Groupe Aliments et alimentation de l’alliance AllEnvi, Paris, le 25 Octobre 2016

Effect of ruminant production systems on

C-footprint of milk and meat

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Greenhouse gas emisson from livestock

• 14,5% des émissions of total GHG emission

• Ruminant = 60% of the total emission from livestock

• Enteric methane = 40% of the total emission from livestock

Millions t eq-CO2 kg eq-CO2 / kg proteins

Livestock emissions Emissions par kg of protein

Other poultry

Small ruminants

Broilers

Buffalo

Pilg

Milk

Beef

Eggs

Broilers

Pilg

Milk

Small ruminants

Beef

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

The growth in global demand for animal products will increase tensions

+ 180 M t of meat (from 286 to 466 Mt)

• If livestock farming does not reduce the intensity of its emissions, its

contribution to global GHG emissions could reach 40% in 2050

• Expected rise in global appetite for animal products calls for action to

mitigate climate change induced by livestock

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

C-footprint of milk and meat

for various production systems

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Calf to beef systems

12 à 14 kg eq CO2/kg meat

Calf to weaning systems

14 à 18 kg eq CO2/kg meat

North American Feedlots

12 à 14 kg eq CO2/kg meat

Dairy cow meat

< 8 kg eq CO2/kg meat

Intensive beef

born in a dairy herd

5 kg eq CO2/kg meat

GHG emissions are highly variable according to the production system

Animal productivity is crucial (41 kg eq CO2/kg meat in Latvia)

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

29 sites, since 2002 – various conditions

• Median = 0.71 ± 0.13 t C/ha/year

• Considerable variations related to climate,

management and vegetation type

(Soussana & Klumpp 2005)

C sequestration under grassland

C footprint (kg eq CO2/meat)

Calf to weaning Calf to beef systems

• C Sequestration represents compensation

in a range of 20 to 60% of gross C footprint

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

GHG emissions in various dairy systems

Plain > 30% < 10%

Maize silage

Humid mountain

< 10% Maize silage (Dollé et al., 2010)

Kg

eq

-CO

2 / k

g la

it 1,15 1,25 1,30

1,10 0,90 0,85

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Mitigations options

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Milk

1990 2010

Bovine meat

1990 2010

Total

1990 2010

The French cattle sector has reduced its emissions

Dollé et al (2015)

- 15%

Reduction of Emissions

• Reduced number of cattle (8.9 to 7.8 million cows)

• Reduction of energy and fertilisers consumption

• Extensification (beef production)

Million t eq CO2

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Intensification of milk production per cow does not

reduce C footprint of milk at farm gate

Hacala et al, (2006) 10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

PL par lactation (kg)

CH

4/l la

it

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

8 9 10

French farms

Bibliography

Hacala et al, (2006)

3 4 5 6 7 3 5 7 9

Milk yield (t/cow/year) Milk yield (t/cow/year)

Kg eq CO2/kg milk l CH4 / l milk

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Buildings

Crops and

Grazing

Fertilizers

Energy

Purchased inputs

Enteric

Methane

• Herd management

• Feed additives

• Animal breeding

• Manure management

• Biogas

• Energie consumption

• Fertilisation, legumes

• Grazing

• C storage (grassland,

agroforestery)

• A mitigation potential of 20% in 10 years

• Some win-win practices but others practices have a cost of implementation

GHG mitigation options: farm gate

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

N2O

Fertilisation

Legumes

6-12%

Manures

CH4

Age at first

calving

3-7%

Feeding

2-3%

Rumen

Building

Bio gas

7-11 %

C

Permanent and

rotational

Grassland

4-5%

Hedges and

cash crops

4-8%

CO2 (énergie)

Fuel +

electricity

2-3%

Feeding

1-7%

GHG mitigation options: farm gate

Emissions mitigation C Storage

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

INRA-Ademe (2014)

An

nu

al

co

st

(€/t

sp

are

d C

O2)

annual cumulative attenuation (spared Mt CO2e)

GHG mitigation options: farm gate cost per ton of spared CO2 (in 2030)

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

GHG mitigation options: national level

• Dairy intensification:

• low effect on GHG - beef compensation

• Dual purpose breeds

• Reduction of GHG (affected by the

type of finition)

• Beef intensification: balance between

finishing length and carcass weight

• Reduction of meat production

• Major effect on GHG emission

Mt eq-CO2

Need to consider the link between meat and milk production

Puillet et al (2014)

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Mitigation options at world level: FAO (2013)

Pigs - Manure management - Energy efficience - Fed quality - Health and herd managment

18-29%

20-28%

38%

27-41%

14-17%

10-24%

Dairy - Feed quality - Health and herd management

Beef production - Grazing management - Health and herd management

Small ruminants - Forage quality - Health and herd management - Grazing management

Dairy (OCDE) - Lipids supplementation - Bio gas - Energy efficiency

Mixed Dairy - Forage quality - Health and herd management

Widespread diffusion of the practices implemented in the most efficient

herds of the region

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Some others issues

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Kg edible plant protein/kg of animal protein

• Too simplistic views are often delivered

• Use livestock potential to mobilize proteins from alternative feed stocks

• Animal efficiency is crucial

Intensity of GHG emission (ln (kg eq CO2/kg protein))

Contribution to protein security: utilisation of non edible plant protein

(Wilkinson, 2011)

Pig industrial

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Linear approach of the C-footprint of the diets

• Summing up LCA’s single products in a

Linear Model

• Do not account for variation among production

systems

• Do not account for integration in a Global

Agro-Ecosystem

• Do not envisage optimal land use for human

protein production

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

• Maximising production of human edible proteins per ha of land not depleting productivity and biodiversity

• Zero waste

• Mobilize alternative feed, unlock proteins

• Improving synergies between crop an livestock sectors considering local contexts

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 20 40 60 80Protein of animal origin (% total diet protein)

Relative Area of land required to feed the population

(Van Kernebeck et al., 2014)

Livestock contributes to a more efficient agriculture

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

Conclusion

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

supply: sustainable agrofood demand: food security, healthy diets

• Livestock (ruminants) can produce edible proteins from non edible biomass

• Mobilize alternative feeds and locked proteins

• Use of (marginal) land not able to produce plant products for human

• Methane emission is the consequence of this service

?

Paris le 25 Octobre 2016

• C-footprint is 1.2 kg eq-CO2/ kg milk and range from 12 to 17 kg eq-CO2/kg live

meat in beef systems. C-footprint of live meat produced from dairy systems is

far lower

• Carbon sequestration under grassland and hedges compensates for GHG

emission (ranging from 6 to 40% for milk and from 20 to 50% for meat). These

compensations are not taken into account

• Numerous mitigations options have been identified in the livestock systems to

reduce C-footprint of milk and meat at farm gate. C-footprint was reduced by

15% since 1090 and a further mitigation of 20% is expected in the next 10 years.

• Some of the options concern management practices are win-win strategies,

others will increased production cost or will require new investments

• Evaluation of the C-footprint of diets require new research as linear approach is

far to simplistic