Case Study: climate neutral beef production on representative Swiss suckler cow systems

Transcription

1 Research on mitigating GHG from an integrated agricultural system perspective Case Study: climate neutral beef production on representative Swiss suckler cow systems Dr. Simon Briner, Dr. Simon Peter

2 Content: 1. background 2. materials and methods 3. results 4. conclusions 2

3 Goal and Motivation Goal: climate neutral meet production in representative Swiss suckler cow farms Herd size: max. 35 Cows grassland surface: 25 ha Why suckler cows? constantly increasing population energy input/digestible Energy 8-22 unfavorable Global Warming Potential (GWP = CO2-eq./MJ digestible energie) 120' '000 80'000 60'000 40'000 20'000 0 suckler cow population Literature: Briner, S., Hartmann, M., Finger, R., Lehmann, B. (2012): Greenhouse gas mitigation and offset options for suckler cow farms: an economic comparison for the Swiss case. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2012) 17:

4 Investigated production systems Angus Galloway rather intensive average growth rate: 1100 g/day Meat: 9050 kg CW/year GHG balance: 152 t CO2-eq 16.8 kg CO2-eq./kg CW gross margin: 126 kchf rather extensive average growth rate: 700 g/day Meat:6250 kg CW/year GHG balance: 127 CO2-eq kg CO2-eq./kg CW gross margin: 112 kchf 4

5 GHG-compensation with on-farm agroforestry activities GHGemissions carbon-uptake (poplar): 2.5t C/ha/y 8t CO 2 /ha/y agroforestry on grassland Idea: GHG-emissions of livestock activities = carbon-uptake on agroforestry area. climate neutral beef production ( at farm level) wood as substitute for fossil fuels Trade-off: grass yield: -40% if agroforestry activites are conducted carbon offset: Ø 8 t CO 2 /ha/y (poplar, 20 years) Assumption: discounted revenue of wood sale = investments for poplar, planting cost and management cost 5

6 Modelling approach bio-economic farm model representing a representative Swiss suckler cow farm (max. 35 LU, max. 25 ha grassland, intensive or extensive, w and w/o agroforestry) Integrated Suckler Cow Optimisation Model (INTSCOPT). bio-economic farm model: a) Linking meat production with its environmental impact (GWP, GHG balance) assessment of nitrogen- and GHG-emissions ( according to IPCC) by considering agroforestry as a GHG-offset activitiy. bio-economic farm model: Linking meat production with its economic impact ( maximizing gross margin) outcome: compensation costs of agroforestry activities and its impact on meat price 6

7 Land-use without and with GHG-compensation Angus (8'400 kg meat) offset:152 t extensive agroforestry agroforestry intensive Galloway (6'250 kg meat) offset:127 t extensive agroforestry intensive agroforestry compensation path - Angus: agroforestry on extensive grassland agroforestry on intensive grassland combined with a substantial reduction of extensive grassland increasing agroforestry activities on intensive grassland combined with a reduction of meat production agroforestry area: 70% of the land compensation path - Galloway: agroforestry on extensive grassland agroforestry on intensive grassland combined with a small reduction in extensive grassland agroforestry area: 63% of the land 7

8 Compensation costs of on-farm agroforestry activities 1.5 CHF c) average cost curve: a) agroforestry on extensive grassland costs of Rp./kg meat b) agroforestry on intensive grassland o Rp./kg meat c) decreasing meat production (only angus) 1.5 CHF/kg meat 0.8 CHF a) a) b) b) Costs occur due to reduced grass yields ( lower meat production or higher forage costs), a loss in direct payments due to decreasing extensively managed grassland activities. 8

9 Impact of a «full compensation label» on the meat price Angus Galloway climate neutral suckler cow beef could be produced with a price-premium of about 1.0 to 1.5 CHF/kg meat thus, meat price would increase by max. 15% 9

10 Conclusions Model outcomes show that agroforestry systems allow for climate neutral beef production The cost of a 100%-compensation are around 1 to 1.5 CHF/kg meat. This would imply a meat price increase from 10% to 15%. Different studies show that consumers are willing to pay an extra amount for food with a lower carbon footprint (Bolwig and Gibbon 2009; Vanclay et al. 2010) This could be the case as well in Switzerland, because the Swiss population shows significant preferences for environment-friendly, low emission agriculture (Haller 2011) Climate neutral beef production by using agroforestry activities for the GHGcompensation seems to be a considerable opportunity for producers to i) label their meet, ii) to advance product differentiation and iii) to gain a price premium which might over-compensate their GHG-offset cost. 10

11 Literature Bolwig S, Gibbon P (2009) Counting Carbon in the Marketplace: Part I Overview Paper. Paper presented at the Global Forum on Trade and Climate Change, Paris 9 and 10 June 2009 Briner, S., Hartmann, M., Finger, R., Lehmann, B. (2012): Greenhouse gas mitigation and offset options for suckler cow farms: an economic comparison for the Swiss case. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2012) 17: Vanclay JK, Shortiss J, Aulsebrook S et al (2010) Customer response to carbon labelling of groceries. JConsum Policy. doi: /s

12 Questions Discussion 12