Decapitalization of the Cattle Industry: Good or Bad News for the Climate?

The decline in the size of dairy and suckler herds is a long-term trend. Over the past 7 years, the French dairy herd has decreased by 409,000 head to 3.37 million dairy cows, and the French suckler herd has decreased by 564,000 head to 3.47 million suckler cows as of December 2023^[1].

This decline in the number of head of cattle is due in part to demographic factors. The 2020 General Agricultural Census indicates that 52% of beef cattle farms were run by a farmer aged 55 or older, 49% of mixed cattle farms, and 45% of dairy cattle farms.

Replacing departing farmers and expanding dairy operations are not enough to offset the closures. In fact, the sector lacks appeal (particularly for women and those outside the family farm system), and the average number of cows per farm has leveled off since 2022.

This situation, which is challenging from an economic and social standpoint for the livestock sector, might at first glance appear to be beneficial for France’s climate commitments. Indeed, while cattle farming accounted for 37.7 million metric tons of CO2e in 2021 (representing 9% of France’s domestic emissions), France’s carbon neutrality targets for 2050 call for a 25% reduction in emissions from dairy cattle and a 33% reduction in emissions from beef cattle. Although this is a target for reducing emissions and not for reducing herd size, it must be acknowledged that this reduction in the size of the cattle herd contributes to lower emissions, as evidenced by the 2.2% decrease observed between 2020 and 2021.

Does the current decline in France's livestock population actually help mitigate climate change? It's not quite that simple.

The decline in consumption does not match the decline in livestock numbers; this gap is offset by an increase in imports

With regard to meat, the table below shows that the number of animals slaughtered decreased by 9.5% from 2020 to 2023, while beef consumption decreased by only 3.4%. The decline in French beef production is thus offset by a decrease in beef exports and an increase in beef imports.

According to FranceAgriMer, imports in 2021 came mainly from the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, and Poland (these five countries accounted for three-quarters of the volume of beef imported in 2021). However, the decline in the livestock population is also occurring across the European Union (-6% in slaughter numbers between 2020 and 2023 in the EU-27).

Against this backdrop, imports from third countries are on the rise; European imports from the United States and Canada increased by 3%, and Argentina is supplying 7% more meat than in 2022^[2], and Brazil's exports to the EU have increased by 15%. However, emissions from beef production in these countries are higher than those from European beef production (due in particular to the land-use changes associated with these production methods)^[3].

As for milk, the increase in milk production in recent years no longer offsets the decline in the dairy herd; Milk production has declined by 3.8% over the past two years (as shown in the table below):

The decline in milk production from 2022 to 2023 was 2.7%. However, according to FranceAgriMer, consumption of all dairy products combined (milk, cream, cheese, etc.) from 2021 to 2022 decreased by 2.3%. The balance between production and consumption is better maintained for dairy products.^[4].

Thus, the reduction in the cattle herd—if not accompanied by a decline in consumption, as is currently the case with meat—is far from guaranteeing a reduction in emissions on a global scale and undermines our food sovereignty, as well as our ability to better manage the decarbonization of our consumption.

The end of cattle ranching poses a threat to the carbon stored in grasslands

Furthermore, the cessation of livestock farming on a farm can lead to a change in land use from permanent or temporary grassland to arable land (even though the CAP or certain programs such as Natura 2000 prohibit this change on the oldest grasslands). This land-use change can have multiple consequences for biodiversity and water quality, as well as for the climate through significant carbon release.

The rates of carbon sequestration and release resulting from changes in land use are phenomena that occur over long periods of time. The graph below shows that converting grassland to cropland results in just as much carbon loss over the first 20 years as converting forest to cropland. Furthermore, the rate of carbon loss over a 20-year period is twice as fast as the rate of carbon sequestration. Therefore, the conversion from cropland to grassland or forest does not, over the first 20 years, offset the loss of soil carbon storage associated with the shift from extensive livestock farming to arable farming.

Consequently, the decline in livestock numbers leads to a reduction in grassland area, and this trend is not easily reversible.

According to the High Council for Climate, 8 million metric tons of CO2e were emitted in 2021 as a result of land-use changes for agricultural purposes; some of these changes involved converting grassland to cropland.

The decline in livestock numbers is reducing the amount of manure and slurry available in France

Cattle farming produces manure and slurry, which are rich organic fertilizers for crops with an optimal C/N ratio for the vast majority of crops, helping to enrich the soil with organic matter. A decline in supply, resulting from a reduction in livestock numbers, is in practice offset by mineral fertilizers, the production of which requires energy. However, nearly three-quarters of the mineral fertilizers consumed in France are imported, thereby increasing our energy and economic dependence.^[5].

Furthermore, emissions from mineral fertilizers are, on average, higher per kilogram of nitrogen applied than those from organic fertilizers, as shown in the graph below. While these figures should be interpreted with caution given the uncertainties associated with the carbon impact of fertilizers, it is well established that field emissions (of N2O) are lower.

On the other hand, this manure and slurry are necessary to operate the anaerobic digesters, which are becoming increasingly numerous throughout France. In fact, the agricultural anaerobic digestion sector in France has nearly doubled the number of its facilities in just a few years, rising from nearly 500 to nearly 1,000 plants between 2019 and 2022, thereby reducing our dependence on fossil gas imports. The potential feedstock supply for these biogas plants will therefore change in line with the decline in the cattle herd.

Slaughterhouses are seeing their sourcing distances increase as livestock numbers decline

Finally, since the decline in capital has been a long-term trend, the impact on slaughterhouse capacity has already been felt for several years. This decline in capacity, coupled with rising energy prices, is having a significant impact on slaughterhouses, particularly the most vulnerable ones. It is primarily the smallest slaughterhouses that are at risk of closing.

The supply distances for the remaining largest slaughterhouses will therefore increase, leading to more live animal transport, which will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and increased stress for the animals being transported.

The impact of decapitalization on the climate is therefore much more complex than it seems

In conclusion, it is very difficult to assert that the decline in livestock numbers leads to an actual reduction in France’s emissions under current conditions, as the consequences are varied and contradictory.

The indirect effects of the decapitalization of the cattle industry do not call into question the need to plan for the future of France’s cattle herd, given the sector’s emission reduction targets set by the SNBC; a 25% reduction in emissions from dairy cattle and a 33% reduction in emissions from suckler cows between 2015 and 2050.

However, these objectives must be achieved by reconciling an agricultural strategy with a food strategy (and not by reducing livestock numbers as is currently being done). It is necessary to plan these two strategies collectively, ensuring that not only farmers and manufacturers but also customers—namely, retailers, restaurant owners, and consumers—are brought on board.

It would be interesting to build on this collaboration with a more in-depth analysis comparing several scenarios consistent with the SNBC (drastic reduction in livestock numbers, moderate reduction, and the use of innovations such as anti-methane additives, etc.). If you are interested in collaborating with Carbone 4 on this topic, contact the Agriculture & Agri-Food Division team!