The document summarizes the results and objectives of the LIFE BEEF CARBON project, which aimed to reduce the carbon footprint of beef production in Europe by 15% over 10 years. Key findings include: - Assessment of 2000 farms found variability in GHG emissions within production systems and identified opportunities to improve technical performance and lower emissions. - 170 innovative farms developed carbon action plans and achieved an average 13% reduction in emissions through practices like improving herd management, feed efficiency, manure management, and fertilizer use. - Over 40 mitigation techniques were identified targeting sources like enteric fermentation, manure, feed, and fertilizer. Common practices included increasing productivity, optimizing grazing,

1. LIFE BEEF CARBON
Final results

2. • Context
• Project and objectives
• Results
 tools, sector penetration, demonstrative farms observatory, innovative farms carbon action plans…
• Mitigation technics
• Socio economic approach

3. Carbon footprint of an european
citizen
3
8-12 tonnes eCO2
Equipments
and services
45%
Food 15%
Transport
22%
Housing
18%
Ruminants meat
consumption represent
approximately 4% of a
french citizen carbon
footprint
Source : ADEME, 2019

4. Beef GHG emissions from various
production regions
Source : FAO
 Beef from
Europe is
carbon
efficient

5. Context before project
• Farmers not really concerned/aware about GHG
• No tools adapted for GHG advice
• Some identified technical solution in publications but without dissemination
and economical impact
• No standard solution : need for case-by-case approach

6. 1. LIFE BEEF CARBON
objectives
…2 000 farmers, 4 countries, 33% of EU beef production
47 partners from farming advisory companies
Reducing the beef carbon footprint by 15% in 10 years

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

8. Objectives and actions
8
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
• Sensibilize on 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
National beef sector carbon action plan

9. Objectives
• Harmonize tools and approaches between european countries
• Characterize european beef systems and their associated GHG and environmental
impacts
• Identify on commercial farms levers of mitigation
• Build a sector roadmap with clear targets, timeschedule and the means necessary
to achieve the objectives
• Lower carbon footprint in each beef system

10. 3 tools compared and harmonized
GHG indicator: kg eq. CO2 / kg liveweight gain (LWG)
Estimation of the Total live weight gain (LWG) produced in the farm:
and/or
Purchased animals
Initial inventory
Final inventory
Multiple environmental indicators with Life Cycle Assessment methodology

11. From GHG accounting to a multicriteria analysis
11
Climate change
Air quality
Eau
Soil
GHG
Ammonia
Water consumption
Carbon sequestration
Territory
Biodiversity
Soils fertility
Eutrophication
Water

12. 3 tools compared and harmonized
GHG indicator: kg eq. CO2 / kg liveweight gain (LWG)

13. Tools comparison :
calculation

14. Tools comparison :
20 study cases assessed using 3 tools
14
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
Adjustment and harmonization on
the tools with cross comparison
approaches

15. Strong correspondance between
CAP2ER level 1 et level 2
Net Carbon footprint GHG emissions

16. Technicians and farmers training
Objectives :
150 advisers
Realized (in 2021):
> 400 advisers

17. Beef production
= different systems
17
TIME
Suckler to weanling Fatteners
Suckler to finish (bulls)
14-18 months
6-10 months
Suckler to steers
24-36 months

18. 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

19. Mapping of
demonstrative farms
19

20. 11
Assessment : Inputs datas
• Approximately 1 to 3 hours completion
Animal
numbers
Reproduction
datas
Cattle
management :
health, wellfare…
Inputs
(feeds, fertilizers,
energy…)
Surfaces
(grasslands,
crops,
management,
agro ecological
infrastructure….
)

21. 11,3
16,8 5,5
(± 5,3) (± 4,3) (± 4,6)
kg éq. CO2/kg LWG
Results on 2 000
demonstrative farms
GHG
Emissions Carbon sequestration
Net carbon
footprint
kg éq. CO2/kg LWG kg éq. CO2/kg LWG

22. Enteric methane represent more that
50% of the emissions
24
54%
23%
7%
7%
5%
4%
Fermentation entérique
Gestion des effluents
Achats aliments et paille
Fertilisation
Energies directes
Achats d'engrais
Energy
Fertiliser manufacture
Emission distribution of the 2000 Life Beef Carbon
demonstrative farms
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Feed and straw

23. GHG emissions per beef system
Source: Andurand et al, 2020, Synthèse de 6 années de démarches environnementales bas carbone en élevage bovin, 3R
Suckler to
weanling
Suckler with female
fattening
Suckler to
finish
Suckler to veal
Young bulls
fatteners
Dairy calf to
young bulls
A very significant variability within each
system which illustrates the margins of
progress

24. 26
Focus on suckler to weanling systems
GHG
emission
( kg eCO2/
kg lvwg)
Huge variability of
GHG emissions
 Huge variability
of technical
perfomance

25. Focus on technical performance
Top 10
suckler to weanling
Average
suckler to weanling
Bottom 10
suckler to weanling
Number of farms 45 450 45
Technical performance
Liveweight gain production (kg lvwg /livestock
unit)
361 298 212
Interval between 2 calvings (days) 371 385 418
Age at first calving (months) 34,9 35,4 38,3
Numerical productivity : weaned calves per cow
per year (%)
92 89 78
GHG Performance
GHG emissions (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 12,5 18,3 26,6
Carbon sequestration (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 6,3 8,0 10,0
Net carbon footprint (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 6,2 10,3 16,6

26. Focus on feeding strategies
• Farms with better valorization of fodders and concentrates
• The difference in fodder quality permits to use less concentrates
Top 10
suckler to weanling
Average
suckler to
weanling
Bottom 10
suckler to
weanling
Number of farms 45 450 45
Feeding performances
Concentrates consumption (kg /kg lvwg) 1,41 1,72 2,43
Fodder distributed (t DM/livestock unit) 1,9 2,1 2,4

27. Organic and conventional
Suckler to weanling
Suckler to weanling Organic suckler to weanling
Technical performance
Productivity (kg lvwg / livestock unit) 298 275
Interval between 2 calvings 377 379
Livestock unit per hectare 1,02 0,92
Mineral Nitrogen fertilization (uN/ha) 25 -
Concentrates consumption (kg /kg lvwg) 1,72 1,23
Environmental performance
GHG emissions (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 18,3 +- 3,1 18,77
Carbon sequestration (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 8,0 +- 3,8 8,87
Net carbon footprint (kg eq CO2/ kg lvwg) 10,3 +- 3,5 9,90
29
29

28. Grasslands and environmental
performances
Correlation between percentage of grasslands and net
carbon footprint
Correlation between percentage of grasslands and
exceeds of Nitrogen balance per hectare
Net
carbon
footprint
kg
eCO2/kg
lvwg
Exceeds
of
Nitrogen
balance
kg
N
/ha
Percentage of grassland / farming area Percentage of grassland / farming area

29. Percentage of grassland / farming area
Net
carbon
footprint
kg
eCO2/kg
lvwg
Grasslands and environmental
performances
Positive correlation
between grasslands
and :
- Net carbon footprint
- Water quality
(eutrophication risks)
- Biodiversity

30. Conclusion of the
demonstrative observatory
• Variability within system
• There is a mitigation potential on all sources of emissions and carbon sequestration
 Improving technically the beef farms will improve GHG emission
• There is no correlation between grasslands and GHG emissions
• There is a positive correlation between grasslands carbon sequestration, net
carbon footprint, biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion, pesticide uses…

31. Questions

32. Example of an innovative farms
restitution
Making a link
between
Environmental
results
And
Farmer practices
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
N fertilisation
Fuel and electricity
Feeds
Mineral Fertilizers
Reference
My Farm
GHG Emissions

33. Link between technical indicator and carbon performance
Example of an innovative farms
restitution
Feeding
Kg concentrate / LU
Concentrate autonomy
%age of grass in the diet
Protein autonomy
Cattle management
Productivity
Age at first calving
Number of weaned calf
per calving
Interval between 2
calvings

34. Example of an innovative farms
restitution
Surfaces
Kg mineral N / ha
Grasslands yields
(T./ha)
Percentage of grassland
in the cultural rotation
Kg organic N / ha
Percentage of permanent
grasslands / farm area (ha)
Meters of hedgerows / ha
of farm area
Manure management
Grazing days / year
Energy
Fuel consumption L/ha
Link between technical indicator and
carbon performance

35. 170 carbon action plan
of innovative farmers
Average
reduction of
-13%
kg eCO2/kg
lvwg
on the
innovative farms
 No difference
between
fatteners and
suckler systems

36. Suckler to
weanling
Suckler with female
fattening
Suckler to
finish
Suckler to veal
170 carbon action plan
of innovative farmers
Average
reduction of
-13%
kg eCO2/kg
lvwg
on the
innovative farms
 No difference
between
fatteners and
suckler systems

37. GHG emissions mitigation practices
in beef production
39

38. More than 40 mitigations
practices identified
Manure management
Time spent in shed vs
pasture,
Biogas production
Crops management
& fertilization
Legume fodder
crops,
Optimization of
fertilizers uses
Fuel and electricity
No-till cultivation,
Power and
equipment,
Working
organization
Inputs
Pasture
management,
Concentrates and
fertilizers,
Legumes, Crops
rotation
Herd management
Increasing
productivity
Reducing number of
unproductive animals
Feed
Feed efficiency,
Forage quality and yield
GHG emissions Carbon sequestration
Avoid bare
soil
Cover crops
Agroforestry
Grassland
management

39. Mitigations technics applied on innovative
farms and associated GHG performances
Cattle feeding 2-4 %
Herd performance 8-12 %
Ressources consumption 1-2 %
Manure management 3-7 %
Fertilisation management 3-4 %
Carbon sequestration 2-8 %

40. Examples of mitigation technics
OBJECTIVES IMPROVEMENT INDICATOR
IMPACTS on GHG NET/
and annual income ADVISES
Lower interval between 2
calving From 390 to 375 days - 2,2 % / + 2 600 € Grouping calvings
Reduce period between
last calving and slaughter From 340 to 280 days - 7 % / + 5 300 € Cows sorting / fattening score
before weaning
Increasing on farm
fattening
Fattening 100% of suckler cow - 6,7 % / + 5 800 €
Fattening feeding plan
Start fattening on grass
Age of suckler cows
Health and growth of
young animals
- 4 % mortality and + 100 g/j
- 3 % / + 2 700 €
Sanitary condition
Space in housing
Watch / surveyance
Lower age at first calving
30 months double period of
calving
24 months maintaining
number of calving or
maintaining number of LU
From - 4 to - 14 %
Possible at 30 months
Feasible in some situation at 24
months
C
A
T
T
L
E

41. OBJECTIVES SIMULATION
IMPACT on
GHG
ADVISES
Autonomy Optimization of grassland quality,
meslin, alfalfa implementation… - 8,9 % / + 5 000 €
Optimization concentrates,
Increase carbon sequestration
Improving
grazing
+ 20 days of grazing,
Rotational grazing convertion
- 2 %
References of stocking rate
N fertilization
- N mineral Fertilization (-23 uN/ha)
- Leguminous (-43 uN/ha)
- 3,5 % / + 1 500 €
- 6,5 % / + 3 000 €
Specific advises on fertilization
F
E
E
D
S
FERTILIZ
ATION
Examples of mitigation technics

42. Mitigation techniques in
fattening systems
Animal performance
• Efficiency measures: improve animal productivity and herd management
• Target system: fattening systems, suckler to finish
• Choosing breeds with faster grow, reducing fattening cycle, improving health of the
animals, improving animal welfare
 CH4 y CO2

43. Mitigation techniques in
fattening systems
Renewable energy
• Efficiency measures: use renewable energy to provide power to the farm
• Target system: fattening systems, suckler to finish
• Despite the impact of the energy in the carbon footprint in beef systems is very low,
promoting renewable energy for auto- consumption or also selling it would have a global
positive impact

44. 5
1
Mitigationtechnicsinsucklersystems
46
Calving Rate
• Efficiency measure – No. of calves/cow per year
• Target System(s) – Suckler to weanling/store, Suckler to beef
85 t carbon
emission
6.0 tons LWG
Average suckler cow produces 0.83 calves/year

45. 5
1
Mitigationtechnicsinsucklersystems
47
Calving Rate
• Efficiency measure – No. of calves/cow per year
• Target System(s) – Suckler to weanling/store, Suckler to beef
80 t carbon
emission
6.0 tons LWG
Reduce cows per calf (e.g. 0.91 calves/cow per year)
A reduction of 1 cow per 10 calves
cut beef carbon footprint by 6%

46. 48
• Economic impact
• Technical breaks
• GHG mitigation
potential
• Farmers and advisers
testimonies
Technical sheets of mitigation practices

47. Wich mitigation technics do you plan
to apply in the near future?
0,5%
12,1%
14,2%
20,0%
23,2%
25,8%
26,8%
32,1%
32,1%
38,4%
43,2%
Aucune
Augmenter la durée des prairies temporaires
Augmenter la productivité par UGB
Implanter des haies et des prairies permanentes
Ajuster les niveaux protéiques des rations aux besoins des…
Augmenter le pâturage
Diminuer la fertilisation azotée minérale
Améliorer la gestion des effluents d'élevage
éduire les consommations de carburant et le travail du sol
Réduire le nombre animaux improductif : réduire l'écart…
Réintroduire des légumineuses dans les prairies et dans…
Socio economic
approach on 420
demonstrative
farmers
Add more leguminous in my grasslands
Lower interval between 2 calvings
Reduce soil tillage and fuel consuption
Improve manure management
Lower the level of mineral Nitrogen fertilisation
Increase grazing
Adjust protein feeds to the exact needs of my cattle
Implement hedgerows
Improve liveweight gain per livestock unit
Increase the length of temporary grassland in my rotations
None

48. Reasons that will incite you to
implement low carbon practices
9,5%
13,7%
15,3%
20,0%
25,8%
39,5%
39,5%
44,2%
64,2%
Améliorer la gestion du troupeau
Diminuer le temps de travail
Motivation de l'éleveur sur les thématiques environnementales
Evolution des politiques agricoles
Optimiser sa consommation d'intrants
Incitation financière comme l'achat du carbone non émis
Adapter son exploitation aux changements climatiques
Donner une meilleure image de l'élevage bovin viande
Obtenir une meilleure rentabilité économique
Improving economic results
Give to society a better picture of beef farms
Adapt my farm to climate change
Financial incentives such as carbon credits
Lower my inputs consumption
Evolution of agriculture politics
Personal motivation in favor of environment
Decrease my workload
Improve my cattle management
Socio economic
approach on 420
demonstrative
farmers

49. After Life Beef Carbon
Challenge of climate neutral beef ?
Technical optimization – 15%
Genetic selection (– 10% ?)
Methane inhibitors (feed, additives ?) (– 15% ?)
Carbon sequestration (– 20 % ?)
Other technics or metrics (albedo, renewable
energy production, GWP* … - xxxx% ?)

50. Conclusions
• Margin for improvement in technical efficiency and productivity with some
win/win situation between environment and economic results
 Challenge of farm advisory penetration
• High variability of mitigation potential depending on systems type and
system optimization
• There is a mitigation potential on all sources of emissions and carbon
sequestration

51. Do you want to know more ?
• Facebook page
• Partners websites
• Technical
documentations
• Contact your
technician
josselin.andurand@idele.fr

52. Thanks for your attention
54