduce feed intake, milk yield, and reproductive performance (Oliveira et al. 2025). Appropriate heat abatement strategies should be implemented to help cows reach their full potential and enhance their welfare (Kendall et al. 2007). Environmental management systems such as fans, sprinklers, misters, foggers, and cooled waterbeds help reduce the effects of heat stress (Fournel et al. 2017; Macavoray et al. 2023). However, the use of these methods may lead to increased GHG emissions unless renewable energy solutions are used on the farm. Increasing tree planting can also provide shade, and it is discussed below.
Extensive research has focused on breeding cows for heat tolerance, as continuous genetic selection for improved feed intake and greater milk production affects the heat tolerance of dairy cows because of negative associations between thermotolerance and production traits (Santana et al. 2015; Osei-Amponsah et al. 2019). Also, research is being conducted to reduce enteric CH4 emissions through selective breeding (Pryce and Haile-Mariam 2020; de Haas et al. 2021; Fouts et al. 2022) because it provides permanent enteric CH4 emission reductions that are accumulated over generations (Wall et al. 2010). Although both areas of breeding have been studied, the potential for selecting sires with both traits, heat tolerance and reduced CH4 emissions, remains an important consideration. If breeding programs can successfully achieve both traits, it would represent a win–win solution.
At a regional level in south-eastern Australia, ~90% of dairy farms in Tasmania and Gippsland and ~96% of farms in the Murray region of northern Victoria incorporate grain into their feeding systems (Wales and Kolver 2017). Increasing grain feeding helps reduce GHG emissions and emission intensity, which is emissions per unit of product (Beauchemin et al. 2009), and alleviates heat stress impacts on dairy (DiGiacomo et al. 2022; Garner et al. 2022). However, it can also reduce the resilience of dairy farming systems during the drought, because using grain exposes them to high grain prices. Moreover, grain feeding may increase GHG emissions outside the farming system for growing, processing, and transporting grain (Nelson et al. 2013).
Activities that enhance the soil conditions (e.g. minimum tillage, rotational grazing) help sequester soil carbon, reduce N2O losses from soil (Eckard et al. 2011), and enhance the water- and nutrient-holding capabilities of soils, which will help pastures tolerate dry conditions (Sanderman et al. 2015). In grazing-based dairy systems in southern Australia, where perennial pastures are frequently used, soil organic matter levels are typically high (Eckard and Clark 2020); so, there is little potential for additional soil carbon sequestration. However, these soil carbon stores under permanent dairy pasture are likely to be vulnerable to increases in temperature owing to ongoing climate change (Nelson et al. 2013; Eckard and Clark 2020; Meyer et al. 2018). This loss of soil carbon can negatively affect production systems in many ways, including reduced water retention, reduced nutrients, and an increased reliance on inorganic fertilizers to sustain pasture productivity (Sanderman et al. 2015).
Planting trees will help raise carbon stocks (both above ground and below ground), which will lower the net GHG emissions from the system (Doran-Browne et al. 2016; Douglas et al. 2020). It will also provide adaptation benefits by creating a micro-climate, shelter for livestock during hot days, and windbreaks, which reduce the loss of topsoil during dry periods of the year (Kanzler et al. 2019; Monckton and Mendham 2022). Plantings of the right species in the appropriate farm locations can result in high timber yield, which is an additional income that can diversify the risks in the farming system (Monckton and Mendham 2022). Shelterbelts in the northern midlands of Tasmania could increase overall paddock productivity by 8%, mostly driven by increases in returns from livestock production and increased pasture productivity (without including other natural capital benefits) (Monckton and Mendham 2022). There is a potential for tree-planting activities, including planting along watercourses, establishing windbreaks, and creating small-wooded areas in less productive sections of dairy farms (Eckard and Clark 2020) without affecting farm operations, and to achieve adaptation and mitigation benefits.
The grazing-based dairy systems from southern Australia highlight the diverse interplays (co-benefits and trade-offs) between strategies for both adapting to and mitigating climate change (Fig. 3). Even though this analysis focussed on options to achieve both adaptation and mitigation simultaneously, it does not mean that strategies focusing solely on either adaptation or mitigation should be overlooked, because they can also provide great benefits. For instance, 3-NOP is notable for its remarkable reduction of enteric CH4 yield (g/kg DMI) from dairy cows, which ranged from 6.5% to 38% (Almeida et al. 2021), making a substantial contribution to mitigation efforts against climate change. Similarly, practices such as long-term feed storage and the maintenance of larger fodder reserves play a key role in enhancing climate resilience, especially in the face of drought conditions in dairy-producing regions (Melissa Rojas-Downing et al. 2017).
Northern Australian extensive beef farming systems
The beef industry is an important contributor to the northern Australian economy and is the largest land use, covering approximately 55% of the land area (Chilcott et al. 2020), ~250 million hectares (Bray et al. 2014a). The beef industry in northern Australia manages ~15 million cattle (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2024). Unlike many beef production systems around the world, which often rely on more intensive or grain-fed methods (Terry et al. 2021), the northern Australian beef system is predominantly based on extensive grazing. This system uses the vast rangelands, mostly of unimproved native and naturalized grasses and shrubs. Production largely depends on seasonal rainfall and is highly vulnerable to climate variability (Chilcott et al. 2020).
Northern Australia has a summer-dominant rainfall pattern, with higher rainfall occurring along the coastal margins and declining towards the inland, with higher pasture growth happening from December to March (Fitzpatrick and Nix 1970; Cullen et al. 2016), followed by an extended, 8-month dry season (Bowen et al. 2019). The variability in rainfall, both within and between years, could result in extended drought, which is the main challenge for the livestock industry (Bowen and Chudleigh 2021), along with occasional flooding (Cowan et al. 2022). For instance, extreme flooding in north-eastern Australia, coupled with cold temperatures and wind chill, had a huge impact on the cattle industry in 2019 (Cowan et al. 2022). Changing climate in the region (Fig. 2) contributes to the major challenges livestock farmers face in this region, including poor soil quality, heat/cold stress on animals, low pasture productivity, and poor reproductive performance (Suybeng et al. 2019; Bell and Sangster 2023).
Most native grasses in northern Australia are tropically adapted C4 species (Bell and Sangster 2023), and their digestibility is generally low outside the growing season (Dixon and Coates 2010). Bray et al. (2014b) reported that the extended dry season leads to poor forage quality for much of the year, with crude protein content and dry-matter digestibility falling below 7% and 50% respectively. In general, C4 pastures have lower concentrations of soluble nutrients and lower digestibility associated with their more fibrous leaf structures, than do C3 pastures (Wilson and Hacker 1987; Bell and Sangster 2023). As a result, cattle in northern Australia experience slower growth rates and emit more CH4 per head and per unit of animal product than do cattle in temperate regions (Rolfe 2010). The majority (95%) of emissions from these systems come from CH4 produced during enteric fermentation at the herd level (Taylor et al. 2016). Additionally, because these systems operate with low inputs of nitrogen, purchased feed, and energy, the proportion of CH4 in total emissions is high. However, net emissions per hectare tend to be low because of low stocking rates (Butchart et al. 2025), owing to low fodder production (Ash et al. 2015) (Fig. 2). The limited sources of emissions in these extensive grazing systems also mean that there are fewer opportunities for mitigation. Therefore, reducing CH4 emissions is a critical challenge for farmers in this region (Rolfe 2010) while adapting to possible climate extremes (Bowen et al. 2019) (Fig. 2).
The selection of vigorous and well-suited legume species, such as leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), which can persist in the harsh climatic conditions of northern Australia, is a viable solution (Suybeng et al. 2019), which helps address both adaptation and mitigation goals simultaneously. Leucaena and grass pastures represent the most productive, sustainable, and profitable method for producing grass-fed beef in high-rainfall areas (>600 mm) in northern Australia (Buck et al. 2019; Shelton et al. 2021). Steers fed with leucaena can reach a liveweight of 600 kg at 24–30 months, which is 6–12 months earlier than for those raised on pure buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). This fast growth greatly increases both carcass value and the rate of steer turnover (Dalzell et al. 2006). A higher turnover rate helps reduce emission intensity by shortening the animals’ lifespan. However, overall farm emissions may increase as more animals are finished and replaced more frequently (Rolfe 2010). Also, leucaena has promising potential to reduce enteric CH4 production owing to polyphenolic secondary compounds and to survive under warmer climates (Harrison et al. 2015; Suybeng et al. 2019; Bell and Sangster 2023; Badgery et al. 2023). According to Harrison et al. (2015), leucaena reduced whole farm emissions (Mg CO2-e) and emission intensity (Mg CO2-e/Mg liveweight sold) by more than 17% and 23% respectively, relative to the baseline of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), via a combination of enhanced liveweight gain and reduced CH4. Similarly, desmanthus (Desmanthus spp.) is another promising legume species for enteric CH4 abatement because it contains condensed tannin and improved animal growth, production, and reproductive performance. Desmanthus is well-suited to northern Australian grazing systems and can thrive in even lower-rainfall regions than does leucaena (Gardiner et al. 2004).
In some regions of northern Australia, wet-season phosphorus supplementation increases the growth of young cattle and improves the reproduction performance of breeders, and mortality rates decrease (Henry et al. 2012; Jackson et al. 2023; Schatz et al. 2023). This is particularly important given that soils in northern Australia are naturally phosphorus-deficient, and cattle in these regions often struggle to obtain sufficient phosphorus from their diet. As a result, phosphorus supplementation is crucial to addressing this deficiency and improving livestock productivity (Jackson et al. 2023). By increasing cattle growth and health, this practice would lead to lower emissions intensity (Mg CO2-e/Mg liveweight sold) and, if cow numbers were reduced, would lead to net reductions in emissions with the same or improved production (Henry et al. 2012). However, reducing emission intensity through improved efficiency from management changes creates a dilemma because it could lead to higher stocking rates driven by economic imperatives (Rolfe 2010), which could result in a decrease in emissions intensity, but an increase in emissions per hectare (Henry et al. 2012). Alternatively, this increased animal efficiency could sustain production by producing the same amount of beef per hectare, but with fewer animals, while improving land conditions, making it better suited to withstand extreme dry conditions and with reduced emissions (Burrows et al. 2010). Moreover, phosphorus supplementation can improve cattle body condition scores, particularly during lactation and leading into the dry season. Healthier cattle are better able to handle the stress that comes with more extreme conditions during dry seasons (Jackson et al. 2023).
Allowing natural regeneration of trees and maintaining existing tree cover on northern Australian extensive beef production systems facilitate enhanced land productivity, reduced erosion risk, and increased resilience to climate change (Henry et al. 2012). Trees contribute to soil stabilization, water retention, and microclimate regulation, benefits that are increasingly critical under variable and extreme climatic conditions (Ellison et al. 2017). Additionally, natural regeneration supports GHG mitigation through carbon sequestration (Aryal et al. 2022). Beyond these environmental benefits, tree cover provides critical shade for livestock in outdoor systems, a key factor in alleviating heat stress in animals. A global meta-analysis by Chang-Fung-Martel et al. (2021) identified tree shade as the most effective shading method in outdoor livestock systems, with passive cooling from tree shade outperforming active cooling interventions, such as sprinklers, in alleviating heat stress in animals. These findings highlight the importance of integrating tree cover into northern Australian extensive beef production systems.
Most northern Australian land is used for extensive beef cattle farming, which is usually performed on very large properties (with a median size of over 100,000 ha) in fire-prone northern savanna regions (Edwards et al. 2021). Less intense, early dry-season burns are used to manage these intensive savanna fires. This reduces the intensity and frequency of wildfires, in turn reducing GHG emissions, including CO2, CH4, and N2O emitted from wildfires, while increasing carbon stored in living woody biomass (Chilcott et al. 2020). However, it has to be acknowledged that the interaction among vegetation, cattle, and fire is complex and dynamic, so the balance between GHG emissions and carbon sequestration is not straightforward (Henry et al. 2012). By controlled burns, pasture quality is improved, and the spread of woody weeds is managed, ultimately benefiting livestock production. These fire management practices represent a key component of the response to climate change by the extensive beef industry, enhancing resilience while also lowering its environmental impact.
Strategies that focus solely on either adaptation or mitigation should not be avoided, as discussed in the dairy example. Adaptation strategies such as tactical destocking and restocking, alternative livestock species, and adding water points can give the adaptation capability to the grazing-based northern Australian beef (Bowen and Chudleigh 2021). In terms of mitigation of GHG emissions, animal breeding and potential anti-methanogen vaccines could play major roles in the extensive beef system (Buddle et al. 2011). However, it is important to recognize that these systems have a fewer established mitigation technologies than have the south-eastern Australian grazing dairy farms. The extensive nature of the beef systems makes routine interventions more difficult, if not impossible, to implement (Henry et al. 2012).
Research gaps
The integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation within livestock farming systems is an increasingly critical area of research, given the pressures of enhancing climate resilience and reducing emissions (Sejian et al. 2015). Although the conceptual links between adaptation and mitigation are well documented, considerable gaps continue in empirical knowledge (Zhang et al. 2017). Studying how the combined goals affect farm-level adaptation and reduce emissions is a critical area of research (Melissa Rojas-Downing et al. 2017).
Achieving adaptation and mitigation with a single strategy is not feasible; instead, it is necessary to integrate multiple strategies to achieve the outcomes (Beauchemin et al. 2022). Usually, strategies with different modes of action may have potential additive effects when combined (Beauchemin et al. 2022). The ‘stacking’ of strategies that offer both adaptation and mitigation benefits, or either adaptation or mitigation benefits, provides a theoretically optimal approach for minimizing net system emissions while providing adaptation benefits. However, there is a lack of sufficient empirical research findings to support these. For instance, stacking feed additives such as 3-NOP and deep-rooted pastures with anti-methanogenic properties (tannin, saponin) can reduce CH4 emissions and increase system adaptability, but remains underexplored. Component studies addressing such questions are essential for understanding underlying mechanisms, which form the foundation for confidently modelling the integration strategies at the farm system level to explore potential co-benefits, trade-offs, and long-term impacts across diverse farming contexts. Moreover, it remains unclear whether reductions in emissions or improvements in system adaptation led to consistently improved animal and system performance, an important factor for adoption by producers (Beauchemin et al. 2022). These examples show the need for research to evaluate the synergistic or antagonistic effects of combined strategies in the livestock farming systems (Beauchemin et al. 2020).
Evaluating the integration of adaptation and mitigation goals within a broader farm context is crucial. This includes emissions reductions or building farm resilience and factors, including farm productivity, profitability, food security, and biodiversity, which are essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability of livestock farming. Actively incorporating stakeholder input during these processes helps ensure that strategies support farmers’ decision-making and align with their goals for the overall success of livestock farming.
Longitudinal studies are crucial to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies over time, addressing a considerable gap in current research (Grafakos et al. 2018). Such studies must account for the varying timelines needed to observe meaningful impacts. For example, feed additives can deliver quicker outcomes with the availability of proper resources and farmer training, whereas agroforestry practices and soil health improvements take years to reach their full potential. Researching the effects of these interventions over extended periods using demonstration farms provides valuable insights into both immediate outcomes and long-term impacts under changing climates (Grafakos et al. 2018). Moreover, understanding the economic implications of adopting combined adaptation and mitigation strategies, especially the initial investment versus long-term benefits, would provide a clearer picture for farmers.
Although there are existing tools for assessing either GHG emissions (Rotz 2018) or farm adaptation responses, there is a clear need to develop integrated assessment tools that evaluate the combined impacts of adaptation and mitigation strategies within livestock systems (Del Prado et al. 2013). Developing these assessment tools may be supported by the existing farm system models (e.g. APSIM, GrassGro, DairyMod) and carbon accounting tools tailored to livestock production (e.g. Greenhouse Accounting Frameworks, AgRECalc, Farm Carbon Footprint Calculator, Holos) (Thumba et al. 2022). Developing new or adapted tools will be essential for advancing decision-making and identifying win–win strategies.
Collaborative efforts are required among stakeholders, including researchers, farmers, extension officers, and policymakers (Sejian et al. 2015; Grafakos et al. 2018). Such collaboration ensures that the research is scientifically sound and practically viable for tackling climate change-related challenges (Bilotto et al. 2023). By addressing gaps in these research areas, integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies in livestock farming can be more effectively implemented, resulting in sustainable, resilient, and productive systems.
Conclusions
This paper has highlighted the importance of integrating adaptation and mitigation efforts at the livestock farm level to enhance resilience to climate change and reduce emissions simultaneously. The two examples from the Australian livestock industry highlighted how regional differences in climate and production systems shape the implementation of these strategies. Importantly, the examples highlighted the potential of available strategies to deliver co-benefits and minimise trade-offs, simultaneously supporting both adaptation and mitigation goals. Achieving these dual goals will require adopting multiple, complementary strategies at the farm level. However, there is limited component research that assesses combinations of options, and also a lack of research to assess the impacts at the whole farm level. These studies are required to enable farmers and farm consultants to better evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies over time and in varying farm contexts. This could be achieved using demonstration farms where strategies can be tested over several years. Addressing these gaps requires a strong collaboration between the key stakeholders. These collaborative efforts will help bridge the gap between research and practical implementation of strategies to achieve adaptation and mitigation goals simultaneously at the livestock farm level.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were generated or analysed during this study.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as a part of Sineka Munidasa’s Doctor of Philosophy program in Agricultural Sciences. Her studies are financially supported by two research scholarships from the University of Melbourne: the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Rowden White Scholarship. The authors acknowledge these two scholarships.
References
Abbas ZK, Saggu S, Sakeran MI, Zidan N, Rehman H, Ansari AA (2015) Phytochemical, antioxidant and mineral composition of hydroalcoholic extract of chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) leaves. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 22, 322-326.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Agriculture Victoria (2024) Victorian dairy industry fast facts June 2024. Available at https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1042605/Dairy-Industry-Fast-Facts_June-2024.pdf [verified 12 March 2025]
Almeida AK, Hegarty RS, Cowie A (2021) Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems. Animal Nutrition 7, 1219-1230.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Archimède H, Eugène M, Marie Magdeleine C, Boval M, Martin C, Morgavi D, Lecomte P, Doreau M (2011) Comparison of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 59-64.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Aryal DR, Morales-Ruiz DE, López-Cruz S, Tondopó-Marroquín CN, Lara-Nucamendi A, Jiménez-Trujillo JA, Pérez-Sánchez E, Betanzos-Simon JE, Casasola-Coto F, Martínez-Salinas A, Sepúlveda-López CJ, Ramírez-Díaz R, La O Arias MA, Guevara-Hernández F, Pinto-Ruiz R, Ibrahim M (2022) Silvopastoral systems and remnant forests enhance carbon storage in livestock-dominated landscapes in Mexico. Scientific Reports 12, 16769.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Ash A, Hunt L, McDonald C, Scanlan J, Bell L, Cowley R, Watson I, McIvor J, MacLeod N (2015) Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis. Agricultural Systems 139, 50-65.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2024) Australian Agriculture: livestock. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/australian-agriculture-livestock/latest-release#:~:text=Herd%20rebuild%20occurred%20in%20Queensland,4.2%25%20to%2013.2%20million%20head [verified 22 April 2025]
Badgery W, Li G, Simmons A, Wood J, Smith R, Peck D, Ingram L, Durmic Z, Cowie A, Humphries A, Hutton P, Winslow E, Vercoe P, Eckard R, Cullen B (2023) Reducing enteric methane of ruminants in Australian grazing systems – a review of the role for temperate legumes and herbs. Crop & Pasture Science 74, 661-679.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Beauchemin KA, McAllister TA, McGinn SM (2009) Dietary mitigation of enteric methane from cattle. CABI Reviews 1-18.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Beauchemin KA, Ungerfeld EM, Eckard RJ, Wang M (2020) Review: fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation. Animal 14, s2-s16.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Beauchemin KA, Ungerfeld EM, Abdalla AL, Alvarez C, Arndt C, Becquet P, Benchaar C, Berndt A, Mauricio RM, McAllister TA, Oyhantçabal W, Salami SA, Shalloo L, Sun Y, Tricarico J, Uwizeye A, De Camillis C, Bernoux M, Robinson T, Kebreab E (2022) Invited review: current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science 105, 9297-9326.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Bell A, Sangster N (2023) Research, development and adoption for the north Australian beef cattle breeding industry: an analysis of needs and gaps. Animal Production Science 63, 1-40.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Berry PM, Brown S, Chen M, Kontogianni A, Rowlands O, Simpson G, Skourtos M (2015) Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures. Climatic Change 128, 381-393.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bilotto F, Christie-Whitehead KM, Malcolm B, Harrison MT (2023) Carbon, cash, cattle and the climate crisis. Sustainability Science 18, 1795-1811.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bowen MK, Chudleigh F (2021) Achieving drought resilience in the grazing lands of northern Australia: preparing, responding and recovering. The Rangeland Journal 43, 67-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bowen MK, Chudleigh F, Rolfe JW, English BH (2019) Northern Gulf beef production systems: preparing for, responding to, and recovering from drought. Available at https://futurebeef.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DCAP-DAF6_Northern-Gulf_Management-strategies-for-drought-resilience_June-2019.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Bray S, Doran-Browne N, O’Reagain P (2014a) Northern Australian pasture and beef systems. 1. Net carbon position. Animal Production Science 54, 1988-1994.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bray S, Walsh D, Rolfe J, Daniels B, Phelps D, Stokes C, Broad K, English B, Floulkes D, Gowen R, Gunther R, Rohan P (2014b) Climate Clever Beef: on-farm demonstration of adaptation and mitigation options for climate change in northern Australia. Meat & Livestock Australia. Available at https://era.dpi.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6106/1/B.NBP.0564_Final_Report.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Buck S, Rolfe J, Lemin C, English B (2019) Establishment of leucaena in Australia. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales 7, 104-111.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Buddle BM, Denis M, Attwood GT, Altermann E, Janssen PH, Ronimus RS, Pinares-Patiño CS, Muetzel S, Neil Wedlock D (2011) Strategies to reduce methane emissions from farmed ruminants grazing on pasture. The Veterinary Journal 188, 11-17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO (2022) State of the climate 2022. Available at https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate [verified 28 September 2023]
Burrows WH, Orr DM, Hendricksen RE, Rutherford MT, Myles DJ, Back PV, Gowen R (2010) Impacts of grazing management options on pasture and animal productivity in a Heteropogon contortus (black speargrass) pasture in central Queensland. 4. Animal production. Animal Production Science 50, 284-292.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Butchart DB, Christie-Whitehead KM, Roberts G, Eisner R, Reinke H, Munidasa S, Macdonald A, Higgins V, Doran-Browne N, Harrison MT (2025) Advancing quantification of Australia’s beef cattle and sheep emissions accounts – carbon sinks and emissions hot spots battle it out en route to net zero. Agricultural Systems 222, 104168.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cadez S, Czerny A, Letmathe P (2019) Stakeholder pressures and corporate climate change mitigation strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 28, 1-14.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Campbell BM, Thornton P, Zougmoré R, van Asten P, Lipper L (2014) Sustainable intensification: what is its role in climate smart agriculture? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8, 39-43.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Chang-Fung-Martel J, Harrison MT, Brown JN, Rawnsley R, Smith AP, Meinke H (2021) Negative relationship between dry matter intake and the temperature-humidity index with increasing heat stress in cattle: a global meta-analysis. International Journal of Biometeorology 65, 2099-2109.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Chilcott C, Ash A, Lehnert S, Stokes C, Charmley E, Collins K, Pavey C, Macintosh A, Simpson A, Berglas R, White E, Amit M (2020) Northern Australia beef situation analysis. A report to the cooperative research centre for developing northern Australia. CRCNA, Townsville, Qld, Australia. Available at https://crcna.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CRCNA_NA-Beef-Situational-Analysis_-July-2020.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Christie KM, Gourley CJP, Rawnsley RP, Eckard RJ, Awty IM (2012) Whole-farm systems analysis of Australian dairy farm greenhouse gas emissions. Animal Production Science 52, 998-1011.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Clark D, Malcolm B, Jacobs J (2013) Dairying in the antipodes: recent past, near prospects. Animal Production Science 53, 882-893.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cowan T, Wheeler MC, de Burgh-Day C, Nguyen H, Cobon D (2022) Multi-week prediction of livestock chill conditions associated with the northwest Queensland floods of February 2019. Scientific Reports 12, 5907.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Cowie A, Martin R (2009) Impacts and implications of climate change for the pastoral industries. Available at https://www.pgnsw.com.au/documents/conference-proceedings/2009/Cowie-Martin-2009.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com [verified 14 June 2025]
Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A (2021) Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2, 198-209.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Cullen BR, Eckard RJ (2011) Impacts of future climate scenarios on the balance between productivity and total greenhouse gas emissions from pasture based dairy systems in south-eastern Australia. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 721-735.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cullen BR, Johnson IR, Eckard RJ, Lodge GM, Walker RG, Rawnsley RP, McCaskill MR (2009) Climate change effects on pasture systems in south-eastern Australia. Crop & Pasture Science 60, 933-942.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cullen BR, Eckard RJ, Timms M, Phelps DG (2016) The effect of earlier mating and improving fertility on greenhouse gas emissions intensity of beef production in northern Australian herds. The Rangeland Journal 38, 283-290.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cullen BR, Harrison MT, Mayberry D, Cobon DH, Davison TM, Eckard RJ (2021) Climate change impacts and adaption strategies for pasture-based industries: Australian perspective. NZGA: Research and Practice Series 17, 139-148.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dai Y, Di HJ, Cameron KC, He J-Z (2013) Effects of nitrogen application rate and a nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide on ammonia oxidizers and N2O emissions in a grazed pasture soil. Science of the Total Environment 465, 125-135.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Dairy Australia (2016) Pasture digestibility: good for profitability and for emissions. Available at https://cdn-prod.dairyaustralia.com.au/-/media/project/dairy-australia-sites/national-home/resources/2020/07/08/pasture-digestibility-factsheet/pasture-digestibility-factsheet.pdf?rev=21e6117f9ab4473eb77f4828ed2d4b18 [verified 14 June 2025]
Dalzell S, Shelton M, Mullen B, Larsen P, McLaughlin K (2006) Leucaena: a guide to establishment and management. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/extensions-training-and-tools/documents/leucaena-guide-establishment-management.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
de Haas Y, Veerkamp RF, de Jong G, Aldridge M (2021) Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle. Animal 15, 100294.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Del Prado A, Crosson P, Olesen JE, Rotz C (2013) Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems. Animal 7, 373-385.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Dey R, Lewis SC, Arblaster JM, Abram NJ (2019) A review of past and projected changes in Australia’s rainfall. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10, e577.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
DiGiacomo K, Chauhan SS, Dunshea FR, Leury BJ (2022) Strategies to ameliorate heat stress impacts in sheep. In ‘Climate change and livestock production: recent advances and future perspectives’. (Eds V Sejian, SS Chauhan, C Devaraj, PK Malik, R Bhatta) pp. 161–174. (Springer: Singapore) 10.1007/978-981-16-9836-1_14
Dixon RM, Coates DB (2010) Diet quality estimated with faecal near infrared reflectance spectroscopy and responses to N supplementation by cattle grazing buffel grass pastures. Animal Feed Science and Technology 158, 115-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Doran-Browne NA, Ive J, Graham P, Eckard RJ (2016) Carbon-neutral wool farming in south-eastern Australia. Animal Production Science 56, 417-422.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Douglas G, Mackay A, Vibart R, Dodd M, McIvor I, McKenzie C (2020) Soil carbon stocks under grazed pasture and pasture-tree systems. Science of the Total Environment 715, 136910.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Dunshea FR, Leury BJ, Fahri F, DiGiacomo K, Hung A, Chauhan S, Clarke IJ, Collier R, Little S, Baumgard L, Gaughan JB (2013) Amelioration of thermal stress impacts in dairy cows. Animal Production Science 53, 965-975.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Eckard RJ, Clark H (2020) Potential solutions to the major greenhouse-gas issues facing Australasian dairy farming. Animal Production Science 60, 10-16.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Eckard R, Barlow S, Hayman P, Grace P, Hull L (2011) The interface between climate change mitigation and adaptation. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Eckard/publication/265751287_The_interface_between_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation/links/5536f1ee0cf268fd00188c8f/The-interface-between-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptation.pdf [verified 14 June 2025]
Edwards A, Archer R, De Bruyn P, Evans J, Lewis B, Vigilante T, Whyte S, Russell-Smith J (2021) Transforming fire management in northern Australia through successful implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects. Journal of Environmental Management 290, 112568.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Ellison D, Morris CE, Locatelli B, Sheil D, Cohen J, Murdiyarso D, Gutierrez V, van Noordwijk M, Creed IF, Pokorny J, Gaveau D, Spracklen DV, Tobella AB, Ilstedt U, Teuling AJ, Gebrehiwot SG, Sands DC, Muys B, Verbist B, Springgay E, Sugandi Y, Sullivan CA (2017) Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change 43, 51-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fournel S, Ouellet V, Charbonneau É (2017) Practices for alleviating heat stress of dairy cows in humid continental climates: a literature review. Animals 7, 37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Fouts JQ, Honan MC, Roque BM, Tricarico JM, Kebreab E (2022) Enteric methane mitigation interventions. Translational Animal Science 6, txac041.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Frederiksen JS, Osbrough SL (2022) Tipping points and changes in Australian climate and extremes. Climate 10, 73.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gardiner C, Bielig L, Schlink A, Coventry R, Waycott M (2004) Desmanthus – a new pasture legume for the dry tropics. Available at https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/8315/1/Gardiner_Bielig_Desmanthus_a_new_pasture_legume_for_the_dry_tropics.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Garner JB, Douglas M, Williams SRO, Wales WJ, Marett LC, DiGiacomo K, Leury BJ, Hayes BJ (2017) Responses of dairy cows to short-term heat stress in controlled-climate chambers. Animal Production Science 57, 1233-1241.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Garner JB, Williams SRO, Moate PJ, Jacobs JL, Hannah MC, Morris GL, Wales WJ, Marett LC (2022) Effects of heat stress in dairy cows offered diets containing either wheat or corn grain during late lactation. Animals 12, 2031.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Garnett LM, Eckard RJ (2024) Greenhouse-gas abatement on Australian dairy farms: what are the options? Animal Production Science 64, AN24139.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Grafakos S, Pacteau C, Delgado M, Landauer M, Lucon O, Driscoll P (2018) Integrating mitigation and adaptation: opportunities and challenges. In ‘Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network’. (Eds C Rosenzweig, W Solecki, P Romero-Lankao, S Mehrotra, S Dhakal, S Ali Ibrahim). (Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA). Available at https://uccrn.ei.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/pubs/ARC3.2-PDF-Chapter-4-Mitigation-and-Adaptation-wecompress.com_.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Grainger C, Clarke T, Auldist MJ, Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM, Waghorn GC, Eckard RJ (2009) Potential use of Acacia mearnsii condensed tannins to reduce methane emissions and nitrogen excretion from grazing dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 89, 241-251.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Grossi G, Goglio P, Vitali A, Williams AG (2019) Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers 9, 69-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Harrison MT, McSweeney C, Tomkins NW, Eckard RJ (2015) Improving greenhouse gas emissions intensities of subtropical and tropical beef farming systems using Leucaena leucocephala. Agricultural Systems 136, 138-146.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Harrison MT, Cullen BR, Rawnsley RP (2016) Modelling the sensitivity of agricultural systems to climate change and extreme climatic events. Agricultural Systems 148, 135-148.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Havrilla CA, Bradford JB, Yackulic CB, Munson SM (2023) Divergent climate impacts on C3 versus C4 grasses imply widespread 21st century shifts in grassland functional composition. Diversity and Distributions 29, 379-394.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hempel S, Menz C, Pinto S, Galán E, Janke D, Estellés F, Müschner-Siemens T, Wang X, Heinicke J, Zhang G, Amon B, del Prado A, Amon T (2019) Heat stress risk in European dairy cattle husbandry under different climate change scenarios – uncertainties and potential impacts. Earth System Dynamics 10, 859-884.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Henry B, Charmley E, Eckard R, Gaughan JB, Hegarty R (2012) Livestock production in a changing climate: adaptation and mitigation research in Australia. Crop & Pasture Science 63, 191-202.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Henry BK, Eckard RJ, Beauchemin KA (2018) Review: adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal 12, s445-s456.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Homann-Kee Tui S, Valdivia RO, Descheemaeker K, Sisito G, Moyo EN, Mapanda F (2023) Balancing co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation innovations under mixed crop–livestock systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience 4, 24.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Howarth C, Robinson EJZ (2024) Effective climate action must integrate climate adaptation and mitigation. Nature Climate Change 14, 300-301.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Howden SM, Crimp SJ, Stokes CJ (2008) Climate change and Australian livestock systems: impacts, research and policy issues. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 780-788.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, Makkar HPS, Adesogan AT, Yang W, Lee C, Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Tricarico JM (2013) Special topics—mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5045-5069.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
IPCC (2021) Chapter 6: Short-Lived Climate Forcers. 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’. (Eds V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, A Pirani, SL Connors, C Péan, S Berger, N Caud, Y Chen, L Goldfarb, MI Gomis, M Huang, K Leitzell, E Lonnoy, JBR Matthews, TK Maycock, T Waterfield, O Yelekçi, R Yu, B Zhou). (Cambridge University Press: UK) Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter06.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
IPCC (2022) Regional fact sheet – Australasia. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/factsheets/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Regional_Fact_Sheet_Australasia.pdf [verified 14 June 2025]
IPCC (2023) Working Group III mitigation of climate change. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg3/#:~:text=Climate%20change%20mitigation%20involves%20actions,these%20gases%20from%20the%20atmosphere [verified 4 September 2023]
Jackson D, Dixon RM, Quigley SP, Schatz T, Rolfe J, Corbett E, English B, Sullivan M, Chudleigh F, Wellington M, Callaghan M (2023) Phosphorus management of beef cattle in northern Australia. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/contentassets/a762971b7ac74ae588e78e7ff792a26d/mla-phosphorus-management-of-beef-cattle-in-northern-australia-2nd-edition-web.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Jarvis A, Lau C, Cook S, Wollenberg E, Hansen J, Bonilla O, Challinor A (2011) An integrated adaptation and mitigation framework for developing agricultural research: synergies and trade-offs. Experimental Agriculture 47, 185-203.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jayasundara S, Appuhamy JADRN, Kebreab E, Wagner-Riddle C (2016) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian dairy farms and mitigation options: An updated review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 96, 306-331.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
JBS (2021) JBS annual sustainability report. Available at https://www.jbs.com.br/storage/2023/10/sustainability-in-report-jbs-2021.pdf [verified 14 June 2025]
Joubran AM, Pierce KM, Garvey N, Shalloo L, O’Callaghan TF (2021) Invited review: A 2020 perspective on pasture-based dairy systems and products. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 7364-7382.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kanzler M, Böhm C, Mirck J, Schmitt D, Veste M (2019) Microclimate effects on evaporation and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield within a temperate agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 93, 1821-1841.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kendall PE, Verkerk GA, Webster JR, Tucker CB (2007) Sprinklers and shade cool cows and reduce insect-avoidance behavior in pasture-based dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3671-3680.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Klein RJT, Schipper ELF, Dessai S (2005) Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 579-588.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Koç G, Uzmay A (2021) Determinants of dairy farmers’ likelihood of climate change adaptation in the Thrace Region of Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability 24, 9907-9928.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Leahy S, Clark H, Reisinger A (2020) Challenges and prospects for agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 69.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Llonch P, Haskell MJ, Dewhurst RJ, Turner SP (2017) Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11, 274-284.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Loboguerrero AM, Campbell BM, Cooper PJM, Hansen JW, Rosenstock T, Wollenberg E (2019) Food and earth systems: priorities for climate change adaptation and mitigation for agriculture and food systems. Sustainability 11, 1372.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Locatelli B, Pavageau C, Pramova E, Di Gregorio M (2015) Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6, 585-598.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ludemann CI, Howden SM, Eckard RJ (2016) What is the best use of oil from cotton (Gossypium spp.) and canola (Brassica spp.) for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions: biodiesel, or as a feed for cattle? Animal Production Science 56, 442-450.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Macavoray A, Rashid MA, Rahman H, Shahid MQ (2023) On-farm water use efficiency: impact of sprinkler cycle and flow rate to cool Holstein cows during semi-arid summer. Sustainability 15, 3774.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
McKay RC, Boschat G, Rudeva I, Pepler A, Purich A, Dowdy A, Hope P, Gillett ZE, Rauniyar S (2023) Can southern Australian rainfall decline be explained? A review of possible drivers. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 14, e820.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Melissa Rojas-Downing M, Pouyan Nejadhashemi A, Harrigan T, Woznicki SA (2017) Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management 16, 145-163.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Meyer RS, Cullen BR, Whetton PH, Robertson FA, Eckard RJ (2018) Potential impacts of climate change on soil organic carbon and productivity in pastures of south eastern Australia. Agricultural Systems 167, 34-46.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moate PJ, Williams SRO, Grainger C, Hannah MC, Ponnampalam EN, Eckard RJ (2011) Influence of cold-pressed canola, brewers grains and hominy meal as dietary supplements suitable for reducing enteric methane emissions from lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 254-264.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Monckton D, Mendham DS (2022) Maximising the benefits of trees on farms in Tasmania – a desktop review of investment opportunities to improve farm enterprise productivity, profitability and sustainability. Australian Forestry 85, 6-12.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS, Bernabucci U (2010) Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science 130, 57-69.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nelson R, Contreras Z, Muriuki G, Howden M, Keating B (2013) Climate change adaptation and mitigation in Australian agriculture. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rohan-Nelson/publication/275523311_Climate_change_adaptation_mitigation_in_Australian_agriculture_-_Insights_from_RD_program_managers_and_leading_researchers_in_Australia/links/5be13ca3a6fdcc3a8dc17d4c/Climate-change-adaptation-mitigation-in-Australian-agriculture-Insights-from-R-D-program-managers-and-leading-researchers-in-Australia.pdf [verified 23 March 2023]
Nishimura S, Sugito T, Nagatake A, Oka N (2021) Nitrous oxide emission reduced by coated nitrate fertilizer in a cool-temperate region. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 119, 275-289.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Oliveira CP, Sousa FCd, Silva ALd, Schultz ÉB, Valderrama Londoño RI, Souza PARd (2025) Heat stress in dairy cows: impacts, identification, and mitigation strategies—a review. Animals 15, 249.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Osei-Amponsah R, Chauhan SS, Leury BJ, Cheng L, Cullen B, Clarke IJ, Dunshea FR (2019) Genetic selection for thermotolerance in ruminants. Animals 9, 948.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Park SE, Marshall NA, Jakku E, Dowd AM, Howden SM, Mendham E, Fleming A (2012) Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change 22, 115-126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Perera RS, Cullen BR, Eckard RJ (2020) Changing patterns of pasture production in south-eastern Australia from 1960 to 2015. Crop & Pasture Science 71, 70-81.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pryce JE, Haile-Mariam M (2020) Symposium review: Genomic selection for reducing environmental impact and adapting to climate change. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 5366-5375.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Rickards L, Howden SM (2012) Transformational adaptation: agriculture and climate change. Crop & Pasture Science 63, 240-250.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ripple WJ, Moomaw WR, Wolf C, Betts MG, Law BE, Gregg J, Newsome TM (2022) Six steps to integrate climate mitigation with adaptation for social justice. Environmental Science & Policy 128, 41-44.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rolfe J (2010) Economics of reducing methane emissions from beef cattle in extensive grazing systems in Queensland. The Rangeland Journal 32, 197-204.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rotz CA (2018) Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 6675-6690.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Sanderman J, Reseigh J, Wurst M, Young M-A, Austin J (2015) Impacts of rotational grazing on soil carbon in native grass-based pastures in southern Australia. PLos ONE 10, e0136157.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Santana ML, Jr, Pereira RJ, Bignardi AB, Vercesi Filho AE, Menéndez-Buxadera A, El Faro L (2015) Detrimental effect of selection for milk yield on genetic tolerance to heat stress in purebred Zebu cattle: genetic parameters and trends. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 9035-9043.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Schatz TJ, McCosker KD, Heeb C (2023) Phosphorus supplementation improves the growth and reproductive performance of female Brahman cattle grazing phosphorus-deficient pastures in the Victoria River District, Northern Territory, Australia. Animal Production Science 63, 544-559.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sejian V, Samal L, Haque N, Bagath M, Hyder I, Maurya VP, Bhatta R, Ravindra JP, Prasad C S, Lal R (2015) Overview on adaptation, mitigation and amelioration strategies to improve livestock production under the changing climatic scenario. In ‘Climate change impact on livestock: Adaptation and mitigation’. (Eds V Sejian, J Gaughan, L Baumgard, C Prasad) pp. 359–397. (Springer: New Delhi, India) 10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_22
Sharifi A (2021) Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: a literature review. Science of the Total Environment 750, 141642.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Shelton M, Dalzell S, Tomkins N, Buck SR (2021) Leucaena – The productive and sustainable forage legume. Meat and Livestock Australia. Available at https://www.mla.com.au/contentassets/c5bfa697aa58405bb997d65a314f10b1/leucaena-productive-sustainable-forage-legume-1.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Singh V, Rastogi A, Nautiyal N, Negi V (2017) Livestock and climate change: the key actors and the sufferers of global warming. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 87, 11-20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sinke P, Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C, Odegard I (2023) Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 28, 234-254.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sinkovič L, Jamnik P, Korošec M, Vidrih R, Meglič V (2020) In-vitro and in-vivo antioxidant assays of chicory plants (Cichorium intybus L.) as influenced by organic and conventional fertilisers. BMC Plant Biology 20, 36.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Suter H, Lam SK, Walker C, Chen D (2020) Enhanced efficiency fertilisers reduce nitrous oxide emissions and improve fertiliser 15N recovery in a Southern Australian pasture. Science of the Total Environment 699, 134147.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Suybeng B, Charmley E, Gardiner CP, Malau-Aduli BS, Malau-Aduli AE (2019) Methane emissions and the use of Desmanthus in beef cattle production in northern Australia. Animals 9, 542.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Taylor CA, Harrison MT, Telfer M, Eckard R (2016) Modelled greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle grazing irrigated leucaena in northern Australia. Animal Production Science 56, 594-604.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Terry SA, Basarab JA, Guan LL, McAllister TA (2021) Strategies to improve the efficiency of beef cattle production. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 101, 1-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thapa R, Chatterjee A, Awale R, McGranahan DA, Daigh A (2016) Effect of enhanced efficiency fertilizers on nitrous oxide emissions and crop yields: a meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 80, 1121-1134.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A, Herrero M (2009) The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: a review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems 101, 113-127.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thornton PK, Ericksen PJ, Herrero M, Challinor AJ (2014) Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: a review. Global Change Biology 20, 3313-3328.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Thumba DA, Lazarova-Molnar S, Niloofar P (2022) Comparative evaluation of data requirements and level of decision support provided by decision support tools for reducing livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 373, 133886.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Twine R (2021) Emissions from animal agriculture—16.5% is the new minimum figure. Sustainability 13, 6276.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Usman T, Qureshi MS, Yu Y, Wang Y (2013) Influence of various environmental factors on dairy production and adaptability of Holstein cattle maintained under tropical and subtropical conditions. Advances in Environmental Biology 7, 366-372.
| Google Scholar |
Wales W, Kolver E (2017) Challenges of feeding dairy cows in Australia and New Zealand. Animal Production Science 57, 1366-1383.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wall E, Simm G, Moran D (2010) Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4, 366-376.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Walsh M, Backlund P, Janetos AC, Schimel DS (2008) The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States (Vol. 4). US Climate Change Science Program. Available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CCSPFinalReport.pdf [verified 11 March 2025]
Wasko C, Shao Y, Vogel E, Wilson L, Wang QJ, Frost A, Donnelly C (2021) Understanding trends in hydrologic extremes across Australia. Journal of Hydrology 593, 125877.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wheeler TR, Craufurd PQ, Ellis RH, Porter JR, Vara Prasad PV (2000) Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82, 159-167.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Williams SRO, Fisher PD, Berrisford T, Moate PJ, Reynard K (2014) Reducing methane on-farm by feeding diets high in fat may not always reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 69-78.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wilson JR, Hacker JB (1987) Comparative digestibility and anatomy of some sympatric C3 and C4 arid zone grasses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38, 287-295.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wilson RS, Herziger A, Hamilton M, Brooks JS (2020) From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards. Nature Climate Change 10, 200-208.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S, Lin TS, Ciais P, Tubiello FN, Smith P, Campbell N, Jain AK (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food 2, 724-732.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Zhang YW, McCarl BA, Jones JPH (2017) An overview of mitigation and adaptation needs and strategies for the livestock sector. Climate 5, 95.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
