testing the water - Microsoft

testing the waterThe English Beef and Sheep Production Environmental Roadmap - Phase 2

2

Acknowledgements

EBLEX has worked with anumber of organisations whohave been instrumental in theproduction of this roadmap.We would like to thank allthose who have played apart, including, but notexclusive to:

� Defra

� National Farmers Union (NFU)

� British Meat Processors Association

(BMPA)

� Association of Independent Meat

Suppliers (AIMS)

� National Sheep Association (NSA)

� National Beef Association (NBA)

� British Retail Consortium (BRC)

� ADAS

� Cranfield University

� Marks & Spencer

� McDonalds

� Kite Consulting

� MLC SL

A lot has happenedsince the publication ofthe first phase of ourroadmap - but thatdoesn’t meannecessarily that a lot haschanged. The beef andsheep industry continuesto make great strides onhow to lessen its

environmental impact, but whether there isany acknowledgement of that in otherquarters is debatable.

We believe we have moved forward sincePhase One of our environmental roadmap,Change in the Air, which looked exclusively atmitigating the effects of climate change byreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andenergy use. I take great pride in saying thatRoadmap Two breaks new ground again,looking at water use, economic performanceversus environmental performance, our value inthe landscape, and, significantly, the processingsector. This means there is little directcomparison to the information in Phase One,but doesn’t mean it is forgotten or somehownow superseded. It is more a case that changetakes time and to re-evaluate exactly where weare now compared to a year ago has littlevalue. Five years down the line, it may be adifferent story. Change is happening, butchange takes time.

The overall objective of this ongoing work is toimprove the sustainability of the English beefand sheep industry. This is achieved throughidentifying areas where beef and sheepproducers and processors can take actions thathave a positive effect on the environmentalimpact of their enterprises, reducing theindustry’s contribution to climate change.

The good news is that we can now clearlydemonstrate that such changes go hand-in-hand with economic performance. The morechallenging news, as Roadmap Twodemonstrates, is that there are still significantopportunities for more to be done by theindustry to cut our carbon footprint.

Roadmap Two takes the analysis of the“environmental hoofprint” into unchartedterritory. For the first time, it quantifies where weare in terms of performance on water use andcontribution to the landscape and biodiversity,and on energy use in the processing sector. Inthat sense alone it would be an invaluableresource. However, it goes further, to suggestways in which changes can be made toimprove those figures.

The roadmaps, taken together as they shouldbe, give the most comprehensive view to dateof the impact English beef and sheepproduction has on our environment. As such, Iview them as two parts of a unique referenceguide of where we are and how we can moveforward to help the sustainability, both of oursurroundings and our own industry. The nextinstalment, in 2011, will add to the growing suiteof resources.

I hope you will work with me to champion themessage that the English livestock productionsector is ploughing its own furrow onenvironmental performance and working tomeet the tough emissions targets set by theGovernment.

John CrossChairman, EBLEX

3

Chairman’s introduction

Contents

4

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

2. The Roadmap Project .......................................................................................... 16

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

4. Assessing Commercial Farm GHG Performance.............................................. 19

5. Making the most of water.................................................................................... 25

6. Assessing other ecosystem impacts .................................................................. 33

7. The Meat Processing Sector ................................................................................ 39

8. Action Plan Update .............................................................................................. 45

“Roadmap 2 goes further. Ituses more detailed modelling

using data from specificenterprises to quantify links

between environmental andeconomic performance.”

The story so far

The UK’s Low Carbon Transition plan callsfor greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions of18% on estimated 2008 levels of 610million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent(Mt CO2 eq) per year - a third less than1990 levels.

As part of this, English farmers are requiredto continue reducing their annual GHGemissions, with the immediate priority offarming emissions to be at least 11% lowerthan current predictions by 2020.

The unit of measurement commonly usedas a benchmark for performance is CO2

equivalent (CO2 eq) emissions per kilogram(kg) of meat.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) modelling used inChange in the Air - Phase One of the beefand sheep roadmap - suggested Englishbeef production is currently generating13.9kg of CO2 equivalent and consumingjust over 31MJ of primary energy perkilogram of meat produced.

On the sheep side, the same LCA modellingrevealed 14.6kg of CO2 equivalent GHGemissions, with energy consumption of22MJ (Mega Joules) per kilogram of meatproduced.

Change in the Air, therefore, looked at howimprovements of 11% could be made inthese areas by 2020, and concluded thatbreeding, feeding and management alloffered significant opportunities forprogress.

Roadmap 2 uses more detailed modellingwith data from specific enterprises toquantify links between environmental andeconomic performance. It establishes areliable water usage footprint for theindustry, quantifies beef and sheep meat’scontribution to the landscape andbiodiversity of England, and takes asnapshot of the energy performance of theprocessing sector.

To best communicate the findings of thisresearch, the bulk of this document is splitinto these areas of work accordingly. Eachgives full methodology and examination ofthe results, providing additional detail to theheadline findings in this executive summary.

English Beef and Sheep Production - a recap

There are around 2.9 million cattle and 16.7 million sheep slaughtered annually inthe UK, supplying more than 1.1 milliontonnes of meat to the human food chain,with a farm gate value of nearly £3 billion. Around 49% of the beef produced in the UK comes from the beef herd, with 51% from the dairy herd.

It is concentrated on 4.6 million hectares ofland, the majority of which is only suited tograzing livestock. Production levels havebeen declining for the past 10 years. Beefsuckler, dairy cow and ewe numbers areforecast to continue to decline over thecoming decade due to the decoupling ofsupport payments, competition with moreprofitable enterprises, labour problems andfewer family successions.

5

1. Executive Summary

The industry has made significant strides inimproving its environmental performance inrecent years, in no small part through thesereductions in stock numbers. But there arealso greater efficiencies, for instance 5%fewer prime animals were needed toproduce each tonne of meat in 2008 than in 1998.

There are a number of industry-ledinitiatives, like the GHG Action Plan, pullingtogether organisations to work together andshare good practice, while knowledgetransfer initiatives, like EBLEX’s Better ReturnsProgramme, are helping to disseminateinformation on new research and improvingenvironmental performance.

Commercial performance versusenvironmental performance

Building on the original industry-wide GHGemission benchmarks established byCranfield University’s Life Cycle Assessmentmodel for Roadmap Phase One, a detailedappraisal of the carbon footprints of aselected sample of commercial beef andsheep farms has been undertaken by the E-CO2 Project.

Conducting these appraisals on enterprisesalready costed by EBLEX has enabledrelationships between financial andenvironmental performance to beexamined, as well as conventionalcomparisons between the units on the basis of their carbon footprints alone.

Commercial beef production footprints

Across 30 beef units studied, the E-CO2

carbon calculator shows an average 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP100) of11.93kg CO2 eq per kg liveweight, or 23.9kgper kg of carcase weight.

There is a wide range around this average -from little more than 3kg CO2 eq per kgliveweight (6.4 kg/kg carcase weight) tonearly 27kg (53.8 kg/kg carcase weight).

These averages are noticeably higher thanthe industry-wide benchmarks establishedby the original Cranfield Universitymodelling in Phase 1. This does not lessenthe validity of the figures in the firstinstalment, but simply reflects the differencebetween broad theoretical studies and thenarrower, but very much more commercial,focus of the E-CO2 Project assessmentswe have been able to carry out.

Most importantly, when the most recentassessments are analysed by the main beefproduction systems, they underline preciselythe same trends in GHG emissions shown by the Cranfield estimates (Table 1.1).

6

7

Table 1.1: English beef production system footprints

Figure 1.1: Relationship between beef environmental and economic performance

Environmental Impact (GWP100)

kg CO2 eq/kgliveweightAverage

kg CO2 eq/kgliveweight Range

Lowland suckler beef

Upland suckler beef

Dairy beef

19.22

15.66

11.72

11.26 - 26.89

8.83 - 20.60

3.19 - 14.19

The most significant driver is the efficiency of feed use.

These results confirm that GHG emissionsare notably higher in more extensivesystems, based on lower quality foragesthat support lower growth rates, generatinggreater levels of methane.

Comparing environmental performanceand economic performance showsencouraging links, hitherto assumed butwhich can now be demonstrated. Every 5kgCO2 eq reduction in GHG emissions per kgof liveweight, is associated with a 50p perkilogram improvement in financial margin(Figure 1.1).

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

GM £/kg LW

CO

2 eq

/kg

LW

1.00 1.20 1.40

25

20

15

10

5

0

Commercial sheep production footprints

The E-CO2 sheep enterprise assessmentsshow a similar relationship to the originalPhase 1 Cranfield University industrymodelling. Overall, the average 100-yearGlobal Warming Potential (GWP100)calculated across 30 monitor units was11.95 CO2 eq per kg liveweight or 23.9kgper kg of carcase weight.

As with the Cranfield modelling, theaverage GHG emissions per unit of sheepoutput are very similar to those per unit ofbeef production, exceeding the originaltheoretical industry-wide estimate to asimilar degree.

Individual sheep system estimates againshow lowland flocks having a distinctenvironmental advantage over hillenterprises, mainly as a result better qualityforages and higher growth rates (Table 1.2).

8

Table 1.2: English sheep production system footprints


kg CO2 eq/kgliveweightAverage

kg CO2 eq/kgliveweight Range

Hill flocks

Upland flocks

Lowland flocks

13.61

11.05

11.08

8.55 - 19.22

9.40 - 13.56

9.57 - 12.87

Again, the range of emissions within eachmain production system demonstrates theconsiderable potential for improvement byaddressing productive efficiency.

This position is underlined by an even morepositive association between environmentaland financial performance than in the beefindustry - every 1kg CO2 eq reduction per kgliveweight in GHG emissions beingassociated with a 28p improvement inenterprise margin (Figure 1.2).

In the sheep sector “every 1kg CO2 eq reduction per kg liveweightin GHG emissions is associatedwith a 28p improvement inenterprise margin.”

Figure 1.2: Relationship between sheep environmental and economic performance

0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

GM £/kg LW

CO

2 eq

/kg

LW

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Water usage

Cranfield University has combined theimproved Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) model,with which it quantified greenhouse gasemissions in Phase 1 of the roadmap, withthe WaSim water simulation model, toestablish the first-ever water footprint forEnglish beef and sheep production.

The assessment takes into account all theinputs and outputs of water linked to theproduction of beef and sheep meat tocalculate water use per kilogram of meat.

It uses acknowledged categories of different“types” of water, thus:

Blue water - all abstractions from rivers,lakes and groundwater for irrigation, feedprocessing, animal drinking, cleaning andother stock-keeping requirements. This iswater taken out of the available watersupply from the tap.

Green water - rainfall used by crops(including grass) at the place where it falls. Itcovers the water which grows the grassand forage crops eaten by the cattle andsheep as they grow. This water is essentiallyunavailable for other uses.

Grey water - is a notional provision,representing the volume required to dilutepollutants to levels that maintain definedwater quality standards. It carries relativelylittle hydrological impact since it does notphysically consume the resource and denyit for other uses.

9

The main drivers are feed efficiency and litter size.

10

Beef

Assuming 51% of prime carcase beef isderived from the dairy herd, 30% from hilland upland suckler herds and 19% fromlowland suckler enterprises, the modellingestablishes the total baseline water footprintof English beef production at 17,657 litresper kilogram of meat produced.

This is considerably higher than both theglobal average footprint of 15,500 litres perkilogram and the UK average of 7,952 litres per kilogram calculated previously by others.

This is mainly due to the extent to whichtheir methodologies under-estimate thegreen water footprint derived from the moreaccurate water balance study basis of thepresent calculation.

However, if we look simply at blue water -ie, that water taken out of the tap that couldreasonably have been used for otherpurposes and the description mostcommonly used in consumer-facing reports- the figure is just 67 litres per kilogram(Table 1.3).

Table 1.3: Water footprint of English beef production (litres/kg meat)

Blue water

67

0.4%

Green water

14,900

84.4%

Grey water

2,690

15.2%

Total

17,657

Sheep

Based on the stratification of the sheepindustry - with hill, upland and lowlandewes responsible for 39%, 30% and 31% ofprime carcase lamb production - themodelling establishes a baseline total waterfootprint of 57,759 litres per kilogram ofmeat produced.

Reflecting the industry’s concentration onless productive land, this is considerablyhigher than the beef baseline.

The total footprint is again, however,accounted for almost entirely by green andgrey water requirements, with the key bluewater footprint at just 49 litres per kilogram -markedly lower than that of beef (Table 1.4).

Table 1.4: Water footprint of English sheep production (litres/kg meat)

Blue water

49

0.1%

Green water

55,800

96.6%

Grey water

1,910

3.3%

Total

57,759

11

The overwhelming dominance of greenwater in the total figures for both beef andsheep meat production means that,compared to livestock systems that rely onfeed produced by irrigation, the actualhydrological impact of English beef andsheep meat production is very small.

Under current UK conditions, therefore,there is clearly little or no sustainability gainto be secured from any reduction in greenwater requirements. Instead, efforts toimprove the overall water footprint of beefand sheep production are best focused onreducing blue and grey water requirements.

Assessing beef and sheep productionimpacts on the English ecosystem

While beef and sheep production has animportant influence on landscape,biodiversity and other significant ecosystemservices provided by the English hills anduplands in particular, quantifying theindustry’s contribution is especially difficult.

ADAS undertook a benchmarkingassessment of beef and sheep production’svalue to the landscape to inform thisroadmap.

It follows the United Nations MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, looking at:

� Supporting services, such as soil

formation, photosynthesis and otherprimary production systems and nutrientand water cycling

� Provisioning services, relating to the

products actually supplied, includingfood, fibre, fuel and fresh water

� Regulating services, encompassing the

benefits secured from the wayecosystems regulate the climate, airquality, flooding, erosion, diseases,pests and other natural hazards, as wellas the purifying of water and enablingpollination

� Cultural services, which cover the non-

material value obtained by societythrough spiritual enrichment, education,reflection, recreation and aestheticexperiences.

The maintenance of many of England’smost valuable ecosystems - grasslands, ingeneral, and hill and upland environments,in particular - fundamentally depends onbeef and sheep production. Were existinggrasslands not maintained by grazing, forinstance, some chalk downlands and otherupland environments would lose theirpresent value as habitats in supportingsome of the country’s rarest flora and fauna.

Without a thriving beef and sheep industry,man-made elements of recognisedlandscape and biodiversity value, likeinterconnecting hedges, maintenance ofditches and walls, viable rural communities,stewardship schemes that enhancecountryside and environmental value forsociety, could not be delivered.

There are no existing valuation studiesspecifically investigating the effect of beef orsheep farming on either the landscape orbiodiversity. In the absence of othermechanisms, the Environmental Accountsfor Agriculture, from Defra, provide the bestavailable basis for assessing thebiodiversity value attributed to English beefand sheep farming (Tables 1.5 and 1.6).

12

Area Basis Calculation Value

England The Accounts £64 million

YorkshireNationalParks

Gross ValueAdded

Total GVA by businesses depending on theenvironment - £334 million

Proportion of land attributable to beef and sheepfarming - 56%

£188 million

South WestEngland

Touristrevenue

Total revenue from tourist trips motivated byconserved landscape - £2,354 million

Proportion of land attributable to beef and sheep - 15%

£353 million

EnglandNationalParks

Touristrevenue

Total revenue from tourists visiting for the scenery - £2,200 million


£889 million

Total benefit from agriculture - £154 million

Proportion of land attributable to beef and sheepfarming - 41.5%

Table 1.5: Beef and sheep contribution to landscape value

Through this it is possible to attribute abenefit to landscape value of beef andsheep production in England. Lookingpurely at the benefit of beef and sheepproduction on the landscape, based onDefra figures, this would be £64 million.

However, when you take into account otherissues like tourist revenue from areas wherea proportion of the land is maintained bybeef and sheep production, the real figurecould be closer to £1.49 billion

“The overwhelming dominance ofgreen water in the total figures for bothbeef and sheep meat productionmeans that the actual hydrologicalimpact of English beef and sheepmeat production is very small.”

13

Table 1.6: Beef and sheep contribution to biodiversity value


England The Accounts- areafarmed

£292 million

England The Accounts- pesticideuse


Proportion of pesticides not attributable to beefand sheep farming - 82%

£574 million

England The Accounts- agri-environmentscheme total


Proportion of schemes attributable to beef andsheep farming - 29%

£204 million

England The Accounts- agri-environmentschemeactivity


Proportion of schemes relevant to beef andsheep farming - 31%

£218 million



It is therefore possible to extract that thebeef and sheep contribution to biodiversityvalue could be as high as £1.288 billion,based on Defra figures.

The challenge is to ensure that as much ofthis value as possible is sustained as theindustry adapts to cope with economic andenvironmental pressures.

In meeting the challenge of reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, for instance,there would be a compelling logic inmoving production away from hill farmingwere it not for the fact that this could easilylead to immeasurable harm to thesustainability of these environments in awhole host of other important ways.

More industry debate is needed around this emerging important issue.

The meat processing sector

The water and energy consumed, andeffluent produced, in beef and sheepprocessing has been quantified in a 2010study undertaken for the roadmap projectby MLCSL with the British Meat ProcessorsAssociation (BMPA) and 22 individualabattoirs, cutting and retail packing plantsacross England.

Derived from reported abattoir outputtonnages divided by the number of beastsprocessed, the average beef carcasecurrently processed weighs 336kg and theaverage sheep carcase 20kg.

The meat processing sector is not a heavywater user compared to other parts of theUK food and drink industry, consuming 7.2million cubic metres per year, less than aquarter the amount of water used bydairies, breweries, distilleries or in soft

14

drinks manufacture, according to the mostrecent Defra estimates. Of this, the UK beefand lamb industry utilises a total of 4 millioncubic metres of water per year in animalslaughtering, cutting and retail packing.

Using the throughput and carcase yielddata obtained, this represents an averageof 3.6 litres per kilogram of beef and 2.5litres per kilogram of sheep meat.

Abattoir effluent comprises a mixture ofwater, blood, faeces, urine and wash water.This can either be discharged directly to foulsewers or pre-treated on site to reducewater company trade effluent charges.

Given the extent to which water usage isdriven by cleaning in meat processing,effluent production levels tend to be closelylinked to water consumption. Indeed,discharge volumes are typically around85% of mains water usage.

Discharge data, throughput and carcaseyields indicate average water and effluentdischarges amounting to 3.1 litres perkilogram of beef and 2.1 litres per kilogramof sheep meat produced.

Around 65% of the total energy consumedby beef and sheep abattoirs and cuttingplants is in the form of electricity to poweroperating equipment. The remaining 35% isas thermal energy from the combustion ofgas (around 20%) and kerosene or oil (15%)in on-site boilers.

Based on energy usage records,throughputs and carcase yield, theroadmap study estimates abattoirs, cuttingand packing plants are together consumingan average of 0.63kWh (kiloWatt hours) ofenergy per kilogram of beef, and 0.54kWhper kilogram of sheep meat.

Defra greenhouse gas emission conversionfactors for 2010 suggest beef processingcontributes around 0.27 kg CO2 equivalentper kg of meat and sheep processing 0.23kg CO2 equivalent (Table 1.7).

* Defra 2010 conversions: kWh electricity x 0.544; kWh gas x 0.20; kWh oil x 0.25

Average Range

Beef 0.27 0.11 - 0.53

Sheep 0.23 0.15 - 0.38

Table 1.7: Beef and sheep processing greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2 eq/kg)*

15

The study shows that there is significantvariation in water consumption, effluentproduction and energy use betweendifferent plants, even allowing fordifferences in size and processes. These allallow for improvements which will inevitablyalso offer cost savings.

Examples of how these savings can bemade through reducing waterconsumption, effluent production, andenergy use, as well as improvedenvironmental management systems, areillustrated later in this document (page 43).

Executive summary: key figures at a glance

� 50p per kg improvement in beef producers’ financial margin per 5kg CO2 eq

reduction in GHG emissions per kg of liveweight

� 28p per kg improvement in sheep producers’ financial margin per 1kg CO2 eq

reduction in GHG emissions per kg of liveweight

� 67 litres of water (that could reasonably be used for other purposes) to produce

1kg of beef

� 49 litres of water (that could reasonably be used for other purposes) to produce

1kg of sheep meat

� £1.494 billion is the estimated total benefit to the landscape value of beef and

sheep production in England

� £1.288 billion is the estimated total beef and sheep contribution to biodiversity

value in England.

� 4 million cubic metres of water used each year in beef and sheep meat

slaughtering and processing (3.6 litres per kg of beef and 2.5 litres per kg ofsheep meat).

� 0.63kWh of energy used per kg of beef produced in abattoirs, cutting and retail

plants. The equivalent figure for sheep is 0.54kWh.

16

2. The Roadmap Project

The English Beef and Sheep ProductionRoadmap is an industry-wide project ledby EBLEX working closely with Defra, NFU,National Beef Association, National SheepAssociation, British Meat ProcessorsAssociation, Association of IndependentMeat Suppliers and British RetailConsortium. Valuable inputs have alsobeen received from Marks & Spencer and McDonalds.

The project’s fundamental purpose is toimprove the overall sustainability of theEnglish beef and sheep industry in pursuit ofthe critical global need to produce morefrom less. This will only be achieved througha clear strategy that helps all those involvedreduce the negative and promote thepositive environmental, as well as economicand societal, impacts of their businesses.

In line with the international SustainableAgriculture Initiative, sustainable agricultureis defined as the productive, competitiveand efficient production of safe agriculturalproducts while protecting and improving thenatural environment and social/economicconditions of local communities (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Key Sustainable Agriculture Initiative pillars

.

17

This Phase Two document builds on PhaseOne - Change in the Air - published inlate 2009 which focused on mitigatingthe effects of climate change by reducinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andenergy use.

It does so by evaluating the specificrelationships between physical and financialperformance and GHG emissions oncommercial beef and sheep units across the country.

Following on from the establishment ofcurrent GHG emission benchmarks from thebest available model and an overallstrategy to meet the 2020 targets set foragriculture in the UK’s Low Carbon TransitionPlan, it concentrates on the practicalopportunities for linked environmental andeconomic improvement.

Employing the same modelling approach asthe original GHG emissions analysis, thedocument goes on to establish the first everwater footprint for English beef and sheepproduction as a sound basis for monitoringand managing this environmental impact.

It also attempts to value the landscape andbiodiversity contribution of English beef andsheep production as a first step towardsquantifying the industry’s impact on theecosystem services that do not figure intraditional valuations, but are vital to overall sustainability.

Finally, it quantifies water consumption,energy use and effluent production in themeat processing sector and identifies waysin which these environmental impacts canbest be managed.

3. Objective and Scope

18

Recognising the fundamental inter-connectedness of environmental, societaland economic goals in ensuringsustainability, the roadmaps together chartthe way ahead for the English beef andsheep industries against the background ofthe following key considerations:

� 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

� Beef and sheep producers constitute the

bulk of UK farmers and their viability isessential to the sustainability of manyrural communities

� Grazing livestock are important in

preserving the landscape, biodiversityand recreational value of the hills anduplands

� Managed grasslands are increasingly

valued for the range of other desirableecosystem services they provide -including carbon storage, water quality,flood prevention and tranquillity

� Red meat is a valuable source of energy,

protein, vitamins and minerals in abalanced human diet, making a reliableand affordable supply important forconsumer health and well-being

� Measures to enhance the biodiversity

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

� As well as being vital for the

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

The value of both phases of this roadmap inpromoting UK beef and sheep productionsustainability will be greatly enhanced byco-operative development with appropriateorganisations in Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland.

Information exchange with similarsustainability-driven studies in NewZealand, France, Ireland and the USA willfurther add to the project’s value.

“Defra greenhouse gas emissionconversion factors for 2010 suggestbeef processing contributes around0.27 kg CO2 equivalent per kg ofmeat and sheep processing 0.23kg CO2 equivalent.”

19

Building on the original industry-wideGHG emission benchmarks established by Cranfield University’s Life CycleAnalysis model, a detailed appraisal ofthe carbon footprints of a selected sampleof commercial beef and sheep farms hasbeen undertaken by E-C02 Project.

Conducting these appraisals on enterprisesalready costed by EBLEX has enabledrelationships between financial andenvironmental performance to be examinedas well as conventional comparisonsbetween the units on the basis of theircarbon footprints alone.

The Appraisal Process

A total of 30 beef and 30 sheep productionbusinesses were visited by trained carbonand energy assessors to collect keyinformation which was processed through abespoke carbon calculator, accredited bythe Carbon Trust, to establish reliableenterprise-specific GHG emissionmeasurements.

The sophisticated software employsinformation commonly available oncommercial farms to calculate the carbondioxide, methane and nitrous oxideemissions arising from all aspects of theproduction system, including the feeds,fertilisers, agrochemicals, manures,bedding, fuel and electricity used.

It utilises a LCA from birth to the farm gate,agreed carbon dioxide equivalentconversion factors and economic allocationto establish annual GHG emissions perkilogram of live and deadweight for eachenterprise.

Where beef and sheep production form part of mixed farming businesses, the inputs and outputs from other enterprisesare specifically excluded and overheadsallocated according to overall business share.

Rigorous training of assessors and gradingof every farm to reflect the availability andaccuracy of the data collected ensures theoverall carbon footprint calculations are asstatistically robust as they can be.

4. Assessing CommercialFarm GHG Performance

20

Commercial Beef Production Footprints

Across all 30 beef units studied, the E-CO2

carbon calculator shows an average 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP100) of11.93kg CO2 eq per kilogram liveweight or23.9kg per kilogram of carcase weight(Table 1).

As might be expected with the variety ofdifferent production systems involved, thereis a wide range around this average - fromlittle more than 3kg CO2 eq per kgliveweight (6.4kg/kg carcase weight) tonearly 27kg (53.8kg/kg carcase weight).

These levels are noticeably higher than theindustry-wide benchmarks established bythe original Cranfield University modelling inthe Phase 1 roadmap, reflecting thedifference between broad theoreticalstudies and the narrower but very muchmore commercial focus of the E-CO2 Projectassessments.

Most importantly though, when the mostrecent assessments are analysed by themain beef production systems, theyunderline precisely the same trends in GHGemissions shown by the Cranfield estimates(Table 2).

Table 1: Overall English beef production footprint


kg CO2 eq/kgliveweight

kg CO2 eq/kgdeadweight

Average

Lowest

Highest

11.93

3.20

26.89

23.86

6.40

53.78

Table 2: English beef production system footprints


kg CO2 eq/kgAverage

kg CO2 eq/kg Range


Upland suckler beef

Dairy beef

19.22

15.66

11.72

11.26 - 26.89

8.83 - 20.60

3.19 - 14.19

21

As in the Change in the Air work, dairy beefemissions are only around 60% of those oflowland suckler beef enterprises.

Similar differences are apparent in theresults of a further 67 McDonalds suppliersassessed to the same protocols in parallelE-CO2 Project work.

These results confirm that GHG emissionsare, in practice, notably higher in moreextensive systems based on lower qualityforages that support lower growth rates,generating greater levels of methaneproduction per unit of output.

It also illustrates the considerable apparentenvironmental advantage enjoyed by dairybeef systems as a result of the fact thats thevast majority of breeding herd emissionsare attributed to milk production. Meat iseffectively a by-product of the milkproduction process.

The considerable ranges of environmentalperformance within each main beefproduction system clearly suggestssubstantial opportunities for improvement,even within a sample generally consideredto represent more progressive producers.

Assessing the environmental performanceof the enterprises alongside their financialefficiency confirms this potential by revealingan encouragingly positive relationshipbetween the two.

Every 5kg reduction in GHG emissions perkilogram of liveweight, indeed, appears tobe associated with a 50p per kilogramimprovement in financial margin (Figure 2).

The most significant driver is the efficiency of feed use.

Figure 2: Relationship between beef producers environmental and economic performance

30

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

GM £/kg LW

CO

2 eq

/kg

LW

1.00 1.20 1.40

25

20

15

10

5

0

22

Commercial Sheep Production Footprints

The E-CO2 sheep enterprise assessmentsshow a similar relationship to the originalPhase 1 Cranfield University industrymodelling.

Overall, the average 100-year GlobalWarming Potential (GWP100) calculatedacross all 30 units was 11.95 CO2 eq perkilogram liveweight or 23.9kg per kilogramof carcase weight (Table 3).

As with the Cranfield modelling, the averageGHG emissions per unit of sheep output arevery similar to those per unit of beefproduction, exceeding the originaltheoretical industry-wide estimate to asimilar degree.

While the range around this average wasalso considerable, in common with theCranfield estimates, it was nowhere near asgreat as that around the beef average.

This perhaps reflects the fact that the English sheep industry has no equivalent of dairy beef in which the meat is essentially a by-product.

Individual sheep system estimates againshow lowland flocks having a distinctenvironmental advantage over hillenterprises, mainly as a result better qualityforages and higher growth rates (Table 4).

Table 3: Overall English sheep production footprint


kg CO2 eq/kgliveweight

kg CO2 eq/kgdeadweight

Average

Lowest

Highest

11.95

8.55

19.22

23.90

17.09

38.43

Again, the range of emissions within eachmain production system demonstrates theconsiderable potential for improvement byincreasing productive efficiency.

This position is underlined by an even morepositive association between environmentaland financial performance than in the beefindustry - every 1kg CO2 eq reduction per kgliveweight in GHG emissions beingassociated with a 28p improvement inenterprise margin (Figure 3).

23

Table 4: English sheep production system footprints


kg CO2 eq/kgAverage

kg CO2 eq/kg Range

Hill flocks

Upland flocks

Lowland flocks

13.61

11.05

11.08

8.55 - 19.22

9.40 - 13.56

9.57 - 12.87

Figure 3: Relationship between sheep producers environmental and economic performance

0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

GM £/kg LW

CO

2 eq

/kg

LW

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

The main drivers are feed efficiency and litter size.

24

Conclusion

There is a good correlation betweeneconomic performance and CO2 eq cost ofproduction for both beef and sheepproducers. While not too surprising in itself,it is valuable to have concrete survey data toconfirm that those managers who are themost efficient at managing their farm andanimal resources for profit are also the mosteffective at keeping GHG emissions low.

These findings support the three keysustainable pillars of agriculture referred toin Section 2: pursuing economicimprovement goals improves the GHGposition and supports the overallsustainability of the business which in turnstabilises the position of farming in society.

25

Cranfield University has combined theimproved Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) model,with which it quantified GHG emissions inPhase One of the roadmap, with theWaSim water simulation model toestablish the first-ever water footprint forEnglish beef and sheep production.

The assessment takes into account all theinputs and outputs of the different systemslinked to the production of beef and sheepmeat to calculate water use per kilogram ofmeat for individual production systems, aswell as the industry as a whole.

The analysis covers production through todespatch from the farm and is expressed interms of litres per kilogram of carcaseweight. Slaughter and processing water isnot taken into account (see chapter 7).

Water footprint basis

Following the water footprint conceptdeveloped by Hoekstra & Hung (2002), theassessment establishes total water usagefrom calculations of its three maincomponents - blue, green and grey water.Dividing the footprint into these components

also enables a more realistic evaluation ofthe actual hydrological impact of productionactivities.

Blue water includes all abstractions fromrivers, lakes and groundwater for irrigation,feed processing, animal drinking, cleaningand other stock-keeping requirements.

This has a significant impact on society sinceits utilisation in beef and sheep productionrenders it unavailable for other consumptionor environmental uses, including domesticand industry supply, maintenance of riverflows and preservation of wetland and othervaluable habitats.

Even in England’s relatively wet climate,rising demand from many sectors andgrowing seasonal variability is placingincreasing pressure on such waterresources, especially in the south and east.

Green water, on the other hand, is therainfall used by crops (including grass) atthe place where it falls. This water isessentially unavailable for other uses.

5. Making the most of water

26

In the absence of grassland or crops, itwould be consumed to almost exactly thesame extent by other vegetation. Indeed,deeper-rooted tree and scrub cover wouldlead to even higher levels of water use thancrops or grassland. And the alternative ofleaving the land bare is neither feasiblewithout considerable input to restrict naturalregeneration, nor desirable in terms of soilerosion and run-off.

Since it cannot be used elsewhere andlevels of usage are not increased by its role in crop production, green waterconsumption carries little or no hydrological impact.

Grey water is a notional provision,representing the volume required to dilutepollutants to levels that maintain definedwater quality standards.

It also carries relatively little hydrologicalimpact since it does not physically consumethe resource and deny it for other uses.

After all, water notionally required to reducethe biological oxygen demand of accidentalslurry or silage effluent leaks, or counterhigher than acceptable nitrate or phosphateconcentrations from soil leaching, is, at the same time, also available to meethuman consumption or environmentalmaintenance needs.

Grey water as a concept is, arguably, of most value to water companies as ameasure of the ‘cost’ of countering any negative water quality impacts from farming.

Within the total water footprint, therefore,blue water stands out as the most importantfocus for improving the sustainability of beefand sheep production, with both the greyand green water components being far lesssignificant.

The LCA footprint calculations take accountof all the main areas of blue, green andgrey water input in current productionsystems, namely that used for drinking,washing and cleaning, that ‘embedded’ inthe diet, and that required to balance nitrate leaching.

Drinking, washing and cleaning water

The drinking water requirements for beefand sheep production are calculated fromoverall stock water needs on the basis of dry matter intake and ambienttemperatures from a recent Defra study(Thomson et al; 2007).

For each production system (Table 5) thedrinking water used is taken to be thedifference between the total waterrequirements of the stock and the waterprovided in the feed.

27

Water in the feed

The water ‘embedded’ in all the main feedsused in English beef and sheep productionis calculated from detailed evaluations ofUK-grown grass, grass silage, wheat,barley, oilseed rape and sugar beetproduction using average crop yields andlocal rainfall and evapotranspiration data.

Although the animal feed industry only usesby-products of oilseed rape and sugar beetproduction (in the form of rapeseed mealand sugar beet feed), the whole waterconsumption associated with growing the crop is included in the calculation. This undoubtedly results in some over-estimation.

The water footprint also includes estimatesfor imported soya from Argentina and Brazilin line with Defra import statistics.

The overall animal feeding contributionto the water footprint is then calculatedfrom the typical inclusion rates of the various feeds in beef and sheep diets, and intake levels under the differentproduction systems.

Since all home-produced feeds - with theexception of a tiny minority (6%) of thesugarbeet crop - and soya beans importedfrom our primary trading partners, areproduced without irrigation, theoverwhelming majority of the feed-relatedfootprint is green water.

Table 5: Main production systems included in the LCA

Lowland sucker herds (autumn calving)

Upland suckler herds (spring calving)

Upland suckler herds (autumn calving)

Hill suckler herds

Intensive dairy beef

Extensive dairy beef

Hill flocks

Upland flocks

Lowland flocks

Early lambing flocks

The entire drinking-related footprint is clearly classified as blue water.

Also entirely blue water in the model is the very small component of the footprint calculatedfor cleaning trailers and equipment, and for use in dipping sheep.

28

Forty-five litres of water per tonne is used inthe feed processing industry for stemraising, and to replace water evaporatedduring heat processing to ensure a constantfeed concentration.

Water for nitrate leaching

Having assessed every possible element ofgrey water that could be required to dilutepollution caused by beef and sheepproduction, all but nitrate leaching areconsidered too small or unquantifiable to be reliably included within thefootprint calculation.

Slurry and manure pollution balancingrequirements are omitted, given theimpossibility of attributing recordedincidence levels to beef rather than dairyunits. At the same time, the virtually non-existent housing requirement for sheep andthe fact that the vast majority of housed beefare kept on solid farmyard manure systems- in contrast to slurry-based dairy systems -means they are only likely to be associatedwith a tiny minority of such incidents .

The impossibility of attributing silage effluentpollution incidents between enterprises, andthe fact that both beef and sheepproduction tend to utilise higher dry matterbig bale silage with its far lower pointsource polluting risk, means waterrequirements for this purpose are excluded too.

Also excluded are pesticide pollutionbalancing needs, on the basis that these tooare minute. What is more, the only specificrisk - from sheep dip - can effectively bediscounted because failure to dispose of itproperly would result in quite unacceptablepollution (of which no incidents arereported).

While phosphate leaching from fertiliserapplication could generate a significant greywater requirement in some cases, therelative importance of nitrate use andleaching means this will be the key driver of water needs. The water requirement forthis purpose will, at the same time, morethan meet any leached phosphatebalancing need.

Grey water footprint calculations for nitrateleaching are made according to therecommendations of the Water FootprintManual, with adjustments for the extent towhich surplus rainfall (beyond that used bythe crops) is available to naturally dilute anynitrates leached into freshwater bodies.

Beef production water footprint

Assuming 51% of prime carcase beef isderived from the dairy herd, 30% from hilland upland suckler herds and 19% fromlowland suckler enterprises, the modellingestablishes the total baseline water footprintof English beef production at 17,657 litres perkilogram of meat produced.

This is considerably higher than both theglobal average footprint of 15,500 litres perkilogram and the UK average of 7,952 litresper kilogram calculated previously byothers. This is mainly due to the extent towhich their methodologies under-estimatethe green water footprint derived from themore accurate water balance study basis ofthe present calculation.

Such differences underline the great dangerof comparisons with other footprintcalculations made on a different basis.Many Australian beef production estimates,for instance, owe their very low footprints -around 210 litres per kilogram - to anexclusive focus on blue water from surfaceand groundwater storage.

29

Interestingly, a far lower reliance on irrigatedcrop production means that the key bluewater footprint for English beef is only 67litres per kilogram, the overwhelmingmajority of the footprint - 84% and 15%respectively - being accounted for by greenand grey water (Table 6).

This is around a third the level of thecomparable Australian footprint.

Table 6: Water footprint of English beef production (litres/kg meat)

Table 7: Water footprint of English beef production systems (litres/kg meat)

Blue water

67

0.4%

Green water

14,900

84.4%

Grey water

2,690

15.2%

Total

17,657

Blue water similarly accounts for barely 0.5% of the footprints of all the main productionsystems making up the English industry (Table 7).

Dairy beef has a noticeably lower bluewater and total water footprint than sucklersystems because it excludes the waterrequirements of adult cows, which areassumed to be allocated to their primaryproduct - milk.

Equally, the far lower yields of grass fromless productive land means very muchmore rainfall per unit of forage produced.This means a vastly higher green watercomponent for hill sucklers and, as a result,a considerably higher total footprint thanother systems.

Sheep production water footprint

Based on the stratification of the sheepindustry - with hill, upland and lowlandewes responsible for 39%, 30% and 31% ofprime carcase lamb production - themodelling establishes a baseline total waterfootprint of 57,759 litres per kilogram ofmeat produced.

Reflecting the industry’s concentration onless productive land, this is considerablyhigher than the beef baseline.

The total footprint is again, however,accounted for almost entirely by green andgrey water requirements, with the key bluewater footprint at just 49 litres per kilogram,markedly lower than that of beef (Table 8).

Blue water

78

Green water

15,600

Grey water

3,490

Total

19,168

Component system


81 12,800 3,300 16,181Upland suckler beef

103 44,200 3,080 47,383Hill suckler beef

45 8,150 1,980 10,175Dairy beef

30

Table 8: Water footprint of English sheep production (litres/kg meat)

Blue water

49

0.1%

Green water

55,800

96.6%

Grey water

1,910

3.3%

Total

57,759

In just the same way as with beef, the farlower productivity of hill land, in particular,means a very much higher water footprintfor hill production systems (Table 9).

Again, however, the key blue water footprintshows how little actual water any of thesystems consume.

Overall water footprint assessment

Despite differences in methodology, thestudy demonstrates a total water footprintfor English beef and sheep production of a similar order to many estimates fromother countries.

The overwhelming dominance of greenwater in the total figures, however, meansthat compared to livestock systems that relyon feed produced by irrigation, the actual

hydrological impact of English meatproduction is very small.

Hill beef and sheep production clearly has avery much higher green water footprint thanother systems. However, since thesesystems primarily involve grass-fed stock inareas of much higher than average rainfall,the natural water surplus is calculated to benoticeably greater than other parts of thecountry (Figure 4).

Table 9: Water footprint of English sheep production systems (litres/kg meat)

Blue water

31

Green water

21,800

Grey water

2,550

Total

24,381

Component system

Lowland flocks

40 24,700 2,600 27,340Upland flocks

85 135,000 205 135,290Hill flocks

“Blue water similarly accounts forbarely 0.5% of the footprints of allthe main production systemsmaking up the English industry.”

31

Under these circumstances, higher greenwater consumption for grass and forageproduction in the hills and upland areas isclearly not reducing water flow to rivers andstreams to any greater extent than otherareas, so it has no greater hydrologicalimpact.

The fact that upland and hill areas aregenerally unsuitable for other forms of foodproduction is a further consideration here.

Improving the water footprint

Analysis of annual rainfall andevapotranspiration data across the countryshow that even the driest parts of Englandhave a useful excess of rainfall over thatrequired for grass production (Figure 4).

This suggests green water consumption ingrass and forage production is having nosignificant impact on surface andgroundwater availability for other purposes.

Indeed, were pastures and other land usedfor animal feed production to be leftuncropped, natural vegetation wouldconsume at least as much green water.And were such areas to be forested, evengreater amounts of water would beabsorbed, reducing flow to surface andgroundwater reserves within thecatchments.

Under current UK conditions, therefore,there is clearly little or no sustainability gainto be secured from any reduction in greenwater requirements.

Instead, efforts to improve the overall waterfootprint of beef and sheep production arebest focused on reducing blue and greywater requirements.

Reducing days to slaughter and increasinggrowth rates will help reduce lifetimedrinking water requirements of cattle and sheep.

Figure 4: Average surplus rainfall, mm per tonne DM (dry matter)grass yield for each site class

32

However, many farms have considerablepotential to reduce their blue waterfootprints through:

� Good management and lagging of

pipes and drinkers to minimise leakages

� Using bowsers with small side troughs

or drinkers instead of large field troughsto reduce wastage from leaking piperuns and trough cleaning

� Using livestock nose pumps to access

local surface and ground water suppliesto similarly reduce wastage

� Collecting rainwater from housing roofs

to replace tap supplies.

Most, if not all, of these options offer theopportunity for both equipment as well asmetered water cost savings.

More precision in grassland managementand fertilisation will be valuable in reducingnitrate leaching and, as a result, the mainelement of the grey water footprint. Inparticular:

� Maintaining soil pH at the correct level

for optimum grassland productivity

� Monitoring soil P & K regularly to

maintain the right status

� Making the greatest possible use of

clover and organic manures

� Adjusting fertilisation to take account of

clover and manure contributions

� Matching N fertiliser amounts and timing

to sward needs over the season

� Maintaining the optimum nitrogen to

sulphur ratio.

Better grassland management andfertilisation is likely to be extremely valuableeconomically in most cases at currentfertiliser prices.

It will also deliver valuable environmentalbenefits; especially for those farming inNitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) too.

6. Assessing other ecosystem impacts

While beef and sheep production isrecognised as having an importantinfluence on landscape, biodiversity andother significant ecosystem servicesprovided by the English hills and uplandsin particular, quantifying the industry’scontribution in these key respects isespecially difficult.

As part of determined sustainability-improving, a benchmarking assessment ofbeef and sheep production’s value tolandscape and biodiversity has beenundertaken by ADAS to inform thisroadmap.

Valuing ecosystem services

The most comprehensive evaluation of thestate of the global environment to date - theUnited Nations Millennium EcosystemAssessment - classifies the many and variedservices provided by the ecosystems onwhich society relies for its health and well-being into four distinct groups:

� Supporting services, such as soil

formation, photosynthesis and otherprimary production systems and nutrientand water cycling which underpin theproduction of all other ecosystemservices

� Provisioning services, relating to the

products actually supplied, includingfood, fibre, fuel, genetic resources,biochemicals, natural medicines,pharmaceuticals and fresh water

� Regulating services, encompassing the

benefits secured from the wayecosystems regulate the climate, airquality, flooding, erosion, diseases, pestsand other natural hazards, as well asthe purifying of water and enablingpollination

� Cultural services which cover the non-

material value obtained by societythrough spiritual enrichment, education,reflection, recreation and aestheticexperiences.

These are illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Ecosystem services for theUK (Haygarth & Ritz 2009)

The provisioning services provided by beefand sheep production as part of theecosystem are relatively easy to value, givencurrent market mechanisms that put a priceon products like meat, offal, wool and hides.

33

34

Far more difficult to value are the culturalservices represented by the landscape andkey elements of supporting and regulatingservices enabled by biodiversity, let alonethe proportion of their value attributable tobeef and sheep farming.

These services are considered to be publicgoods - goods that provide clear, althoughless immediately quantifiable, benefits tosociety which are not specifically valued bystandard market economics.

The value of these so-called non-marketgoods is primarily derived from people’s useof ecosystems for recreation, reliance uponthem for fresh air, flood control and the like,and pleasure in knowing they exist -whether or not they are actively utilised.

For the purposes of this report landscape isdefined as ‘an area, as perceived bypeople, whose character is the result of theaction and interaction of natural and humanfactors’.

Biodiversity, in turn, is defined as ‘thevariability among living organisms from allsources including terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems and theecological complexes of which they arepart’. This definition includes diversity withinspecies, between species and amongstecosystems.

These definitions underline the criticalcontribution of both natural and humanactivities to landscape and biodiversity.

The maintenance of many of England’s mostvaluable ecosystems - grasslands ingeneral and hill and upland environmentsin particular - fundamentally depends onbeef and sheep production.

Were existing grasslands not maintained bygrazing, for instance, they would quiterapidly revert to scrub and tree cover whichwould seriously compromise their presentlandscape value for enjoyment andrecreation.

Similarly, lack of grazing would lead chalkdownlands and other upland environmentsto lose their present value as habitats insupporting some of the country’s rarest floraand fauna.

Without a thriving beef and sheep industry,man-made elements of recognisedlandscape and biodiversity value, likemosaics of interconnecting and enhancinghedges, ditches and walls would cease tobe maintained, viable rural communities,and stewardship schemes that enhancecountryside and environmental value forsociety, could not be delivered.

There are no existing valuation studiesspecifically investigating the effect of beef orsheep farming on either the landscape orbiodiversity, certainly not within the UnitedKingdom.

Although far from perfect, the valuationevidence presented here brings the bestavailable modern methodologies andinformation to bear on establishing a rangeof possible values for the contribution madeby today’s industry.

It does so in the full recognition of the veryreal limitations of the exercise within itspresent scope, as well as the fact that it failsto account for important ecosystem serviceslike climate, flood and disease regulation.

Even so, the exercise will enable moreinformed benchmarking of the industry’sless tangible contributions to theenvironment as the basis for ensuring thebest possible balance is maintained insustainability improvement efforts.

35

Landscape valuation

Two separate approaches are taken tovaluing the contribution of beef and sheepfarming to the English landscape.

The first is based on the EnvironmentalAccounts for Agriculture (known as theAccounts) published by Defra to provide aframework for measuring and valuing thepositive and negative impacts of agricultureon the environment.

Employing data from the 2007 CountrysideSurveys, the Accounts use a model bringingtogether information from many differentvaluation studies to attribute values to keyhabitats and linear features like hedges,ditches and stonewalls.

They employ a number of techniques thatare open to challenge as far as accuracy isconcerned. For instance, they assume thebenefits of a feature in one part of thecountry can be directly transferred toanother. In addition, they apportion 100% ofthe value of landscapes to agriculture.Importantly, they also take no account of theso-called non-use (or feel-good) values -those that derive from knowledge thelandscape is present, available for others toenjoy and can be passed on to futuregenerations.

In line with valuation studies in general, theAccounts accept the general consensus thatthere are significant positive flows fromcurrent agricultural landscapes which arefor the most part under-estimated.

For 2008, the Accounts value Englishagriculture’s landscape contribution tosociety at around £154 million per annum.

As approximately 41.5% of the farmed areaof the country is accounted for by beef andsheep production, this suggests the industrydelivers an annual landscape value ofaround £64 million (Table 10).

With latest Defra information showing 96%of beef and sheep farmers undertakecountryside maintenance and managementwork it is not unreasonable to assume sucha significant landscape value contribution.

Indeed, the fact that beef and sheepproduction tends to be concentrated on thehill and upland landscapes, arguablymakes it more valuable in the ecosystemservices they provide than many otherfarmed areas. This implies that they shouldbe credited with an even greatercontribution than a simple linearapportionment of the whole.

Alongside the Accounts approach, the ADASstudy also considers the value of beef andsheep farming in the wider economy andexamines Gross Value Added (GVA) datafrom Yorkshire’s National Parks, and touristexpenditure information for the South Westand National Parks more widely asseparate case studies.

GVA gives a market value for thelandscape’s direct use by businesses in anarea calculated from their turnover and theextent to which they depend directly orindirectly on the environment.

Tourist expenditure is also a direct-usevaluation tool. It includes only the moneyspent by visitors within an area not the costof getting to it.

Again there are a number of clearlimitations to both GVA and tourist spendvaluations. Not least the fact that the formerincludes all agricultural outputs and thelatter only accounts for visitors and not thosewho live there or those who consider thearea to have value without visiting.

36

Based on the proportions of land withineach area devoted to beef and sheepfarming, the separate case studies suggestthe industry delivers a landscape value of£188 million to Yorkshire National Parks,£353 million to the South West and £889million to English National Parks as a whole(Table 10).

Because they involve regions of particularappeal for their scenery and recreation, it isclearly inappropriate to use these figures toestimate a national value.

They do, however, indicate that English beefand sheep production is likely to be makinga considerably higher contribution to theeconomy on the basis of their managementof the landscape than suggested by theAccounts approach.

Biodiversity valuation

In the absence of other mechanisms, theEnvironmental Accounts for Agricultureprovides the best available basis forassessing the biodiversity value attributed toEnglish beef and sheep farming.

Tourist revenues are consideredinappropriate given the extent to whichbiodiversity underpins ecosystem servicesas a whole rather than being a definableservice itself.

As well as valuing key aspects ofagriculture’s contribution to the landscape,the Accounts assess the biodiversity value itdelivers through both the maintenance andmanagement of habitats, primarily Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and farmwoodland, and individual species, primarilyfarmland birds.

The Accounts caution that their biodiversityvaluations come with a high degree ofuncertainty, not least because they arebased on so few elements of the wholebiodiversity equation.

However, as for the value of landscape, theclear view is that resolving theseuncertainties would cause the figures to berevised upwards rather than downwards.

As with the landscape valuation, the moststraight-forward way of attributing the £704million of total biodiversity benefits in theAccounts for English farming to beef andsheep production is on the basis of its shareof the farmed area.

This gives an industry value of around £292 million (Table 11).

The multi-faceted nature of biodiversity,however, means that this method ofapportionment may be inappropriate. Thebiodiversity value of hill and upland farmingareas is, for instance, widely regarded asvery much higher than that of most areas ofarable monoculture.

Under these circumstances, pesticide usagefigures could provide a better way ofapportioning value. They are, after all,alleged to be one of the major contributorsto biodiversity loss. Equally, they almostcertainly represent a good indicator of theintensity of agriculture which is generallyconsidered to be inversely proportional to itsbiodiversity.

The latest Pesticide Usage Survey (2006)shows a total of 21 million kg of productapplied to agricultural land in England, ofwhich 0.55 million kg (less than 3%) isapplied to grassland.

On this basis of the extent to which it usesthe products that intensify agriculture andreduce biodiversity, it could be assumed thatapproximately 97% of agriculture’s totalbiodiversity value comes from grasslandfarming.

37

Adjusting this for the 84% of the grazingarea used by beef and sheep farming andassuming these enterprises use as muchpesticide as dairying - which is unlikely -gives an Accounts biodiversity value ofaround £574 million (Table 11).

As one of their main aims is to protect andenhance farm-based wildlife, the uptake ofagri-environment schemes providesanother way of apportioning the £704million total Accounts biodiversity value.

This can be done either on the basis of theproportion of farms undertaking suchschemes or the proportion of boundary,buffer, tree and woodland schemes beingundertaken.

Depending on the basis employed, thebiodiversity value attributed to beef andsheep farming of between £204 and £218million (Table 11).


England The Accounts £64 million

YorkshireNationalParks

Gross ValueAdded

Total GVA by businesses depending on theenvironment - £334 million


£188 million

South WestEngland

Touristrevenue

Total revenue from tourist trips motivated byconserved landscape - £2,354 million

Proportion of land attributable to beef and sheep - 15%

£353 million

EnglandNationalParks

Touristrevenue

Total revenue from tourists visiting for the scenery - £2,200 million


£889 million



Table 10: Beef and sheep contribution to landscape value

38

Table 11: Beef and sheep contribution to biodiversity value


England The Accounts- areafarmed

£292 million

England The Accounts- pesticideuse


Proportion of pesticides not attributable to beefand sheep farming - 82%

£574 million

England The Accounts- agri-environmentscheme total


Proportion of schemes attributable to beef andsheep farming - 29%

£204 million

England The Accounts- agri-environmentschemeactivity


Proportion of schemes relevant to beef andsheep farming - 31%

£218 million



Overall industry valueEnglish beef and sheep production clearlyprovides a far greater value to thecountryside than simple farm gate revenuecalculations indicate.

Valuing the landscape and biodiversity, letalone attributing such valuations to beefand sheep production, is a highly complexbusiness. It is also a process very much in its infancy.

There are a whole host of ways in whichsuch valuations can be made, none ofwhich are without their limitations or issues.This makes the precision calculation of theless tangible (but no less important)contributions of farming in general and beefand sheep production in particular almostimpossible.

Nevertheless, it is obvious from theconsiderations discussed that thelandscapes and biodiversity maintained bybeef and sheep production make a

significant contribution to the overallsustainability of many of the country’s mostcherished environments, as well assupporting a large number of vital ruralcommunities.

As is so often the case, the true value ofsomething only really becomes apparentonce it has been lost.

The challenge with beef and sheepproduction is to ensure that as much of thevalue it contributes to the vital life supportsystems on which our economy depends issustained as the industry adapts to copewith the economic and environmentalpressure it faces.

In meeting the challenge of reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, for instance,there would be a compelling logic in movingproduction away from hill and upland beefand sheep were it not for the fact that thiscould easily lead to immeasurable harm inthe sustainability of these environments in awhole host of other important ways.

7. The Meat Processing Sector

The water and energy consumed, andeffluent produced, in beef and sheepprocessing have been quantified in a2010 study undertaken by MLCSL with theBritish Meat Processors Association(BMPA) and individual abattoirs, cuttingand retail packing plants across England.

Alongside valuable guidance from theGovernment-backed Waste & ResourcesAction Programme (WRAP), this study alsoexplores ways in which such environmentalimpacts can best be minimised throughcarefully planned and targetedimprovements in plant operation andmanagement.

Benchmarking the industry

Data on annual throughputs, carcase yields,water and energy consumption and effluentproduction was collected from a total of 22

abattoirs, cutting and retail packing plantsconcentrated in England.

Although these were some of the larger andmore efficient plants in the business, the factthat they represent a major proportion ofnational processing volumes means theyprovide a reasonable quantification of thewater and energy inputs and effluent outputper kilogram of meat produced in thecountry.

Carcase yield

Derived from reported abattoir outputtonnages divided by the number of beastsprocessed, the average cattle carcasecurrently processed weighs 336kg and theaverage sheep carcase 20kg (Table 12).

Considerable variation is evident aroundthese averages due to variations in the mixof beef and sheep animal types processedand a range of other commercial factors,including geography, condemnations anddegree of offal harvesting.

Water consumption

The meat processing sector is not a heavywater user compared to other parts of theUK food and drink industry, consuming lessthan a quarter the amount of water used bydairies, breweries, distilleries or soft drinksmanufacture, according to the most recentDefra estimates (Table 13).

39

Table 12 : Beef and sheep carcase yields (kg/head)

Beef

Sheep

Average

336

20

Range

377 - 310

18 - 23

40

Dairies 39.0

Breweries 35.2

Soft Drinks 27.5

Distilleries 25.9

Meat Processing 7.2

Table 13: Annual UK food and drink sector water consumption (million cubic metres/yr)

However, legal meat hygiene standardsnecessitate the use of considerablequantities of potable (blue) water for almostall washing and rinsing operations.

All process floor areas need to be washedclean at least once a day. In addition, wateris used for watering and washing livestockin lairages, washing carcases, cleaninglairages, process equipment and workareas and, in many cases also, the hygieneof transport vehicles on site entry and exit.

The majority of processing plants obtaintheir water from the public supply with someutilising bore-hole water for functions likeyard and vehicle washing.

Altogether, the present study estimates theUK beef and lamb industry utilises a total of4 million cubic metres of water per year inanimal slaughtering, cutting and retailpacking.

Using the throughput and carcase yielddata obtained, this represents an averageof 3.6 litres per kilogram of beef and 2.5litres per kilogram of sheep meat (Table 14).

With water consumption highly dependent on plant layout and floor area, as well as theprecise processing systems and management practices employed however, there isconsiderable variation around these averages.

Table 14: Beef and sheep processing plant water consumption (litres/kg)

Beef

Sheep

Average

3.6

2.5

Range

1.8 - 4.0

1.5 - 3.9

41

Effluent production

Abattoir effluent comprises a mixture ofwater, blood, faeces, urine and wash water.This can either be discharged directly to foulsewers or pre-treated on-site to reducewater company trade effluent charges.

The high organic matter loading of much ofthis effluent means abattoirs generatewaste with some of the highest pollutionpotential - as measured by ChemicalOxygen Demand (COD) or BiologicalOxygen Demand (BOD) in the food anddrinks sector.

The study shows that around half the plantshave no on-site treatment facilities.

This means they either discharge theireffluent direct or, in some cases, have to gettheir effluent tankered away at considerableextra expense.

Given the extent to which water usage isdriven by cleaning in meat processing,effluent production levels tend to be closelylinked to water consumption. Indeed,discharge volumes are typically around85% of mains water usage.

Discharge data, throughput and carcaseyields indicate average water and effluentdischarges amounting to 3.1 litres/kg ofbeef and 2.1 litres/kg of sheep meatproduced (Table 15).

As with water consumption, big differencesare evident between plants in the averagewater and effluent discharges.

While some of these differences arise fromvariations in data collection and specificplant processes and management, goodprimary and secondary treatment facilitiesallow a number of processors to reducevolumes by recycling lightly soiled wastewater for less sensitive tasks such as lairageand yard cleaning.

Equally, higher discharge than waterconsumption levels in some cases showplants are failing to effectively excluderainwater from foul drains and, as a result,significantly increasing effluent levels anddisposal costs.

Energy consumption

Around 65% of the total energy consumedby beef and sheep abattoirs and cuttingplants is in the form of electricity. This isused to power operating equipment in theslaughter and boning areas, process by-products, and run refrigeration and aircompressor units.

The remaining 35% is as thermal energyfrom the combustion of gas (around 20%)and kerosene or oil (15%) in on-site boilersto heat water for cleaning, knife sterilisation,tripe washing, space heating and blood drying.

Table 15: Beef and sheep slaughtering plant effluent discharges (litres/kg)

Beef

Sheep

Average

3.1

2.1

Range

1.7 - 5.4

0.8 - 3.4

The extent to which many plants out-sourcetheir meat transport and the generalunavailability of company car fuel usagerecords has necessitated excluding theseelements of energy consumption from thepresent evaluation.

Energy use in these respects is, however,almost certainly very minor compared to themain plant operating requirements.

Based on energy usage records,throughputs and carcase yield, the studyestimates abattoirs, cutting and packingplants are together consuming an averageof around 0.63kWh (kilowatt hours) ofenergy per kilogram of beef and 0.54kWhper kilogram of sheep meat (Table 16).

Again, the study shows considerablevariation in energy consumption betweendifferent plants resulting, amongst otherthings, from different levels of on and off-site chilling, different availabilities of mainsgas, different data collection periods,different efficiencies of boilers, refrigerationand other equipment, and differentprocesses.

Assuming 65% of this energy comes fromelectricity, 20% from gas and 15% from oil,Defra greenhouse gas emission conversionfactors for 2010 suggest beef processingcontributes around 0.27 kg CO2 eq per kgof meat, and sheep processing 0.23 kg CO2equivalent (Table 17).

* Defra 2010 conversions: kWh electricity x 0.544; kWh gas x 0.20; kWh oil x 0.25

Table 16: Beef and sheep processing plant energy consumption (kWh/kg)

Beef

Sheep

Average

0.63

0.54

Range

0.25 - 1.22

0.35 - 0.89

Table 17: Beef and sheep processing greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2 eq/kg)*

Beef

Sheep

Average

0.27

0.23

Range

0.11 - 0.53

0.15 - 0.38

42

Improvement opportunities

As well as highlighting inevitable plant type,system and operating differences, theconsiderable variation in waterconsumption, effluent production andenergy use between different plantsrevealed by the study suggestsconsiderable opportunities for improvementin environmental impact - improvementswhich offer significant cost savingsalongside sustainability gains.

As in most cases of resource useimprovement, better management almostinvariably results from better monitoring.

Reducing water consumption

Notwithstanding the critical importance ofmaintaining first class hygiene standardsthroughout meat processing plants, thereappears to be considerable scope forreducing water consumption by improvingthe efficiency with which it is used in mostabattoirs, cutting and retail packing plants.

While only a handful of those participatingin the study practised any form of watersub-metering within their plants, all thecompanies managing water consumptionweekly by quantity have been able todemonstrate considerable cost savings inrecent years. One company, indeed, quotedsavings of more than £10,000 per annumthrough sub-metering and weeklyinvestigation of anomalies.

A number of general and specificrecommendations on action to reducewater consumption have been developedby WRAP as a foundation for improvement.These include improving particular aspects of:

� General site maintenance and operation

� Carcase washing

� Hand and apron washing

� Equipment sterilisers

� Machine and tray washing

� Site cleaning procedures

� Vehicle washing

� Lairage and gutroom practices

� Tripery practices.

Rainwater harvesting from roofs for vehiclecleaning, lairage and yard washing, andtoilet flushing, can also play a valuable rolein saving mains water.

Reducing effluent production

The close relationship between effluentvolume and water use means the simplest way to reduce abattoir, cutting and packing plant effluent production is to use less water.

In addition, there is much that can be doneto reduce the potency (BOD) of the effluentproduced by on site treatment ahead ofdischarge. Reducing the amount of solidsthat go down the drain in the first place isan opportunity open to all sites that willmake a major contribution to this through awhole host of good management practices.

Essentially, these involve doing everythingpossible to keep as much of the solid wasteas possible - blood, gut contents andmanure - away from the wash water,collecting and adding them either to theCategory 1 waste skip for rendering or theCategory 2 skip for composting.

Other practices that can help includeleaving sufficient bleed-time, trapping and adequately containing all blood andscraps with drip pans and collection trays,cleaning spilt blood and debris from theplant floor thoroughly before washingdown, utilising good blood collection,storage and processing systems, andmanure collection and dry brushing before hosing out lairages.

43

44

On-site biological treatment plants thatconvert soluble and colloidal materials intobio-solids in a variety of ways offer evengreater opportunities for reducing both thevolume and potency of plant effluent.

While such systems can be costly to put inplace, they - and associated dewatering oranaerobic digestion units - have thepotential to make considerable savings bytransforming effluent into material that canbe spread on land as a soil conditionerrather than disposed of to the sewers.

Reducing energy consumption

Energy is an area where substantial savingscan be made in most businesses with nocapital investment. Indeed, the Carbon Trustestimates immediate savings of up to 20%should be possible through simplemanagement or system improvements.

Most obvious amongst these in meatprocessing plants are:

� Implementing switch-off programmes

and installing sensors to turn off orpower-down lights and equipmentwhen not in use

� Improving insulation on heating and

cooling equipment and pipework

� Insulating and covering scald tanks to

minimise heat loss

� Recovering waste heat from effluent

streams, vents, exhausts andcompressors

� Maintaining leak-free compressed

air systems

� Favouring more efficient equipment

� Maintaining equipment as well

as possible

� Maintaining optimal combustion

of boilers

� Eliminating system leaks

� Using external air for cooling when

ambient temperatures are low enough.

With chillers accounting for up to 70% ofelectricity consumption in abattoirs, energy-saving measures should clearly be focusedon refrigeration in the first instance formaximum benefit.

Boilers and hot water systems should alsobe a major focus for energy efficiencyimprovement efforts.

Environmental Management Systems

A globally recognised EnvironmentalManagement System (EMS) such asISO14001 provides an excellent basis formanaging environmental activities in acomprehensive, systematic and well-documented way.

EMS plans set a framework for moreeffective management of airbornepollutants (smells and noise), as well asenergy, water and effluent, establishprocedures for consistently monitoring keyindicators and ways of improvingperformance against set targets.

As such they can be invaluable in reducingenvironmental impacts, cutting costs andproviding evidence of compliance withenvironmental legislation anddemonstrating commitment to investors,employees and the general public.

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.

Calvinginterval

413.5 days(88.27

calves per100 cows)

Dataunavailable

at time ofprint

Calvinginterval

392.4 days(95 calves

per 100cows)

Performance Monitoring

45

8. Action Plan Update

The tables below are updated from those included in Phase One of the roadmap,Change in the Air. Initially published in November 2009, this information was updatedin November 2010. The aim is to ensure continuous monitoring of the benchmarks setout in the first roadmap.

Component

Beefefficiency

Action

Undertaking an annualassessment of the weight ofcarcase produced per day ofage across GB beefproduction bringing togetherBCMS age at slaughter dataand carcase weights fromEBLEX carcase classificationreports.

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

Output 2008

0.471 kg/dcarcase wt

(326 kg692.51days)

2009

0.476 kg/dcarcase wt

(329 kg691.4 days)

2020target

0.5 kg/dcarcase wt

Lambefficiency

Undertaking an annualassessment of the weight oflamb 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 individualperformance.

17.31 kglamb

carcaseper ewe(270335tonnes

1,5616 Kewes)

16.66 kglamb

carcaseper ewe

(248,423 t1,491,200

ewes

18.00 kglamb

carcaseper ewe

Beef andsheep unitperformance

Extend the current costingsscheme to include moreherds and flocks for eachproduction system to securemore accurate data on keyaspects of physicalperformance.

Better benchmarks of moredetailed performancemeasures across the rangeof production systems totrack industry progress andprovide targets for individualbusiness performanceassessment

284 beef

205 sheep

297 beef

188 sheep

310 beef

260 sheep

Nationalbeef andsheepproductivity

Establish an annual surveyof the current productivity ofbeef and sheep systems, iffeasible, involving a stratifiedsample representative ofindustries 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.

In progress In progress Annuallyupdate

46

Performance Monitoring

Component

Ewe fertility

Action

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.

Output2008

117.8%

2009

120.4%

2020target

125.7%(plus 7.5

lambs per100 ewes)

Beef andsheepbreedingprogress

Undertake an annualevaluation of SignetBeefbreeder, 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 highlightthe potential forperformance improvementcurrently available by usingthe best in breed.

5 yearaverage to

2008

Suffolk0.082pts/yr

Texel 6.81 Ipts/yr

Limousin0.742 BV/

yr

5 yearaverage to

2009

Suffolk 0.96

Texel 5.39

Limousin0.710

5 yearaverage to

2020

Suffolk 0.12pts/yr

Texel 10.0pts/yr

Limousin 1.1BV/ yr

47

List of abbreviations

BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand

CO2 eq - Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand

DW - Dead Weight

EBV - Estimated Breeding Value

GHGs - Greenhouse Gases

GVA - Gross Value Added

GWP - Global Warming Potential

GWP100 - Global Warming Potential, over 100 years

KWh - KiloWatt Hours

LCA - Life Cycle Analysis

LW - Live Weight

MJ - Mega Joules

MLCSL - Meat and Livestock Commission Commercial Services Ltd

MT - Mega Tonnes

NVZ - Nitrate Vulnerable Zone

SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest

WRAP - Waste & Resources Action Programme

The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap - Phase 2

Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL

Tel: 024 7669 2051

www.eblex.org.ukEBLEX is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). Published November 2009.© Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. All rights reserved.

EBLEX is the organisation for beef and sheep producers inEngland. It exists to enhance the profitability of the sector byhelping the beef and sheep supply chain to be more efficientand adding value to the industry.

De

sig

ne

d b

y th

e B

rid

ge

Gro

up

- w

ww

.bri

dg

e-g

rou

p.c

o.u

kP

rin

ted

De

cem

be

r 2

010

Documents

testing the water - Microsoft