Eblex Brochure Final Printed 231109

8/8/2019 Eblex Brochure Final Printed 231109

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eblex-brochure-final-printed-231109 1/52

changein theair

The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap - Phase 1



2

“Livestock farmers understand the crucial role they have to play in producing morefood with less impact and see themselves as a part of the solution to globalproblems that include climate change. This roadmap is an important starting point in realising this vision - understanding where we are, what we need to achieve andhow we might do it.”

Peter Kendall, President, National Farmers Union (NFU)

“Steady reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is going to be a requirement for allsectors of the UK economy, including agriculture. The beef and sheep industries aretaking a lead with this environmental roadmap which demonstrates clearly that gainsin efficiency and productivity can go hand-in-hand with environmental gains.”

Ian Crute, Chief Scientist, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)

“The meat industry takes its environmental responsibilities seriously, but what wehave lacked to date is the means to demonstrate what we have all done and howwe can improve. This first version of the Roadmap is just the start of a journeytowards demonstrating and delivering continuous environmental improvement.”

Phil Hambling, Food Policy Manager, British Meat Processors’Association (BMPA)

"Over-hyped or not, climate change is an issue that is affecting every industry andone that cannot be ignored. This Roadmap is an important starting point,benchmarking where we are, what we might need to achieve and how we might do that in a cost-effective way."

Norman Bagley, Chairman, Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS)

"GHG emissions from livestock production and how these can be reduced is one of the biggest challenges facing producers. This Roadmap is a starting point inassessing the current level of emissions and in sharing knowledge on ways toimprove production in response to this. It demonstrates how the industry is workingtogether to tackle the issues."

Peter Morris, Chief Executive, National Sheep Association (NSA)

"Retailers recognise the importance of whole supply chain solutions and areworking closely with their beef and lamb producers to reduce their environmentalimpact. This report is an important step in recognising the improvements that can bemade through adapting farming methods."

Andrew Opie, Food Policy Director, British Retail Consortium (BRC)

“The National Beef Association fully supports the Roadmap which sets out ourpriorities within the industry and focuses attention on what needs to be done.It is a huge step forwards in helping us work towards meeting the targets set bythe Government in tackling GHG emissions.”

Kim-Marie Haywood, Director, National Beef Association

Change in the air: the English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap - Phase 1



Climate change and the contribution that livestock production makes to it is one of the greatest challenges facing theagriculture sector today.

To ignore these challenges would beirresponsible, and yet to leap in with short-

term policies and ill-conceived strategieswould be equally remiss.

The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan requiresEnglish farmers to make and maintain areduction in greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions to a level at least 11% lower than currently predicted by 2020. To do this, Englishfarming needs a joined up approach, striving to achieve efficiency improvements across allinterdependent sectors.

This document is a starting point for us, a stake in the ground from which we can move

forward to address head-on how to reduce GHG emissions from livestock production,specifically beef and sheepmeat production.

It has been produced with input from key industry bodies and its aim is to share knowledgeand research on changes producers can make to bring tangible reductions in emissionsfrom their production systems. It is also a significant step in a wider process and will feedinto other initiatives, including the GHG Action Plan, headed by the NFU, CLA and AIC,applicable to the whole of the agriculture sector.

This roadmap will naturally evolve and change, and we plan to update it annually.Phase One, which you are reading now, gives a snapshot of where we are today,

highlighting the challenges in reducing GHGs, and benchmarking the current position.Phase Two will be published in 2010 and will include the role that processors play, aswell as covering other enviromental issues like energy useage and biodiversity.

Tackling climate change is the responsibility of all industries. It will not be an easy journeyfor the livestock sector to navigate but it is one that is vital for English producers to address.I believe it will bring significant benefits, not just to our environment, but also to oureconomic performance and the future health of the industry.

John CrossChairman, EBLEX

3

Chairman’s introduction



4

Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 5

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 16

3. Objective and Scope.......................................................................................... 17

4. English Beef and Sheep Production ................................................................ 19

5. Recent Progress ................................................................................................ 23

6. The Emissions Challenge ................................................................................ 26

7. Current Emissions Position .............................................................................. 27

8. Emissions Improvement Targets ...................................................................... 31

9. Emissions Improvement Strategy .................................................................. 33

10. Other Environmental Impacts .......................................................................... 39

11. Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 41

12. Appendices........................................................................................................ 47



5

The Emissions Challenge

To meet the carbon budgets made legallybinding in the 2008 Climate Change Act, the

Government has published the UK LowCarbon Transition Plan. This sets out acomprehensive strategy to deliver nationalGHG emission reductions of 18% onestimated 2008 levels of 610 million tonnescarbon dioxide equivalent - Mt CO2 eq -per year by 2020 (a reduction of over a thirdon 1990 levels).

As part of this plan, English farmers arerequired to continue reducing their annualGHG emissions. The immediate priority isfor emissions from farming to be at least 11% lower than the 27 Mt CO2 equivalent

currently predicted for 2020 - a saving of some three million tonnes per year.

In planning to achieve the required savings,

CO2 equivalent emissions per kilogram of meat are taken as the key parameter inmeasuring real gains in the efficiency of livestock production, rather than merelyreductions in stock numbers that wouldsimply transfer production, and therefore,emissions elsewhere in the world.

Falling UK beef and sheep numbers drivenby economic and structural factors in thenext 10 years means that any reductions in

GHG emissions per kg will inevitably delivergreater absolute savings for theenvironment.

Introduction

The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap has been produced by a steeringgroup of industry organisations led by EBLEX. The overall objective is to develop astrategy to guide beef and sheep producers towards actions that reduce thenegative and promote the positive environmental impacts of their businesses.

Phase One of the Roadmap concentrates on one of the most important challengesfacing the world today - mitigating the effects of climate change by reducinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use.

It aims to establish realistic current performance benchmarks, based on the best available Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) modelling, and a practical strategy, to help meet the2020 targets set for agriculture in the UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan against thebackground of other important environmental considerations.

Phase Two of the Roadmap - to be published in 2010 - will focus on the other significant environmental impacts of English beef and sheep production that must be taken intoaccount alongside GHG emission reductions in improving the overall environmentalbalance of the industries. These include landscape management, carbonsequestration, nutrient management, water usage and quality, and environmentalstewardship and biodiversity.

1. Executive Summary



English Beef and Sheep Production

The English beef and sheep productionindustries are large, complex and highlyinter-dependent.

They represent the major proportion of the2.9 million cattle and 16.7 million sheepslaughtered annually in the UK, supplyingover 1.1 million tonnes of meat to the humanfood chain, with a farm gate value of nearly£3 billion.

Concentrated on 4.6 million hectares of land, the majority of which is only suited tograzing livestock, English beef and sheepproduction levels have been decliningsteadily over the past 10 years.

The productive health and well-being of both the beef and sheep production sectorsfundamentally depends on maintaining theright balance between their keycomponents and the other farm enterprises

with which they are connected.

Beef suckler, dairy cow and ewe numbersare forecast to continue declining in thecoming decade due to the decoupling of support payments, competition with moreprofitable enterprises, problems in securinglabour, and fewer family successions.

This will result in a continued reduction inboth beef and sheep slaughterings and

domestic production levels.

Recent Progress

Steady improvements in beef and sheepproduction efficiency have taken place overthe past decade, with 5% fewer primeanimals required to produce each tonne of meat in 2008 than in 1998.

This, and the progressive reduction in bothbreeding and slaughter stock numbersover the past 10 years, has undoubtedlycontributed to substantial reductions in GHGemissions recorded.

Livestock production in England is stillviewed by some as having limitedprofitability. Any changes, therefore, whichincrease productivity and help to make anenterprise more profitable are to bewelcomed. Reducing GHG emissions goeshand in hand with improving efficiencies,giving a win-win situation for producers.

Underpinning the recent efficiency

improvements made in English beef andsheep production has been a series of industry-wide development and knowledgetransfer initiatives. Most notable amongthese are the Estimated Breeding Value(EBV) schemes, the Beef and Sheep BetterReturns Programmes (BRP), the Action forProfit (A4P) initiative, and the NationalBusiness Costings schemes.

Together with a number of other industry

services, these initiatives provide a range of vehicles ideally placed to support environmental goals as part of a continuedfocus on increasing productive efficiency.

6



7

Current Emissions Position

Detailed modelling of current beef and lamb production systems using a Life Cycle Analysis

approach has established national GHG emission and energy consumption benchmarks.These, in turn, have been used to calculate overall 2008 baselines for industry emissionsand energy use against which to plan future reductions.

In 2008, 51% of prime carcase beef were derived from the dairy herd, 30% from hill andupland suckler herds and 19% from lowland suckler enterprises. The modelling suggestsEnglish beef production is currently generating a GWP100 of around 13.9 kg of CO2

equivalent and is consuming just over 31 MJ of primary energy per kilogram of meat produced (Table 1).

Table 1: Current baseline environmental impact of English beef productionand distribution of breeding cows in different production systems

Environmental impact % cows in each system contributing to prime

carcase beef

GWP100

kg CO2 eq/kgPrimary Energy*

MJ/kgLowland Suckler

HerdsHill and UplandSuckler Herds

DairyHerds

13.89 31.28 19% 30% 51%

* The CO2 emissions implications of this are included within the GWP100 figure

This can be broken down into the benchmarks for practical improvement target-settingacross the main production systems (Table 2).

Table 2: Current baseline environmental impacts for the maincomponents of English beef production

Component System

Environmental Impact

GWP100

kg CO2 eq/kgPrimary Energy *

MJ/kg

Lowland suckler beef

Hill and upland suckler beef

Dairy beef

17.12

16.98

10.97

35.18

33.38

28.67




9

The fundamental differences between more extensive and intensive production systemsare particularly clear in this context. The poorer quality nutrition and longer production timesof hill sheep mean very much higher GHG emissions per kilogram of lamb produced.

These calculations further highlight that Global Warming Potential tends to increase withextensification because more animals are required to produce each tonne of meat, andlower quality forages tend to generate higher methane emissions.

When assessing the environmental impact of different systems, it is vital to appreciate that hill beef and sheep, in particular, are converting and concentrating nutrients not suitable forhuman needs into valuable foodstuffs from difficult-to-exploit land resources.

Equally, their role in delivering environmental goods and services like biodiversity andlandscape character, as well as enhancing the value of upland pastures as carbon sinks,

needs to be taken into account.

Emissions Improvement Targets

To play its part in ensuring that English farming meets its UK Carbon Reduction Plan target,beef and sheep production individually need to reduce their annual GHG emissions by at least 11% by 2020.

On the basis of calculated current emissions levels - which include the CO 2 generated byprimary energy use - this means reductions of around 1 kg CO2 equivalent per kilogram of beef and sheepmeat respectively (Table 5).

Table 5: Annual Beef and Sheep GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

2008 Baseline 2020 Target (-11%)

Beef 13.89 12.37

Sheep 14.64 13.03

Given the inter-connectedness of the various beef and sheep systems, these reductionshave to be achieved across all the component systems rather than by any substantivechange in focus. To do otherwise would risk upsetting the balance of the different livestock production systems which have developed over time as the best way of making the most of the natural resources available and other important environmental imperatives.

Under these circumstances, separate 11% reduction targets need to be established for eachof the main system components (Tables 6 and 7).



Table 6: Annual Beef System GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

10


Lowland suckler beef 17.12 15.24

Hill and upland suckler beef 16.98 15.11

Dairy beef 10.97 9.76

Note: The total emissions savings of these components are reconciled to the overallindustry target in Table 5 on the basis of the proportions of total beef productionthey represent.

Table 7: Annual Sheep System GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)


Hill flocks 18.44 16.41

Upland flocks 13.82 12.30

Lowland flocks 12.62 11.23

Note: The total emissions savings of these components are reconciled to the overallindustry target in Table 5 on the basis of the proportions of total lamb production theyrepresent.

Modelling shows the required 11% reduction in annual GHG emissions in beef productionacross the industry could be achieved through any number of combinations of feedingand fertility efficiency improvement (Figure 1).



Figure 1: Beef - combinations of herd efficiency improvements required to achieve a 11% saving in GWP100 by 2020

11

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Combinations that achieve 6% and 11%saving in GWP100 for beef

I n c r e a s e i n D L W G

Increase in calves per cow

6% saving

11% saving

The “middle way” strategy to achieve 11% savings involves an increase in feeding efficiency(represented by daily liveweight gain) of 0.32 kg/day together with an increase of around0.05 calves/cow/year by 2020. However, greater gains in fertility efficiency would decreasethe level of feeding efficiency improvements necessary, and vice versa.

In the same way, the modelling shows the reduction in annual emissions by 2020 requiredto meet the 11% target in sheep production can be achieved by similar combinations of fertility and feeding efficiency improvements (Figure 2).

“Challenging though suchimprovements may be, the fact that they are all within the boundsof technical possibility indicatesthat the GHG emission reductiontargets are achievable within therequired timeframe.”



Figure 2: Sheep- combinations of flock efficiency improvements to achieve the required 11% saving in GWP100 by 2020

12

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Combinations of increase in growth rate and fecundity toachieve 6% and 11% saving in GWP100

I n c r e a s e

i n g r o w t h r a t e

Increase in lambs per ewe

6% saving 11% saving

In this case, the model reveals that to achieve the 11% target, a median improvement of 20% in daily liveweight gain coupled with 0.075 more lambs per ewe by 2020 is required.

Challenging though such improvements may be, the fact that they are all within the boundsof technical possibility indicates that the GHG emission reduction targets are achievablewithin the required timeframe.

Emissions Improvement Strategy

I Emissions reduction in English beef and sheep production needs to be based firmly on

improving productive efficiency.Assessment of realistic 10-year improvement possibilities for the key efficiency-increasingopportunities in both beef and sheep production through the Life Cycle Analysis modelshows that improving the feeding efficiency of slaughter stock offers markedly greateremissions reduction benefits than improving either the fertility or longevity of breeding stock.Nevertheless, improvements in all these areas can make important contributions to theoverall reduction.

I The three main areas of breeding, feeding and management all offer ample

opportunities for improving feeding efficiency to the extent required.



13

I There is sufficient variation in performance traits of interest within the major breeds to

mean that worthwhile improvement should be possible in key characteristics, likegrowth rate over the 10-year timeframe.

I Improvements are also possible through better forage utilisation, more productive

pastures and more accurate rationing to reduce waste and optimise performance.Improving housing conditions and access to feed and water, as well as reducingclinical and sub-clinical levels of disease, offer further opportunities for greaterefficiency.

I In the absence of reliable simple tools for measuring agricultural GHG emissions,

existing industry data should be used as key proxies for performance monitoring,enhanced where feasible by specially instituted annual beef and sheep performanceefficiency surveys.

Other Environmental Impacts

Emissions reduction needs to be undertaken with a full understanding of the other impacts- both positive and negative - of beef and sheep production on the environment.

Phase Two of this Roadmap will examine the environmental impact of beef and sheepproduction on the most significant of these areas in more detail. It will also attempt toestablish the key inter-relationships between these factors so that the effects of particularproduction changes can be assessed on a broad environmental front.

11. Action Plan

To encourage sufficient progress in reducing GHG emissions across the English beef andsheep industries, a firm plan of action will be implemented from 2010 as part of EBLEX’sestablished industry-wide programme to:

I Monitor performance at various levels

I Research improvement opportunities in a whole host of areas; and

I Transfer the knowledge gained in both as widely as possible.



Lamb GWP Continue to run model withrevised data and improvedmodel as further information

becomes available

Improved estimate of current performance against targetslaid out in the transition plan

13.03GWP100 kg CO2

eq /kg meat

14.64 GWP100

kg CO2 eq /kgmeat

Beef fertility Undertaking an annualassessment of calvesproduced per cow per yearfrom BCMS and/or Defracensus data, broken downat least by dairy or beef herdorigin.

An annual benchmark forbeef fertility that can betracked forward (and back)to provide the industry andproducers with informationon progress and targetsagainst which to assessindividual performance.

Calving interval392.4 days

(95 calves per100 cows)


(88.27 calvesper 100 cows)

14

Component

Beef GWP

Action

Continue to run model withrevised data and improvedmodel as further informationbecomes available

Improved estimate of current performance against targetslaid out in the transition plan

Output 2020target 2008

12.37GWP100 kg CO2

eq /kg meat

13.89 GWP100

kg CO2 eq /kgmeat

Beef efficiency Undertaking an annualassessment of the weight of carcase produced per day of age across GB beef production, bringingtogether BCMS age at slaughter data and carcaseweights from EBLEX carcaseclassification reports.

An annual benchmark forthe efficiency of beef output that can be tracked forward(and back) to provide theindustry and producers withinformation on progress andtargets against which toassess individualperformance.

0.5 kg/dcarcase wt

0.471kg/d carcase wt

(326 kg692.51 days)

Lamb

efficiency

Undertaking an annual

assessment of the weight of lamb carcase produced perewe per year from Defracensus data and AHDB’scarcase classificationreports.

An annual benchmark for

lamb production efficiencythat can be tracked forward(and back) to provide theindustry and producers withinformation on progress andtargets against which toassess individualperformance.

18.00 kg lamb

carcase perewe

17.31 kg lamb

carcase perewe(270335 tonnes1,5616 K ewes)

Performance Monitoring



Annually update

125.7%(plus 7.5 lambsper 100 ewes)

118.2%Ewe fertility Undertake an annualassessment of ewe litter sizefrom Defra census data.

An annual benchmark forlamb fertility that can betracked forward (and back)to provide the industry andproducers with informationon progress and targetsagainst which to assessindividual performance.

Beef and sheepbreedingprogress

Undertake an annualevaluation of Signet Beefbreeder, ABRI breedsand Sheepbreeder geneticprogress in key sire andmaternal EstimatedBreeding Values by breed.

An annual benchmark of theprogress being made bybeef and sheep breeders totrack progress and highlight the potential forperformance improvement currently available by usingthe best in breed.

5 year averageto 2020

Suffolk 0.12pts/year

Texel 10.0 Ipts/yr

Limousin 1.1BV/yr

5 year averageto 2008

Suffolk 0.082pts/year

Texel 6.81 Ipts/yr

Limousin 0.91BV/yr

Productiveefficiency report

Publish an annual report of the productive efficiency of English beef and sheep,including data from theabove monitoring tools andother information onbreeding herd/flock sizesfrom the Defra census andcarcase quality monitoring.

A single, high profile report setting out the state of thebeef and sheep productionindustries, distributed andpublicised widely, andutilised to establish theextent and specifics of efficiency improvements aswell as highlighting areas of particular future

improvement potential.

Beef report 2009

Sheep report 2008

15

Beef and sheepunit performance

Extend the current costingsscheme to include moreherds and flocks for eachproduction system to securemore accurate data on key

aspects of physicalperformance.

Better benchmarks of moredetailed performancemeasures across the rangeof production systems totrack industry progress and

provide targets for individualbusiness performanceassessment

310 beef 260 sheep

284 beef 205 sheep

National beef and sheepproductivity

Establish an annual surveyof the current productivity of beef and sheep systems, if feasible, involving a stratifiedsample representative of industries and utilising thesort of readily-available datapioneered in the EBLEXSnapshot tools.

An annual benchmark toanchor the detailedperformance measuressecured from the Beef andSheep Costings scheme,allowing better assessmentsto be made of the productiveefficiency of the nationalherd/flock and itscomponents.

Annually updateIn progress



16

2. Introduction

The English Beef and Sheep ProductionRoadmap has been produced by EBLEXworking closely with Defra, NFU, NationalBeef Association, National SheepAssociation, British Meat ProcessorsAssociation, Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and British RetailConsortium.

It is the second collaborative Roadmapdeveloped by the food and farming industryas part of a determined Defra-led initiativeto improve the environmental performanceof the product groupings identified as

having the greatest impact on theenvironment at both domestic andinternational level.

Within the food and drink sector - estimatedto account for 20% to 30% of all Europeanenvironmental impacts by the principalsource of EU evidence (EIPRO) - milk andmeat are considered to be in highenvironmental impact categories.

Following the publication of the Milk Roadmap by the Dairy Supply Chain Forumin 2008, this document represents the first step in better understanding theenvironmental impacts of two of country’smost important meat industries, togetherwith a structured plan to reduce thosenegative impacts.

It is designed to be developed andexpanded through periodic review toprovide an agreed strategy for the entireUK beef and sheepmeat supply chain tobecome progressively more sustainable

in line with nationally and internationallyagreed targets.



17

The overall objective of the English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap is todevelop a strategy to guide beef andsheep producers towards activities andactions that reduce the negative andpromote the positive environmentalimpacts of their businesses.

Easily replicable in other parts of the UnitedKingdom, it is focused primarily on England- albeit based on more readily available UK industry data in most cases - and onproduction factors and activities up to, but not beyond, the farm gate.

While it is possible to confine initialproduction assessments to a single region,the extent to which meat transport,processing and retailing are integratedacross the entire country makes it vital that environmental impacts further down thesupply chain are assessed UK-wide ratherthan in separate regions.

Rather than seeking to address all the manyand varied environmental impacts of beef and sheep production in a superficial way,this first part of the Roadmap concentrateson a significant and important challengefacing the world today - mitigating theeffects of climate change by reducinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andenergy use.

It aims to establish realistic current performance benchmarks based on thebest available Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)modelling and a practical strategy to meet

the 2020 GHG emission reduction targetsset for agriculture in the UK’s Low CarbonTransition Plan.

As such, it represents the beef and sheepproduction sector’s response to theTransition Plan’s challenge to agree avoluntary action plan for reducingemissions by Spring 2010.

3. Objective and Scope



18

Recognising the fundamental inter-connectedness of this emissions-reducingpriority with other important environmental,

social, and animal welfare as well aseconomic goals for the industries, thisdocument charts the way ahead against the background of the following keyconsiderations:

I Red meat is a valuable accessible

source of energy, protein, vitamins andminerals in a balanced human diet,making a reliable and affordable supply

that is vital for consumer health andwell-being

I Fully 40% of agricultural land in England

(60% in the UK as a whole) is onlysuitable for grass rather than arable,vegetable or fruit crop production

I Grassland is a carbon sink

I Beef and sheep producers constitute the

bulk of UK farmers and their viability is

essential to the sustainability of manyrural communities

I Grazing livestock are essential to

preserving the landscape, biodiversityand recreational value of the Englishlandscape and in particular the hillsand uplands

I Managed grasslands are increasingly

valued for the range of other desirable

environmental goods and services theyprovide - including carbon storage,water quality, flood prevention andtranquillity

I Measures to enhance the biodiversity

and habitat value of open and enclosedgrazing land are highly desirable eventhough they may conflict with theimperative of reducing GHG emissions

I As well as being vital for the

management of some of the country’smost valuable landscapes, grazed beef and sheep production systems arevalued by the general public for theirperceived animal health and welfarebenefits.

The other significant environmental impactsof English beef and sheep production -including landscape management, carbonsequestration, nutrient management, waterusage and quality, and environmentalstewardship and biodiversity - will beaddressed in Phase Two of this document,to be published in 2010.

Its value in promoting whole-industry

sustainability will be further enhanced byco-operative development with appropriateorganisations in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland, and by UK-widecontributions from the supply chain beyondthe farm gate.



19

The English beef and sheep productionindustries are large, complex and highlyinter-dependent, both with one another and with other farming enterprises.

A total of 2.9 million cattle and 16.7 millionsheep were slaughtered in the UK in 2008,supplying 862,000 tonnes of beef and326,000 tonnes of sheepmeat. At farm gatelevel, this was worth nearly £3 billion.

Of the 75,000 agricultural holdings recordedin England in the latest Defra census, nearly46,000 (over 60%) are defined as grazinglivestock, or hill and upland businesses.

Most have a heavy, and in many cases neartotal, reliance on beef or sheep. Altogether,they employ just under 100,000 people - orover a quarter of the English farmingworkforce.

Excluding areas of cropping which support livestock enterprises, around 50% of thefarmed land in England - approximately 4.6million hectares - is devoted to grazinglivestock production.

Of this, over 80% comprises permanent pasture or rough grazing which is onlysuitable for grass production, with theremaining 20% down to temporary grass -mainly in arable rotations.

The less productive the grassland, the morelikely sheep are to dominate by virtue of their superior ability to utilise the poorest quality forages. In contrast, the highest quality permanent pasture and temporarygrass tends to be used for dairying. Beef generally occupies the middle ground.

As a result, beef and sheep production tend

to be concentrated in hill and upland areasof the country - predominantly in the northand west - with arable cropping dominatingin the more fertile lowlands of southern andeastern England with dairy sandwichedin between.

Beef and sheep production in lowland areasprimarily utilises poorer quality landunsuitable for arable cropping.

4. English Beef and Sheep Production



20

Current Beef Production Structure

Prime cattle provide 80% of the UK’s current

annual beef production reared as youngbulls, steers or heifers slaughtered between11 and 36 months of age.

These are produced by the 1.9 million dairyand 1.6 million suckler cows which make upthe national cattle herd, the remaining 20%of production coming from breeding beef and dairy cows at the end of theirproductive lives.

The 12% decline in breeding cow numbersseen over the past 10 years has led to aprogressive reduction in annual UK primecattle slaughterings, from nearly 2.3 millionto just over 2 million head.

At the same time, average carcase weightshave increased steadily over the years to326 kg, resulting in an annual production of around 700,000 tonnes of prime beef in2008. This compares with 712,000 in 1998.

Approximately 50% of this beef is derivedfrom dairy-bred calves - as a by-product of milk production - with 30% produced frombeef suckler herds in the hills and uplandsand around 20% from lowland beef sucklerenterprises.

Dairy-bred beef calves, separated from theirmothers at an early age, tend to be finishedin lowland units at between 11 and 32

months of age, either intensively on cerealor by-product diets, or semi-intensively onrations based on grazed grass andconserved forage.

Beef-bred stock, on the other hand, arereared with their mothers until around six tonine months of age before being finished ona variety of forage and cereal-basedsystems at between 14 and 36 monthsof age.

While a growing number of large unitsspecialise in finishing both dairy and beef-bred stock, most of the country’s beef

continues to be produced in mixed farmingbusinesses. Here it is integrated with otheranimal or crop production enterprises totake maximum advantage of availablegrassland, buildings, straw and otherarable by-products and labour resources.The use of manures for enhancing soilhealth is a good example of the advantagesof mixed farming.

Beef production forms a significant component of many farming businesses,making specific environmental impacts - instraw and manure recycling as much as inGHG emissions - difficult to disentanglewithout sophisticated life cycle analysis.

In addition to the beef industry’s continuedreliance on dairy farming as a major sourceof prime stock, there has traditionally been asignificant flow of young cross-bred females

from dairy units to the beef breeding herdas replacement cows.

This flow has diminished in recent yearswith the more rapid decline in dairy cownumbers relative to suckler cows, theincreasing trend to pure-bred dairybreeding and the growing influence of moreextreme dairy genetics that are less well-suited to the needs of beef herds.

The fragmented structure of the English beef industry and its inter-dependence withdairying in particular is an important consideration in all efforts to improve itsenvironmental as well as economicperformance.



22

Just as with beef, therefore, the productivehealth and well-being of the sheep industrydepends upon maintaining the right

balance of its key components, placing anadditional constraint on improvement efforts.

Future Beef and SheepProduction Trends

All the forecasts suggest both the UK sucklerand dairy herds will continue to decline inthe coming decade due to a combination of

factors. Foremost amongst these is thedisincentive that decoupled support payments provide to keeping more stock than is strictly necessary - especially whenmany are net loss-makers. Other factorsinclude competition with more profitableenterprises in the lowlands, major problemsin securing labour, and fewer familysuccessions.

This will result in a rate of fall in prime cattlenumbers which is unlikely to be offset bysufficient increases in average carcaseweight to prevent a continued reduction inoverall domestic beef production. Especiallyso as 2008 saw the peak of adult cows andbulls re-entering the food chain in the wakeof BSE, after which cow beef volumes canonly decline.

Little investment by most suckler calf

producers and many dairy herds in recent years as a result of poor prices, uncertaintyover future price prospects, and thelikelihood of higher feed and fuel costs,is compounding the problem, as is theheavy burden of regulation beingimposed on herds.

It is highly likely that most suckler producerswill rely on the Single Farm Payment (SFP) tostay in business in the coming few years,

begging major questions over theirmedium-term future beyond 2013 whenthese payments are expected toprogressively diminish.

In the same way, forecasting suggests thenational sheep flock will reduce further inthe coming few years. The rate of decline is,however, expected to slow as the impetus of the major industry restructuring prompted

by CAP reform in 2005 falls away.Sheepmeat prices are forecast to increaseto offset some of the increased costs of production faced by producers, althoughthis is unlikely to be sufficient to halt thebreeding flock decline. And if consumerresistance prevents prices rising to theextent needed to relieve pressure onalready negative margins, the flock maywell decline at a faster rate than currently

envisaged.

In any event, the decoupling of support payments will almost certainly result inproducers concentrating their efforts onproductivity improvement by retaining onlytheir most productive ewes.

So the next decade will inevitably becharacterised both by declining prime lamband ewe and ram slaughterings, and

sheepmeat volumes.Indeed, in marked contrast to the recent past, the key challenge facing many hill andupland areas in the future is likely to bemaintaining sufficient grazing animals tomeet their landscape management objectives, rather than to prevent over-stocking.



23

Also playing a valuable part in thisreduction have been the primarilyeconomic-driven improvements in beef and sheep production efficiency achievedover this time through better breedingand feed management.

With GHG emissions far more closely relatedto the number of animals than theirindividual productive ability, theenvironmental benefit of this improvement isclear in the fact that only 3.07 prime cattlewere required to produce each tonne of beef in 2008 compared to 3.23 in 1998 -

an efficiency gain of more than 5%.Almost exactly the same scale of improvement is apparent in sheepproduction - 53.48 lambs being required toproduce each tonne of sheepmeat in 2008against 56.18 in 1998.

Relatively poor profitability, major industryrestructuring and the switch in EU subsidiesfrom headage payments to area-basedsupport linked to environmental cross-compliance have together been responsiblefor much of the GHG emission-reducingdecline in UK beef and sheep populations.

At the same time, the age at which primecattle are slaughtered has decreasednoticeably in recent years as the distortingeffects of the original EU Beef SpecialPremium Scheme have faded. In takingadvantage of the greater feed conversionefficiency of younger stock by finishing themat an earlier age, beef producers havemade further progress in reducing theiremissions, as well as other production costs.

Industry Improvement Programmes

Underpinning the efficiency improvements

made in English beef and sheep productionin recent years have been a series of industry-wide development and knowledgetransfer initiatives.

The Estimated Breeding Value (EBV)schemes, organised by Signet BreedingServices and Breedplan UK with leadingbeef and sheep breeds, use detailedperformance recording in breeders’ flocksand complex computer calculations to

predict the genetic merit that individual bullsor rams possess for a range of valuablecharacteristics. This provides increasingly

5. Recent Progress



24

good genetic information to progressivelyreplace ‘by eye’ sire purchasingjudgements, ensuring the most rapid and

consistent progress through breeding.

The focus on identifying stock with superiorgenetics for key sire traits, like growth rateand carcase quality, and maternal traits, likereproductive efficiency, provides a vitalunderpinning for improving the efficiency of commercial beef and sheep production.

When allied with the increasinglywidespread use of AI in beef breeding and

new technologies like ComputerTomography (CT) scanning in sheepbreeding programmes, the expandingmembership of the recording schemes that generate EBVs and the higher prices beingpaid for stock with higher EBVs is testament to their increasing value.

In the past year, a record of more than17,000 cows from 16 breeds were officiallyBeefbreeder performance recorded in over750 herds. Sheepbreeder recording alsoreached record levels of over 47,000 ewesfrom 31 breeds in 550-plus flocks.

Equally, the major bull and ram sales arereporting very much higher prices for top-ranked EBV stock. While sires with aboveaverage genetic merit in their breedsaveraged just over £4,500/head at thespring 2009 bull sales in Carlisle, for

instance, those in the top 1% fetched anaverage of well over £6,500.

Under the Defra-supported Better ReturnsProgramme (BRP) banner, EBLEX hasdeveloped separate initiatives to spreadbest practice in beef and sheep productionas widely as possible.

Involving extensive training events andeasy-to-use information focused on themost important elements of breeding,

feeding and management, these majorknowledge transfer initiatives have engagedand helped producers across the country inthoroughly practical improvement efforts.

In the past two years, almost 400 separateBRP events have been run, including 170 inabattoirs addressing carcase issues andnearly 230 on a variety of productionthemes - many hosted by practising

farmers.The programme has also published avariety of advisory materials to helpproducers, including 20 detailed themedmanuals on important topics like improvingbreeding, fertility, grassland management,carcase quality and 50 briefing documentson topical issues.

Well over 20,000 individual producers haveso far signed-up to the BRP programme,suggesting a market penetration not farshort of 50%.

In parallel to this, the EBLEX Action for Profit (A4P) Initiative has also built up a specialinternet-based library resource to help beef and sheep producers add value to theirbusinesses by increasing returns andcutting costs.

Each of the 62 easy-to-read, single pageA4P topic sheets produced to dateconcentrates on an area of production withparticular improvement potential,summarises the best available technicaland marketing understanding on thesubject and provides key targets withpractical checklist guidance on achievingthem. These resources are electronicallylinked to sources of more detailedinformation and advice for those who wish

to access them to provide information at arange of different levels.



25

National Business Costings Schemes arealso run for beef and sheep enterprises onan annual basis to benchmark the physical

and financial performance of a cross-section of beef and sheep enterprises.

Run by EBLEX - and the Meat and Livestock Commission before it - for more than 30years, the costings are drawn from theactual cash accounts of a sample of self-selecting, co-operating farmers with anatural bias towards those keen on goodrecord-keeping.

Over the years they have been developed toinclude more detailed analyses of both fixedand non-cash costs (including unpaid familylabour, the rental value of owned land andinterest on working capital) to give a moreaccurate picture of enterprise performance.

The schemes currently involve separatecostings across more than 250 beef andnearly 200 sheep enterprises split into ninebreeding, rearing and finishing categories.In each category - analysed into top third aswell as average performers - the resultshave been presented in an annual BusinessPointers report, communicated widelyacross the beef and sheep industries.

As well as providing an excellent record of the changing physical and financialperformance of different components of the

industries at farm level, the BusinessCostings Schemes give producers acrossthe country reliable benchmarks against which to compare and monitor their ownperformance. EBLEX has also developed the“Snapshot” and “What if?” web-based toolsto help livestock producers improve theirenterprise cost control skills.

Together with a number of other EBLEX

services - including detailed tracking andpublication of auction market and abattoirreturns, research into a range of economicand environmental improvement opportunities, and health and welfarereporting - these key improvement initiativesprovide a range of vehicles ideally placed tosupport environmental goals as part of acontinued focus on increasing productiveefficiency; all the more so given theirestablished reputation and value across

the beef and sheep farming industries.

“Underpinning the efficiencyimprovements made in Englishbeef and sheep production inrecent years have been a series of industry-wide development andknowledge transfer initiatives.”



26

6. The Emissions Challenge

To meet the carbon budgets made legallybinding in the 2008 Climate Change Act, the Government has published the UKLow Carbon Transition Plan. This sets out a comprehensive strategy to deliver national GHG emission reductions of 18%on estimated 2008 levels of 610 Mt CO2

equivalent per year by 2020 (a reductionof over a third on 1990 levels).

As part of this plan, English farmers arerequired to continue making reductions intheir annual GHG emissions. The immediatepriority is for emissions from farming to beat least 11% lower than the 27 Mt CO2

equivalent currently predicted for 2020 -a saving of some three million tonnesper year.

Although this target is not broken down byindividual agricultural sector, the planhighlights more efficient use of fertilisers andbetter management of livestock andmanures as keys to its achievement.

At the same time, it emphasises the:

I Physical limits placed on emissionsreduction by the complex natural cyclesinvolved in ruminant livestock production

I Importance of not simply transferringemissions overseas by replacingdomestic production with imports

I Need to meet other important environmental goals such asbiodiversity and water qualitymaintenance and improvement.

There is broad scientific agreement that emissions should be measured in CO2

equivalents. This is particularly important inagriculture where the main greenhouse

gases are nitrous oxide (N2O) largelyderived from nitrogen fertilisers and dietarynitrogen deposited through faeces andurine, and methane (CH4) from rumenfermentation, rather than CO2 from theburning of fossil fuels for primary energy.

The CO2 equivalent calculation takes intoaccount that methane and nitrous oxidehave 100 year Global Warming Potentials(GWP100) that are 21 and 300 times that of carbon dioxide respectively.

To reflect the fact that cutting GHG emissionsglobally necessitates reductions throughimproving the efficiency of production ratherthan simply transferring emissionselsewhere in the world, all GWP

measurements need to be made andimprovement strategies developed on astrict per unit of output basis.

As well as ensuring real global savingsrather than merely moving the problemelsewhere, of course, this approach is vital if the world is to meet its target of doublingfood production by 2050 to meet theanticipated increase in demand.

In planning to achieve the required savingson current GHG emission levels in beef andsheep production, CO2 equivalent emissions per kilogram of meat are takenas the key parameter.

Since the established trend of falling beef and sheep production driven by economicand structural factors is unlikely to halt - let alone be reversed - in the next 10 years, anyreductions in GHG emissions per unit of output will deliver greater absoluteproduction footprint savings for theenvironment.



7. Current Emissions Position

Current beef and lamb productionsystems in the UK have been modelled bya specialist team at Cranfield Universityusing a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)approach.

This has quantified the GHG emissions and

energy consumptions of a comprehensiverange of beef and lamb systems basedupon all the inputs required to meet theirproduction needs, calculated through aseries of sub-models.

The primary energy requirements of variousmixtures of grazed grass, conserved forageand concentrate feeds have, for instance,been apportioned to each system on thebasis of daily live weight gains, length of life,time spent in housing, etc. Manure arisingshave been calculated from intake andliveweight gains. And emissions of gases -including ammonia as well as CH4 andN2O - have been established using grazing,housing, enteric fermentation and manuremanagement models (Appendix 1).

Further production systems employed toproduce important inputs like barley grain

and rapeseed meal have also been definedand the environmental burdens associatedwith them determined and taken intoaccount.

These individual system components havethen been used to establish nationalbenchmarks for primary energyconsumption and overall GHG emissions(including the CO2 from the primary energy)for the main types of beef and sheepproduction regime.

Finally, the beef and sheep industries haveboth been modelled using Defra census,BCMS registration and slaughter and otheravailable production data, together withEBLEX carcase classification results. This hasenabled an overall 2008 baseline forindustry emissions and energy use perkilogram of meat to be calculated against which to plan future reductions.

Beef ProductionEnvironmental Impact

Assuming 51% of prime carcase beef isderived from the dairy herd, 30% from hilland upland suckler herds and 19% fromlowland suckler enterprises, the modellingsuggests English beef production is currentlygenerating a GWP100 of around 13.9 kg of

CO2 equivalent and is consuming just over31 MJ of primary energy per kilogram of meat produced (Table 1).

27



28

Table 1: Current baseline environmental impact of English beef productionand distribution of breeding cows in different production systems

Environmental Impact % cows in each system contributing to prime

carcase beef

GWP100


MJ/kgLowland Suckler

HerdsHill and UplandSuckler Herds

DairyHerds

13.89 31.28 19% 30% 51%


This can be broken down into the benchmarks for practical improvement target-settingacross the main production systems (Table 2 and Appendix 2).

Table 2: Current baseline environmental impacts for the maincomponents of English beef production


Appendix 2 breaks these components down further into different production systems.

These calculations reveal that both the Global Warming Potential and primary energy useof beef systems tend to increase with extensification. This is because lower rates of growthmean more feed energy is used for maintenance. Carcase weights are similar but animalsare older at slaughter.

Also significant in this context is the fact that the lower quality forages generally utilised inmore extensive hill and upland production systems are less digestible and, because of changes in the rumen environment, more methane is produced. In simple terms, thefermentation produces more acetate than propionate which leads to more “spare”

hydrogen which is converted to methane.

Component System


GWP100

kg CO2 eq/kg

Primary Energy *

MJ/kg

Lowland suckler beef

Hill and upland suckler beef

Dairy beef

17.12

16.98

10.97

35.18

33.38

28.67



29

As well as tending to be more intensive, the considerable apparent advantage of dairybeef in these calculations primarily relates to the fact that calves are a by-product of milk production. Unlike suckler systems, in which all the requirements of the breeding herd as

well as those of the slaughter animals are set against the meat produced, the dairycalculations attribute the vast majority of herd GHG emissions to milk production.

Sheep Production Environmental Impact

Based upon the stratification of the sheep industry into hill, upland and lowland systems inwhich 39%, 30% and 31% of the ewes respectively contribute to prime carcase lamb andtaking into account the flow of breeding stock between the systems, the modelling indicatesthat English sheep production is currently generating around 14.6 kg of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions and consuming 22 MJ of energy per kilogram of meat produced (Table 3).

Table 3: Current baseline environmental impact of English sheepproduction and distribution of breeding ewes in different production systems


This puts it at a similar overall level of environmental efficiency as beef production, withslightly higher levels of GHG emissions reflecting the industry’s greater reliance on moreextensive hill production, and lower levels of primary energy input and its lesserdependence on purchased feeds and fertiliser.

As in beef production, this overall baseline can be broken down into specific systembenchmarks for planned emissions reduction (Table 4).

Environmental Impact % cows in each system contributing to prime

carcase beef

GWP100


MJ/kgHill

FlocksUpland Flocks Lowland Flocks

14.64 22.02 39% 30% 31%



30

Component System


GWP100


MJ/kg

Hill flocks

Upland flocks

Lowland flocks

18.44

13.82

12.62

15.15

23.69

23.68


The fundamental differences between more extensive and intensive production systemsare particularly clear in this context.

The poorer quality nutrition and longer production times of hill sheep mean very muchhigher GHG emissions per kilogram of lamb produced, although primary energyconsumption is considerably less by virtue of very much lower purchased feed andfertiliser inputs.

Most efficient in emission terms, although with higher levels of primary energy input, arelowland flocks with their very much higher quality forage availability.

When assessing the environmental impact of different sheep systems, it is vital toappreciate that, although generating relatively high GHG emissions, hill and upland flocksare converting and concentrating nutrients not suitable for human consumption intovaluable foodstuffs from difficult-to-exploit land resources.

In this respect, they are more valuable than those either consuming grain that could beused for human food, or grass grown on land that could otherwise be cropped for human

food production.

They are also, of course, essential resources in enabling the more intensive upland andlowland flocks, that generate lower emissions per kilogram of meat, to function.

Equally, as with hill and upland cattle, they play a hugely valuable role in deliveringenvironmental goods and services like biodiversity and landscape as well as enhancingthe value of upland pastures as carbon sinks.

Table 4: Current baseline environmental impacts for the maincomponents of English lamb production



8. Emissions Improvement Targets

To play its part in ensuring that English farming meets its UK Carbon Reduction Plan target, beef and sheep production individually need to reduce their annual GHGemissions by at least 11% by 2020.

On the basis of calculated current emissions levels - which include the CO 2 generated byprimary energy use - this means reductions of around 1kg CO2 equivalent per kilogram of beef and sheepmeat respectively (Table 5).

Table 5: Annual Beef and Sheep GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

31


Beef 13.89 12.37

Sheep 14.64 13.03

Given the inter-connectedness of the various beef and sheep systems and the additionalpositive environmental contributions of those more upland systems with the greatest GlobalWarming Potential, these reductions have to be achieved across all the component systemsrather than by any substantive change in balance between systems.

To do otherwise would risk upsetting the balance of the livestock production systems whichhave developed over time as the best way of making the most of the natural resourcesavailable and other important environmental imperatives.

Under these circumstances, separate 11% reduction targets need to be established for eachof the main system components (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6: Annual Beef System GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)


Lowland suckler beef 17.12 15.24

Hill and upland suckler beef 16.98 15.11

Dairy beef 10.97 9.76



Note: The total emissions savings of these components are reconciled to the overallindustry target in Table 5 on the basis of the proportions of total beef productionthey represent.

Table 7: Annual Sheep System GHG Emission Targets(GWP100 kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

Note: The total emissions savings of these components are reconciled to the overallindustry target in Table 5 on the basis of the proportions of total lamb productionthey represent.


Hill flocks 18.44 16.41

Upland flocks 13.82 12.30

Lowland flocks 12.62 11.23

32



Table 8: GHG Emission Savings from Beef ProductionEfficiency Improvements

34

AreaChange in physical

performance

Fertility Efficiency + 0.02 calves/cow/year

GWP100 Saving(kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

0.26

Longevity + 1 year productive life 0.07

Feeding Efficiency- genetic improvement

+ 5% lifetime growth rate 0.30

Feeding Efficiency

- feed quality improvement

+ 5% forage energy density

(ME) 0.31

The relative industry-wide value of fertility and feeding efficiency improvements is alsohighlighted through the sheep modelling (Table 9).

Table 9: GHG Emission Savings from Sheep ProductionEfficiency Improvements

Efficiency Improvement RequirementsFurther modelling shows the required 11% reduction in annual GHG emissions in beef production across the industry could be achieved through any number of combinations of feeding and fertility efficiency improvement (Figure 1).

AreaChange in physical

performance

Fertility Efficiency + 0.1 lamb per ewe

GWP100 Saving

(kg CO2 eq/kg meat)

0.74

Feeding Efficiency- genetic improvement

+ 2% daily liveweight gain(DLWG)

0.18

Feeding Efficiency- feed quality improvement

+ 5% forage energy density(ME)

0.61



35

The median strategy to achieve 11% savings involves an increase in feeding efficiency(represented by daily liveweight gain) of 0.32 kg/day together with an increase of around0.05 calves/cow/year by 2020. However, greater gains in fertility efficiency would decreasethe level of feeding efficiency improvements necessary and vice versa.

In the same way, the modelling shows the reduction in annual emissions by 2020 requiredto meet the 11% target in sheep production can be achieved by similar combinations of fertility and feeding efficiency improvements (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Beef - combinations of herd efficiency improvements required to achieve a 11% saving in GWP100 by 2020

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Combinations that achieve 6% and 11%saving in GWP100 for beef

I n c r e a s e i n D L W G

Increase in calves per cow

6% saving

11% saving



37

The widespread use of AI - especially in thedairy industry - allows the maximumnumber of herds to use the very best

genetic merit stock, enabling particularlyrapid progress to be made through beef breeding. This helps to make up for thelonger generation intervals of cattlecompared to sheep.

In both cases, the rate of breeding progressis heavily dependent on the uptake of performance recording by breeders, andthe utilisation of EBVs as a tool for sire and

ram selection by commercial producers.Recent Better Returns Programme trainingand support has done much to increasethe momentum of EBV adoption and useacross both industries. This needs to bemaintained and built-on to ensure it makes a sufficient contribution to feedingefficiency improvement.

Feeding improvements, in contrast, candeliver far more rapid feeding efficiencyprogress. Both forage quantity and qualityare important, with research showing majoropportunities for producers to both utilisemore of the forage they grow and makemore from higher quality forages.

This is illustrated most dramatically in thecalculated savings possible through the useof clover as opposed to merely grassspecies in beef and sheep production

(Appendix 3).Maize silage provides opportunities forlowland beef production systems toimprove daily liveweight gains, as dopasture improvements. High sugarryegrasses are known to improve output and the stock-carrying capacity of land.Greater inclusion of clover in swardsdelivers valuable gains in animalperformance, as well as nitrogen efficiency.

More effective grassland management candramatically improve daily gains.

In addition, a variety of alternative foragecrops provides useful opportunities to buffergrass growth at key times of the year. There

is substantial potential to improve bothforage conservation and rationing to reducewaste and optimise performance. And theincreased feeding of co-products of humanfood production can deliver valuableefficiency gains as well as fulfilling auseful recycling role.

The latest EBLEX Business Costings (October2009) show top third beef producers have

feeding periods between 15% and 34%shorter than bottom third producers, whilst at the same time finishing younger cattle at heavier weights. Since feed conversionefficiency naturally reduces with age for alltypes of cattle, this underlines theopportunity immediately available for bothfinancial and environmental improvement.

There is also much that can be done toreduce the deposition of excess

subcutaneous fat in both beef and lambsas they near slaughter weight. As well asbeing a waste to the processor, this fat requires four times as much energy toproduce than the lean meat themarket wants.

While the opportunities for boostingefficiency through feeding are many andvaried, it is important to appreciate that there may be other environmental

constraints on the extent to which they canbe achieved.

For instance, landscape conservation andbiodiversity enhancement objectives willalmost certainly limit the improvementspossible in some hill and upland pasturesand their management.

In management terms too, improvinghousing conditions, space and access to

feed and water all provide opportunities forincreasing daily liveweight gains.



10. Other Environmental Impacts

39

While emissions reduction is clearly themost urgent priority, it needs to beundertaken with a full understanding of the other impacts - both positive andnegative - of beef and sheep productionon the environment.

This is vital if reductions in GHG emissionsare not to compromise the achievement of other important environmental objectives,such as landscape management andbiodiversity promotion.

It is also important in ensuring future beef and sheep production strategies take fulladvantage of mutually beneficialimprovements, such as more efficient artificial fertiliser usage and water quality

enhancement.

Landscape Management

Even though the relative indigestibility of their herbage creates GHG emissionchallenges, maintaining sufficient grazinglivestock on the English hills and uplands isessential if their open character is to bemaintained and the encroachment of bracken and woody scrub is to be avoided.

Beef and sheep production is important tooin maintaining the traditional small hedge-bounded field structure that characterisesmuch of northern and western England andhas been so sadly depleted in many otherlowland areas; a structure long recognisedfor its value in supporting wildlife both as afood resource and for safe movement.

Carbon Sequestration

Regular grazing of appropriately managedgrassland and the steady return of nutrientsto the soil in faeces and urine accelerates itsnatural cycle of growth and decay. This has

been shown to improve the capture of CO2

through photosynthesis and itsincorporation into soil organic matter.

In this way grazed beef and sheep play avaluable role in increasing carbon captureand storage, especially in permanent

pastures where lack of cultivation minimisescarbon release through oxidation.

Fertiliser Use

Over the past 10 years, the annual BritishSurvey of Fertiliser Practice shows overallnitrogen, phosphate and potashapplications to grassland in England andWales more than halving to 52 kg/ha, 7kg/ha and 12 kg/ha respectively by 2008.

At the same time, beef and sheepproduction stands out as the lowest user of artificial fertilisers on grass. In 2008, forinstance, grassland on grazing livestock farms received an average of just 34 kg/haof N, 8 kg/ha of P2O5 and 10 kg/ha of K2O.This compares with 117 kg/ha, 16 kg/ha and25 kg/ha recorded on dairy farms.

The progressive introduction of higher sugar

ryegrasses, clovers and other more efficient forage species into grassland swards offersthe opportunity to reduce this use of energyand potential pollutant even further. As doesthe better utilisation of farmyard manure.

Nutrient Management and Planning

The fact that 60% of livestock farmers out-winter their beef and sheep reduces the

nutrient management and planningchallenge they pose, especially when it comes to storing and applying manuresproduced from housed stock.



11. Action Plan

To encourage sufficient progress in reducing GHG emissions across the English beef andsheep industries, a firm plan of action will be implemented from 2010 as part of EBLEX’sestablished industry-wide programme to:

I Monitor performance at various levels

I Research improvement opportunities in a whole host of areas

I Transfer the knowledge gained in both as widely as possible.

41

Component

Beef efficiency

Action

Undertake an annualassessment of the weight of carcase produced per day of age across GB beef

production bringing togetherBCMS age at slaughter dataand carcase weights fromEBLEX carcase classificationreports.

An annual benchmark forthe efficiency of beef output that can be tracked forward(and back) to provide the

industry and producers withinformation on progress andtargets against which toassess individualperformance.

Output 2020target 2008

0.5 kg/dcarcase wt

0.471 kg / dcarcase wt

(326 kg

692.51 days)

Beef fertility Undertake an annualassessment of calvesproduced per cow per yearfrom BCMS and/or Defracensus data, broken down

at least by dairy or beef herdorigin.

An annual benchmark forbeef fertility that can betracked forward (and back)to provide the industry andproducers with information

on progress and targetsagainst which to assessindividual performance.


(95 calves per100 cows)


(88.27 calvesper 100 cows)

Lamb efficiency Undertake an annualassessment of the weight of lamb carcase produced perewe per year from Defracensus data and AHDBScarcase classificationreports.

An annual benchmark forlamb production efficiencythat can be tracked forward(and back) to provide theindustry and producers withinformation on progress andtargets against which toassess individual

performance.

18.00 kg lambcarcase per

ewe

17.31 kg lambcarcase per

ewe(270335 tonnes1,5616 K ewes)

Performance Monitoring



43

Productiveefficiency report

Publish an annual report of theproductive efficiency of Englishbeef and sheep, including datafrom the above monitoring toolsand other information on breedingherd/flock sizes from the Defracensus and carcase qualitymonitoring.

A single, high profile report settingout the state of the beef and sheepproduction industries, distributedand publicised widely, and utilisedto establish the extent andspecifics of efficiencyimprovements as well ashighlighting areas of particularfuture improvement potential.

Annuallyupdate

Beef report 2009

Sheepreport 2008

Grass and cloverbreeding

Identify ways to improve the nutritivevalue of grasslands through thedevelopment and use of highernitrogen efficiency and higher sugarand more water-efficient ryegrassesand clover varieties in improved swardcombinations.

Recommendations for grasslandproductivity improvements throughbetter variety selection and swardmanagement.

Dec 2010

NIR manureanalysis

Develop a rapid and reliable on-farm technique for measuring thenutrient composition of farmyardmanures.

A tool giving producers moreconfidence in the manurial value of their farm waste, encouraging morecomplete and better plannedutilisation.

April 2013

Dairy calf selection Assess the performance differences of apparently different types of pure dairybred bull calves reared and finishedintensively for beef production.

Practical information on pure-breddairy bull calf performance rearedunder commercial conditions toencourage better young calf management and uptake for beef rearing, so reducing the wastage of unnecessary surplus dairy bull calf disposal.

March2010

Grasslandmonitoring

Demonstrate ways in which beef andsheep producers can improve theirgrassland utilisation through bettergrazing management based onregular monitoring of sward growth.

Recommendations for practical grazingmanagement improvement usingtechniques developed in the dairyindustry.

Dec 2010

Performance Improvement Research and Development Reportingdate



Maize grain beef finishing

Determine how best to use crimpedgrain maize in beef finishing in place of rolled barley to maximise performancethrough minimising digestiveproblems.

Recommendations for grain maizetreatment and rationing as analternative to barley finishing.

Aug 2010

Chicory utilisation Examine the efficiency improvement benefits of including chicory in the dietsof grazing cattle and lambs.

Recommendations on the best ways of making the most of the apparent benefits of chicory in increasingproductive efficiency.

Sep 2012

High quality oats Utilise the most promised varieties of high quality oats as a major cerealcomponent in ruminant feeding tomaintain performance whiledecreasing methane production.

Information on ways in which highoil oats can be used to improvethe productive efficiency of commercial diets.

April 2014

Marker-assistedsheep breeding

Evaluate the effectiveness of variousgenetic markers for muscling in sheepbreeds in commercial cross-breeding.

Information for breeders andproducers on the value of employingexisting genetic markers for musclingin UK systems.

Dec 2010

Faecal egg countsin sheep breeding

Investigate practical ways for utilisingFaecal Egg Count (FEC) EBVs in selectingbreeding stock for improved resistanceto intestinal worms.

Practical recommendationsencouraging breeders and producersto incorporate FEC EBVs in theirbreeding improvement programmes.

Dec 2019

Young bullpromotion

Develop a national scheme with keybeef breed societies to increase theselection and use of young bulls withsuperior EBVs for key performance

traits in breeding and performancerecording.

Promote more rapid genetic progressthrough reduced generation intervalsand improved selection decisions whileimproving the accuracy of EBVs.

On going

Ram linkageprogramme

Increase the genetic linkages betweenflocks by increasing the use of ramswith superior EBVs for key performancetraits in breeding and performancerecording,

Improve the confidence of the industryin EBVs across breeds and increasingthe uptake of high merit rams to boost genetic progress.

On going

Performance Improvement Research and Development Reporting

date

44



45

Emissions modeldevelopment

Improve the GHG emissions model toincrease its precision and value inassessing emissions and planningimprovement strategies.

Provide the beef and sheep industrieswith increasingly precise estimates of the extent of both current emissions totrack improvements and the value of specific productivity gains in reducingthem.

On going

Performance Improvement Research and Development Reporting

date

Beef BRP Extend the established BRPprogramme to a wider cross-section of herds and increasing participation in itsevents and activities focused on thebreeding, nutrition, fertility and health,systems and costings improvementsavailable to all beef producers.

Communicate the results of performance monitoring, R and D andother work in thoroughly practical waysthat help beef breeding, rearing andfinishing businesses make incrementalimprovements in their enterprises forprogressively greater economic andenvironmental value.

On going

Sheep BRP Extend the established BRPprogramme to a wider cross-section of flocks and increasing participation in itsevents and activities focused on thebreeding, nutrition, fertility and health,systems and costings improvementsavailable to all sheep producers.

Communicate the results of performance monitoring, R and D andother work in thoroughly practical waysthat help sheep businesses across thestratified industry make incrementalimprovements in their enterprises forprogressively greater economic andenvironmental value.

On going

Action for profit resource

Develop the focused Beef and SheepAction for Profit Resource to underlinethe environmental as well as economicvalue of specific production systemimprovements.

Underline the extent to which important environmental improvement objectivescan be achieved as part of economicimprovement rather than requiringseparate attention.

On going

Health trackingand advice

Regular tracking of important livestock health issues through NADIS, withtimely seasonal advice for producerson avoiding or overcoming problems.

Help producers take positive action tominimise the effects of a range of diseases on productive efficiency.

On going

Knowledge Transfer

Reporting

date



Appendix 1a: Breakdown of the Global Warming Potential of UK beef production into the main greenhouse gases

Appendix 1b: Breakdown of Global Warming Potential of UK sheepproduction into the main greenhouse gases

12. Appendices

47

CO2

CH4

N20

CO2

CH4

N20



49


Use of clover in beef production systems


Component System


GWP100


MJ/kg

Baseline

Fertiliser with clover

No fertiliser with clover

14.64

13.36

13.14

22.02

14.99

14.05

Component System


GWP100

kg CO2 eq/kg

Primary Energy *

MJ/kg

Fertiliser with clover, grazing

Fertiliser with clover grazing and silage

No fertiliser with clover grazing

No fertiliser with clover grazing and silage

13.89

13.83

13.83

11.72

30.58

30.33

30.33

21.33

Appendix 3: The implications of clover use in sheepproduction on GWP100

The baseline data in the Life Cycle Analysis model assumes that lowland and uplandgrassland is fertilised. If it is assumed that grass clover swards account for all grassland,then the model determines that very little fertiliser is required by the systems. There isconsequently a considerable saving in energy since a large portion of the presumednutrient supply was in the form of artificial fertiliser. However there is still a large emission of nitrous oxide during the turnover of nitrogen in the soil created by the clover, which resultsin the overall GHG emission saving being rather less dramatic than the saving in energy.

Use of clover in sheep production systems



50

Glossary

ABRI - Agricultural Business Research Institute

BCMS - British Cattle Movement Service

CO2 eq - Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

DLWG- Daily Live Weight gain

EBV - Estimated Breeding Value

ELS - Entry Level Stewardship

GHGs - Greenhouse Gasses

GWP - Global Warming Potential

GWP100 - Global Warming Potential, over 100 years

LCA - Life Cycle Analysis

MJ - Mega Joules (standard energy unit)

MT - Mega Tonnes

NADIS - National Animal Disease Information Service

NIR - Near Infra-Red



51

Notes

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................



The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap - Phase 1

EBLEX is the organisation for beef and sheep producers inEngland. It aims to encourage better returns, stimulateprofitable demand for quality beef and lamb, and championthe development of a sustainable industry.

e - g r o u p . c

o . u

k

Eblex Brochure Final Printed 231109

Documents

Transcript of Eblex Brochure Final Printed 231109