The document discusses the LIFE BEEF CARBON project which aims to reduce the carbon footprint of beef production in Europe by 15% over 10 years. It presents results from 2000 demonstrative beef farms in 4 countries which showed variability in greenhouse gas emissions depending on production system. Mitigation potential was identified on 170 innovative farms, with techniques including methane capture, improved animal performance, optimized nutrition and manure management, reduced fertilizer use, and increased carbon sequestration. Reductions of 7-18% in the carbon footprint were estimated depending on the technique and production system.

1. LIFE BEEF CARBON
Le plan carbone en production
bovin viande

2. 1. Project presentation
2. Results of demonstrative farms observatory
3. Mitigation potential on innovative farms
4. Mitigation technics

3. 1. LIFE BEEF CARBON
objectives
…2 000 farmers, 4 countries
January 2016 to december 2020
Reducing the beef carbon footprint by 15% in 10 years

4. FRANCE
Demonstrative
farms
Innovative
farms
1680 125
IRELAND
Demonstrative
farms
Innovative
farms
100 20
SPAIN
Demonstrative
farms
Innovative
farms
120 7 ITALY
Demonstrative
farms
Innovative
farms
100 20
AINTA
Asesoria Integral Agroalimentaria SL
4

5. Life Beef Carbon : le plan carbone de la filière viande
Objectives and actions
Common methodologic framework
Development of harmonized tools
Training of farm advisers
Assessment of 2000 demonstrative farms:
• Representative of existing beef systems
• Quantify GHG emission
• Raise farmer GHG awareness
• Solutions to improve
Network of 170 innovative farms:
• Identify GHG mitigation technics and
associated costs
• Carbon action plan on each farm
• Visits and meetings between innovative
farmers and advisers
Beef sector carbon action plan
5

6. 3 tools compared and harmonized
GHG indicator: kg eq. CO2 / kg liveweight gain (LWG)

7. Life Beef Carbon : le plan carbone de la filière viande
Harmonization and comparison of the 3 tools on 20 study cases
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0
FR1
FR2
FR3
FR4
FR5
IE1
IE2
IE3
IE4
IE5
ES1
ES2
ES3
ES4
ES5
IT1
IT2
IT3
IT4
IT5
Carbon footprint kg CO2e/kg LWG
Carbon Audit CAP'2ER Bovid-CO2
7

8. LIFE BEEF CARBON : tools
Pédagogie et sensibilisation
Conseil en élevage, aide à la décision 8
Simplified level 1 : 35 technical criteria
Advanced level 2 : 150 technical criteria
Environmental impacts (air, water, biodiversity, energy)
Nutrishing performance
Carbon action plan
Economic aspect
A certified tool to assess environmental
performance and build carbon action plan

9. Strong correspondance between
CAP2ER level 1 et level 2

10. Comparison of the calculation

11. Technicians and farmers training

12. Number of technicians and farmers
trained
Country Technicians Farmers
France 180 125
Ireland 4 20
Italy 4 23
Spain 2 15

13. 2. Results of demonstrative farms
observatory

14. Demonstrative farms observatory
samplings
France Ireland Italy Spain TOTAL
Suckler to weanling 550 16 - 20 586
Suckler to weanling with female fattening 550 - - - 550
Suckler to veal 50 - - - 50
Suckler to finish 255 - 18 40 313
Suckler to beef 15 30 - - 45
Suckler to finish + purchases 80 - - - 80
Beef fatteners 10 24 - 40 74
Young bulls fatteners 50 - 82 - 132
Dairy calf to beef 140 30 - - 170
TOTAL 1700 100 100 100 2000

15. Mapping of Irishdemonstrativefarms
Suckler to weanling
Suckler to beef
Beef fatteners
Dairy calf to beef
Irish Farm survey
15

16. 16
Exampleof restitutionto a demonstrative
farmer inIreland
22
16

17. Mapping of 1700 french demonstrative farms
17

18. Example of restitution to a demonstrative
farmer in France

19. Mapping of italian farms
Veneto: provinces of Padova, Venezia,
Rovigo, Treviso, Verona, Mantova, Vicenza.
Piemonte: provinces of Torino, Cuneo, Asti.
19

20. Mapping of spanish demonstrative farms
Type of farm
Store fo finish
Suckler to finish +
weaning purchases
Suckler to weaning
20

21. Example of restitution to a demonstrative
farmer in Spain

22. Life Beef Carbon : le plan carbone de la filière viande
Methane represent more that 60% of the emissions
22
61%
24%
15%
Emission distribution of 1700 demonstrative farms
according to the type of gaz
CH4
N2O
CO2

23. Life Beef Carbon : le plan carbone de la filière viande
Entheric methane represent more that 50% of the
emissions
56%
23%
6%
6%
5%
4%
Fermentation entérique
Gestion des effluents
Achats aliments et paille
Fertilisation
Energies directes
Achats d'engrais
Emission distribution of 1700 demonstrative farms
23

24. 11,316,7 5,4
(± 5,3) (± 4,3) (± 4,6)
kg éq. CO2/kg LWG
First results on 1700 demonstrative
farms
GHG
Emissions Carbon sequestration
Net carbon
footprint
kg éq. CO2/kg LWG kg éq. CO2/kg LWG

25. Beef production
= different systems
25
TIME
Suckler to weanling Fatteners
Suckler to finish
14-18 months
6-10 months
Suckler to steers
24-36 months

26. Focus on suckler to weanling systems :
Average of the system
Surface (ha) 117
Loading (LU/ha) 1,1
Productivity (kg lvwg /LU) 298
Concentrate (kg /kglvwg) 1,8
Age at first calving (months) 34,9
Interval between two calvings (days) 377
Organic Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 75
Mineral Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 25
GHG emissions (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 18,3
GHG sequestration (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 8,0
GHG net (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 10,3
26

27. Focus on suckler to weanling systems :
GHG
emission
( kg eCO2/
kg lvwg)
27

28. Focus on suckler to weanling systems :
GHG
Emissions Carbon sequestration
Net carbon
footprint
18,3
8,00
10,3
kgeqCO2/kgliveweightgain
28

29. Focus on fattening systems in Italy:
Average of the system
Surface (ha) 60,7
Livestock rate (LU/ha) 6,1
Productivity (kg lvwg /LU) 899
Concentrate (kg /kglvwg) 5,1
Organic Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 247,6
Mineral Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 106,0
GHG emissions (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 8,2
GHG sequestration (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) -0,1
GHG net (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 8,3
29

30. Focus on fattening system :
8,2
-0,12
8,3
kgeqCO2/kgliveweightgain
GHG
Emissions Carbon sequestration
Net carbon
footprint
30

31. Focus on suckler to finish systems :
Average of the system
Surface (ha) 116
Loading (LU/ha) 1,6
Productivity (kg lvwg /LU) 372
Concentrate (kg /kglvwg) 1,9
Age at first calving (months) 34,1
Interval between two calvings (days) 377
Organic Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 130
Mineral Nitrogen (kg N orga/ha) 59
GHG emissions (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 16,2
GHG sequestration (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 2,8
GHG net (kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG) 3,4
31

32. 16,2
2,8
13,4
kgeqCO2/kgliveweightgain
GHG
Emissions
Carbon sequestration
Net carbon
footprint
Focus on suckler to finish systems :
32

33. Beef production = different systems
TIME
Suckler to weanling Fatteners
Suckler to finish
730 kg vif400 kg vif
Young bulls net
carbon
footprint
=
10,04 kg
eCO2/kgLWG
Young bulls net
carbon
footprint
=
9,4 kg eCO2 /
kgLWG *
730 kg vif
* Allocation to the young bulls
33

34. First outcomes
• Variability between systems and intra system
• There is a mitigation potential on all sources of emissions and carbon
sequestration
• Work on the innovative farms to identify the mitigation technics and
associated reduction potential

35. 3. Mitigation potential on
innovative farms

36. 3. Mitigation potential on
French innovative farms
Production system
Area
(ha)
Number of Life
stock unit (LU)
GHG net
(kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG)
Before carbon action
plan
GHG net (kgCO2
eq/kgLVWG)
After carbon action
plan
% gain / GHG
net
Suckler to weanling
average 140 144 10,84 9,48 - 14%
Suckler to finish
average 146 165 11,76 10,98 - 7%

37. Example of a french carbon action
plan

38. 4
3
3. Mitigation potentialon
Irish innovativefarms
Production system Area
(ha)
Number of
Livestock unit
(LU)
GHG net
(kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG)
before carbon action plan
GHG net
(kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG)
after carbon action plan
% gain / GHG
net
Suckler to weanling 44 53 9.7 7.9 - 18 %
Suckler to store 57 81 10.5 8.8 - 16 %
Suckler to finish (bulls) 62 140 9.1 7.7 - 16 %
Suckler to finish (steers) 92 142 8.3 7.1 - 15 %
Dairy calf to beef 53 93 7.7 6.5 - 15 %
Total Average 61 109 9.0 7.6 - 16 %
38

39. 44
Example of a carbon
action plan on an
irish innovative farm
39

40. 3. Mitigation potential on
Spanish innovative farms
Production system
Area
(ha)
Number of
Livestock unit
(LU)
GHG net
(kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG)
Before carbon action
plan
GHG net
(kgCO2 eq/kgLVWG)
After carbon action plan
% gain / GHG
net
Suckler to weanling 325 108 11,93 10,4 -13%
Suckler to finish 61,3 608 5,02 4,57 -9%
Fattening system 846 549 9,16 7,9 -14%
Average 411 421 8,7 7,63 -12%

41. Example of a spannish carbon action
plan

42. Production system
Area
(ha) Number of
Livestock unit (LU)
GHG net
(kgCO2
eq/kgLVWG)
Before carbon
action plan
GHG net
(kgCO2
eq/kgLVWG)
After carbon
action plan
% gain/GHG
net
Fattening systems 66,45 253,31 8,66 8,03 - 7%
3. Mitigation potential on Italian
innovative farms

43. Example of an italian carbon action
plan

44. 4
9
First outcomes
• High variability of mitigation potential depending on :
-systemstype
-systemoptimization
• Depends on advisory and economic support
• Depends on weather conditions, natural environment and scientific knowledges (ex : warming factors)
• Most of the mitigation strategies are not visible in the inventories
44

45. Suckler systems
• Carbon sequestration
• Age at first calving
• Productivity management (interval between two calvings, limit the unproductive animals…)
Main mitigation technics
Fattening systems
• Methanization
• Animal performance
• Animal nutrition
• Manure management and application
• N fertilizers reduction
• Energy production (other than methanization)

46. Mitigation technics
Methanization
• Description of the technics
-Digestibility: Including more concentrates, supplementing animal diets with edible lipids or
forage quality;
• Wich system: Fattening system mainly
• Indicators: % of fat, digestibility
• Mitigation expected: -15% +5%
• Impact on economy: Better digestibility also often leads to an increase in production, i.e. milk production or
weight gain, making it a cost-efficient reduction measure.

47. Mitigation technics
Animal performance
• Description of the technics
Improve animal health: water quality, health program…
Increase average daily weight gain
Animal welfare handling: density of pens, homogeneity lots…
Daily renewal of bed
Weekly bed removal
• Indicators: LWG, animal density, mortality,
• Mitigation expected: from -2 to -10 %
• Impact on economy: several of the measures have benefits such as increased production efficiency which could be an
incentive for the farmers.
• Limits: production efficiency is not valued and accounted for by the political system.

48. Mitigation technics
Nutrition
• Description of the technics
-Multiphase feeding: Precision protein feeding, optimize concentrate crude protein content
-Feed agro-industry by-products
-Replace soy cake or meal with low emission
• Wich system: Fattening system mainly (Agro-industry by-products also used in Suckler systems)
• Indicators: protein level, kg by products use/ kg of concentrates?, % selfsufficiency
• Mitigation expected: -5 -10%
• Impact on economy: Using by-product cost-efficient reduction measure.

49. Mitigation technics
Manure storage and management
• Description of the technics
- Store solid manure on solid impermeable floor equipped with a drainage system, fast removal of slurry from the
barn, bedding frequently removal
- Areation;
- Composting;
- Additives application
- Application in the own crops and in nearby farms;
- Low emission slurry spreader
• Wich system: Fattening system mainly
• Indicators: Storage time, technique applied before spread, slurry spread method,
• Mitigation expected: 0 to -10%

50. Mitigation technics
Fertilizer application
• Description of the technics:
- reduction of mineral nitrogen application,
- timing of application (even with precision farming devices - GPS);
- substitution of nitrate-based fertilizers with ammonium-base fertilizers
• Indicators: kg of N fertilizers/ha
• Mitigation expected: between 0 and -5%
• Impact on economy: expected profitable

51. Mitigation technics
Energy
• Description of the technics:
- photovoltaic energy;
- anaerobic digestion;
- optimization of tractors’ power and benchmark
• Indicators:
- kWh produced;
- kwh/ha for agricultural operations
• Mitigation expected: between -1% and -2%
• Impact on economy: expected profitable if substained

52. Mitigation technics
Carbon sequestration
• Description of the technics:
- mantain or increase permanent grasslands;
- mantain or increase hedges;
- minimum or no tillage
• Indicators:
- surface of permanent grasslands (ha);
- length of hedges (linear meters);
- surfaces managed with minimum or no tillage (ha)
• Mitigation expected: up to -10%
• Impact on economy: expected profitable, if substained in case of grasslands and hedges

53. 5
2
Mitigationtechnics
for suckler systems
53

54. Maîtrise de la productivité
• 1. Disposer d’animaux en bonne santé:
• bon niveau sanitaire: respect des protocoles sanitaires avec son vétérinaire
• alimentation équilibrée respectant les besoins des différents stades physiologique
• soins rapides + politique de sélection et/ou de réforme adaptée
• 2. Trouver équilibre entre animaux improductifs et animaux productifs
• Détection rapide des femelles vides et mis en réforme
• Surveillance accrue, échographie
• Adapter son taux de renouvellement au potentiel des femelles et leur capacité à
conserver leur potentiel de reproduction sans dégrader les performances
zootechniques
• Réduire l’âge au vêlage des génisses de renouvellement

55. 5
1
Mitigationtechnics in suckler
systems
Age at First Calving (AFC)
• Current average age at first calving
Increases cows life time productivity – More calves per cow
• Systems – Suckler to weanling, Suckler to steer, Suckler to finish
• Indicators
• Replacement heifers body condition and weight
• Pregnancy rate 35 days after breeding season (Irish indicator)
• Mitigation expected
• Reduces methane emission intensity
• Cuts beef carbon footprint by 0.3% per month
• Impact on economy : Positive effect
56

56. Double performance :
économique et environnemental
Levier d’action PBVV/UGB GES nets/kgvv Economie
Réformer les vaches vides (de 10% à 0%) +8,5% -7,4% +1,9% EBE/PB
Maitriser le taux de gestation (de 82 à 94%) +6,7% -10,5% +1,6% EBE/PB
Limiter la mortalité des veaux (de 16% à 7%) +9,7% -11,9% +3,5% EBE/PB
Maintenir les qualités maternelles ( +1,5 litres/ vaches/jour) +6,1% -3,9% +3,9% EBE/PB
Réduire l’âge au premier vêlage de 3 à 2 ans (60% à 2 ans) +7,8% -7,3% +1,2% EBE/PB
Maitriser le vêlage à 2 ans (20% à 60% à 2 ans) +6,6% -5,7% +2,3% EBE/PB
Idele, 2013, Analyse de
la BDD Inosys

57. 5
3
Mitigationtechnics
General farm practices
• Grassland management
• Incorporation of legumes into pasture
• Optimise soil pH and soil fertility (P and K index)
• Increase soil Organic Matter (application of organic fertilizer)
• Extend grazing season
• Diet
• Improve feed quality (e.g. rotational grazing, silage quality)
• Use of by products in concentrate feed
58

58. Work on a common scientific publication

59. Conclusion et perspectives
• Very good return of the 2000 volunteer farmers
• Demonstration actions increased farmers interest to improve environmental
performances
• All the livestock breeding families represented
• Positive correlation between farm economics and carbon emissions
• Deployment beyond the initial scope
• A transnational, proactive and networking approach for the beef sector

60. Questions