Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Leaders Engaged at COP28

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) will be well represented in the discussions around climate change at COP28.

The Conference of Parties (COP) is the main decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It brings together the 198 parties, including the European Union, that have signed the framework convention. The inaugural COP occurred in Berlin in 1995, and today, the COP secretariat is headquartered in Bonn, Germany. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is hosting COP 28 this year on Nov. 28-Dec. 12.

“I am pleased to be able to take the message from GRSB and our members that the beef sector is working on climate change; farmers, ranchers, and producers are on the front line of climate change and are heavily invested in finding solutions for both adaptation and doing their bit for mitigation,” said GRSB Executive Director, Ruaraidh Petre. “Livestock production is a key part of the overall food system, as important for human nutrition as it is to maintain healthy soils for crop production, we need to help policymakers understand the need for holistic solutions, not just one-liners and simplistic approaches to complex issues.”

Members of GRSB will be attending and participating in various events held as part of COP28.

“One of the most relevant issues at COP28 will be the definition of a major Global Adaptation Goal, whose progress is measurable, something that developing countries have always demanded. It is necessary to demand resources to ensure that climate change does not increase poverty and inequality gaps. Therefore, it is important to demand compliance with the commitment of developed countries to double climate financing for adaptation in 2025 compared to 2019 levels,” stated GRSB Latin America Regional Director, Josefina Eisele.

Join Petre and Eisele in Dubai as they contribute to the conversation around climate change and how the beef industry is contributing positively around the world:

December 8, 2023, 7:30-9 AM MST

UNFCCC Side Event: Farmer-Led Adaptation & Mitigation Measures Through Improved Global Livestock Sustainability

Speakers: Josefina Eisele, Regional Director, Latin America; Ruaraidh Petre, Executive Director

Event will focus on climate-smart livestock production, showcasing adaptation and mitigation approaches in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Oceania to increase livestock system and grassland resilience. The event will also discuss finance, targets and measurement of progress to improve sustainability.

December 9, 2023

Sustainable Agriculture of the Americas Pavilion: Accelerating the Achievement of NDCs Through Sustainable Livestock Management and Technologies in Grassland Ecosystems

Speaker: Josefina Eisele, Regional Director, Latin America

Event will showcase concrete examples of how sustainable livestock management and technologies can improve grassland ecosystems and strengthen grassland restoration and management, contributing to delivering on the commitments included in the NDCs. The event will bring together practitioners from Latin America and the Caribbean who will share their successful experiences and encourage replication and scaling up of existing practices across regions.

“Representing GRSB and Latin America at COP28 is a great pride and challenge at the same time. From the region, we need to make a collective effort so that the voice of Latin America is heard and for its leading role as a region of global solutions against climate change to be recognized. With six of the most biodiverse countries in the world, 40% of the biodiversity and more than 25% of the forests worldwide, Latin America and the Caribbean are essential to confront climate change,” said Eisele.

For a list of all the events GRSB will be engaged in, visit

To learn how to become a member or about GRSB’s sustainability goals, visit

European Regulation and its Actual Effect on Deforestation

From the desks of Josefina Eisele and Ruaraidh Petre

For Brazil, Europe currently represents only 1% of its exports; for Argentina, it is 13% (2020). Beyond the percentages, the prices that Europe pays for the types of cuts that they buy are attractive to most exporters and it is a market that they want to preserve and grow.

Personally, I do not think that the EUDR alone is going to solve the problem of deforestation. It has definitely created awareness and has led to discussions with an increasingly high level of knowledge about Deforestation, Degradation, and Conversion as well as definitions as to what are considered Forests and what are not, and this in itself is positive.

The EUDR has generated discussions on “environmental” traceability, beyond the already existing sanitary traceability for Europe. It has also started exchanges with local governments on access to data, information of origin, georeferencing, and the importance of public-private collaboration which has become evident since the Regulation falls on the private sector (exporters) but the origin (farm/production unit) and transportation data for the products generally come from public sources.

Technology has advanced a lot in recent times through BlockChain, satellites, and multiple applications and programs that allow faster access to information. I believe that this is the beginning of new directions for international and local trade to take. The need to provide information in a transparent and rapid manner is vital, not only in terms of deforestation or conversion, but also on emissions, human rights, health, and animal welfare, and type of production system such as grass-fed or feedlot beef. Consumers are increasingly aware of the issues and want to be informed on the origin of what they consume.

We already know that the EU regulations on deforestation will be followed with somewhat different requirements by the United Kingdom and the United States. Possibly, China will also have environmental requirements at some point, which is why it is important that we all prepare and collaborate between different institutions.

On the other hand, I believe it is essential that there be more discussion forums, where regions such as Latin America can bring their perspectives regarding the social and economic importance of livestock, and the impact that this region has on Climate Change and the problems that face the world today.

Happily, I see that there are multiple organizations that are working on sustainable livestock, the challenge is to collaborate among all and join efforts. With IICA we are achieving it, and that is a great step.

The COPs also represent a great opportunity, where we can all come together and carry a consensual message with data based on science.

I think there is still a lot to do, but I feel that we are on the right track. The challenge is not to slow down, but quite the opposite, to be more efficient and open to working together towards the same goal, improving the sustainability of livestock.


This month we hosted a webinar on the EU deforestation regulation and the ways to comply for the cattle industry. We were joined by Gert van der Bijl, Sr. EU Policy Advisor, Solidaridad; Charlotte Zandbergen, Chief Marketing Officer, Zandbergen World’s Finest Meat; Maria Eugenia Periago, Sustainable Management and Production Program Coordinator, Fundacion Vida Silvestre; and Fernando Sampaio, Sustainability Director, Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC).

From Gert van de Bijl of Solidaridad’s presentation, I understood that in terms of Europe’s deforestation ‘footprint’ beef is actually a small contributor, due in large part to existing controls on beef imports. So at the moment, the estimate is that beef imports represent around 3% of the deforestation that Europe is associated with through imports.

Other commodities are more significant, and some of them may not be on everyone’s radar. Rubber, for example, is actually one of the largest contributors to EU’s deforestation footprint. Others are likely much more familiar, including palm oil, soy and other crop commodities, and those can and are also involved in feed supply chains and therefore can also be implicated in livestock production.

From further conversations, it seems that as Europe has a deficit in beef production, and as Brazil is exporting a growing proportion of their beef (from a low of 20% to about 30% now) we would expect to see the 1% that they are currently sending to the EU grow in the future.

What EUDR will do is create a filter on that growth to make sure that it is deforestation-free. The assumption in Europe must be that this will lead to a decrease in deforestation, though I think that is less certain, unless others start using the same framework. Those others could include other importing regions such as the US.

China is the largest importer of Brazilian Beef, with the Middle East and Egypt below them. Rather than expecting those markets to impose deforestation conditions on imports, it is more likely that the finance sector could do so, which could end up having broader implications. If the finance sector adopts EUDR as a general requirement for investments covering commitments from countries with a perceived deforestation risk it could become very influential, in the way, for example, that SBTi is influential in climate impact.


LSQA becomes a member of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), demonstrating once again its commitment to sustainability

LSQA is proud to announce that it has been accepted as a member of the Global Table for Sustainable Meat (GRSB). This membership highlights the importance of LSQA as a key player in driving sustainability in the meat chain in the countries where it operates.

The GRSB is a global network of more than 100 members working collaboratively to promote sustainable meat production globally. The mission of this organization is to foster a more environmentally responsible, economically resilient and socially beneficial livestock industry.

The fundamental pillars of the GRSB include the protection and restoration of natural resources, respect for individuals and communities, animal health and welfare, the production of safe and quality food, and production with efficiency and innovation. These pillars are based on the understanding that responsible meat production must address a wide range of aspects to achieve an optimal balance between environmental conservation, animal welfare and social benefit.

In addition, the GRSB has set ambitious global goals that address the meat industry’s most pressing challenges. These targets include reducing the net impact of global warming generated by meat by 30% by 2030, as well as improving animal welfare through best practices, and ensuring that the meat value chain is a net positive contributor to nature.

One of the highlights of the GRSB is its focus on defining sustainability at the local level, recognizing that each country and context has its own unique priorities and challenges. This allows the lines of action to be adapted and relevant to each region, with the integration of local or regional tables. Along these lines, LSQA will promote, together with other members of the GRSB and local key actors, the creation of the Uruguayan Table of Sustainable Meat.

As a member of the GRSB, LSQA is committed to working collaboratively with other industry leaders, organizations and international experts to develop and implement sustainable practices in beef production in Uruguay and the world, as well as bringing the voice of the region to the Global Sustainable Meat Roundtable (GRSB). This reflects LSQA’s ongoing commitment to sustainability and creating a more responsible and resilient future for the meat chain.


LSQA se convierte en miembro de Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), demostrando una vez más su compromiso con la sostenibilidad.

LSQA se enorgullece en anunciar que ha sido aceptado como miembro de la Mesa Global para la Carne Sostenible (GRSB). Esta membresía destaca la importancia de LSQA como un actor clave en el impulso de la sostenibilidad en la cadena cárnica en los países donde opera.

La GRSB es una red mundial compuesta por más de 100 miembros que trabajan de manera colaborativa para promover la producción de carne sostenible a nivel global. La misión de esta organización es fomentar una industria ganadera más responsable con el medio ambiente, económicamente resiliente y socialmente beneficiosa.

Los pilares fundamentales de la GRSB incluyen la protección y restauración de los recursos naturales, el respeto por los individuos y las comunidades, la salud y el bienestar animal, la producción de alimentos inocuos y de calidad, y la producción con eficiencia e innovación. Estos pilares se basan en la comprensión de que una producción de carne responsable debe abordar una amplia gama de aspectos para lograr un equilibrio óptimo entre la conservación del medio ambiente, el bienestar animal y el beneficio social.

Además, la GRSB ha establecido metas globales ambiciosas que abordan los desafíos más apremiantes de la industria de la carne. Entre estas metas se encuentra la reducción del impacto neto del calentamiento global generado por la carne en un 30% al 2030, así como la mejora del bienestar animal a través de las mejores prácticas, y el aseguramiento de que la cadena de valor de la carne sea un contribuyente neto positivo para la naturaleza.

Uno de los aspectos destacados de la GRSB es su enfoque en definir la sostenibilidad a nivel local, reconociendo que cada país y contexto tiene sus propias prioridades y desafíos únicos. Esto permite que las líneas de acción se adapten y sean relevantes para cada región, con la integración de mesas locales o regionales. En esta línea, LSQA promoverá, junto a otros miembros de la GRSB y actores clave locales, la creación de la Mesa Uruguaya de la Carne Sostenible.

Como miembro de la GRSB, LSQA se compromete a trabajar en colaboración con otros líderes de la industria, organizaciones y expertos internacionales para desarrollar e implementar prácticas sostenibles en la producción de carne vacuna en Uruguay y el mundo, así como a llevar la voz de la región a la Mesa Global de la Carne Sostenible (GRSB). Esto refleja el compromiso continuo de LSQA con la sostenibilidad y con la creación de un futuro más responsable y resiliente para la cadena cárnica.

Carbon Tunnel Vision

It’s likely that everyone has heard the phrase “Carbon tunnel vision” in the last year or two and some of us, myself included, have used it when talking about sustainability. I was being a bit flippant when I used it a couple of times earlier this year during presentations, but I have been reflecting on its meaning recently and think it requires a bit more exploration, because it underlines different people’s attitudes as well as telling us a bit about the sort of work they might do.

So what do people mean when they talk about Carbon tunnel vision? Here’s an example from the Stockholm Environment Institute: “Some oil and gas companies have begun to market their products as “clean” or “carbon neutral”. Such tactics are greenwashing at best and dangerous at worst. Not only has investigation after investigation exposed the carbon offset industry as highly unreliable, these company narratives create a distraction from the fact that we need to transition away from fossil fuels now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.” So their concern is that by focusing on the idea of it being possible to net out emissions, we are missing the point that fossil fuel emissions are not actually cancelled by such an approach. Anything we can be doing to sequester carbon should not be netting out new emissions, it should be locking up legacy emissions. I feel that this is a good use of the term, because it is saying that supposedly “balancing the Carbon books” is more a road to perdition than a good intention. They reproduced this image by Jan Konietzko of Cognizant to emphasise all of the negative impacts of burning fossil fuels that are not primarily related to Carbon. It’s important that companies look more broadly than just balancing carbon when designing their sustainability strategies.

Many others have written on the subject since SEI, mostly with similar points to make; but more recently I have heard people in more practical roles, particularly in agriculture, using the “C tunnel vision” phrase and I sense that they are using it slightly differently. When I hear some people use the phrase, I sense that they are saying that not only are there other things to worry about, but also that Carbon is really not their concern. There are a few reasons for adopting that attitude, some I think better than others.

One reason, is that there are still many in farming and ranching who really do not think that their activities have contributed in any significant way to climate change. This view tends to be supported by those who emphasise the limited contribution of for example, direct enteric emissions, to climate change. There is some logic to this, because the percentage of overall emissions that comes from enteric emissions is small in relation to the total, and the question of their contribution to warming depends on which metric you use. However, I think everyone now agrees that climate change is caused by human activity and therefore, even if you don’t think your activity contributes hugely, it would make sense to do at least your “bit”.  Then there are those who recognise the importance of climate change, but do not think that there is very much that they can do about it, and that most of their sustainability work is much more important to their operation than an individual focus on emissions for example. Again, I can see the logic on this, because for most producers adaptation is going to be a primary concern, while everyone needs to eat and will continue to do so, so productivity and efficiency are also priorities. In this case, I would add that many of the things that contribute to adaptation, productivity and efficiency, are also capable of contributing to mitigating climate change.

Maybe more importantly though, is the fact that people doing practical work find abstract talk about carbon frustrating. This is particularly true if the carbon they are supposed to be controlling is in the form of methane which they cannot even see or measure. On the other hand, people involved in desk based jobs tend to like to simplify things to abstracts, and of course accounting is bread and butter to many such roles. And so it is that while practical people see Carbon as overly simplistic and possibly just a distraction, the more theoretical people, including policy makers etc, think it is a useful way to bring order to the chaos of an overly complex world. So rather than seeing carbon as a tunnel through which they view the world, they believe they are seeing the world through a “prism” that helps them account for many issues using one element.

While that is a pretty facile distinction between two caricatures, I think it might help us when we are talking to different audiences. We have previously talked in our communications summit about tailoring the message to the audience, and that does not just mean the story we are telling, but the way in which we do so. Talking about carbon might be great for a room of policy makers or bankers, but a group of cattle producers are probably going to be more interested in talking about cattle, calving intervals, weaning weights, or grass, or water. Unless you’re paying for carbon of course; but then we get back to the whole balancing the books discussion we started this with, and the difference between insetting and offsetting.

To finish up – we have a Climate Goal, not a Carbon goal, and for some of our members that feels too abstract. I’d encourage all of us to think about how to make some of the abstracts we talk about more concrete, more real for all of our members, because when we all understand how those abstract things relate to our practical work, we are much more motivated to deliver on them.


Ruaraidh Petre, GRSB Executive Director

GRSB Featured on TopSoil Podcast

Ruaraidh Petre, Executive Director of GRSB was recently featured on the podcast TopSoil. Petre and Mitchell Hora discussed different types of regenerative grazing and how the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef began. To listen to the podcast, click here.

New Partnerships around Farm-Level Data and Sustainability

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), an organization dedicated to reducing the net global warming impact of beef, announces AgriWebb as their newest partnership in beef sustainability. 

AgriWebb is the creator of world’s leading digital livestock management software, with more than 20% of all grazing animals in Australia under management and trusted by 16,000+ producers across 16 countries to help them manage their livestock, land and business operations all in one place.

 “AgriWebb’s mission has always been to equip the livestock industry with a solution that helps farmers and ranchers feed the world more successfully and more sustainably. By joining the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, we are taking another step towards accomplishing our mission, and better yet, doing so alongside like-minded organizations and experts,” says Kevin Baum, CEO and Co-Founder of AgriWebb.

Most recently, AgriWebb has formalized sustainability-focused partnerships with industry leaders Cargill Animal Nutrition and Health, Regrow Ag and Leading Harvest, and is partnering with Indigo Ag and Trimble on two Climate Smart Commodity grants. 

“We look forward to collaborating with producers, environmental groups, and stakeholders across the beef supply chain, bringing to the table tools that support the beef industry in achieving its carbon goals while also supporting its producers throughout their sustainability journey, ensuring that their businesses thrive, and profits grow,” he added.

GRSB and AgriWebb are eager to join forces in working towards reducing the net global warming impact of beef by 30 percent by 2030. By joining GRSB, AgriWebb is the sole solution connecting high-quality data with MRV platforms globally. Together, GRSB and AgriWebb plan to provide more resources to help producers manage their livestock in more sustainable practices. These practices include the three tiers of GRSB’s sustainability goals: animal health and welfare, climate, and nature positive production. 

“With only 7 years for corporations to achieve ambitious 2030 climate targets, our AgriWebb team is thrilled to join forces with the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef to reduce corporate scope 3 emissions,” says Nicole Buckley Biggs Ph.D., Director of Sustainability at AgriWebb. “AgriWebb’s role in Net Zero centers around the tracking of high quality, farm-level data, and providing the decision support tools that producers need day-to-day on their sustainability journey.”

AgriWebb joins over 100 other global businesses, such as Datamars, Woolworths, and Acceligen, that are committed to beef sustainability. To learn how to become a member or about GRSB’s sustainability goals, visit

Regenerative Grazing & Its Range of Practices

The first meeting that led to the foundation of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef was held in 2010. I think it is fair to say that at that time, top of mind for many of our founding members was the impact of the beef industry on tropical forests.

Deforestation was in the headlines then, as it still is today. There was less awareness of climate change as a global issue, and it was certainly less connected to food production than it is today.

The quandary facing us now is that we know the beef industry does not have to have a negative impact on climate or biodiversity, but that it often does.

We also know that climate and biodiversity are inextricably linked when it comes to the conversion of forests or native grasslands for pasture or feed production.

Our Hot Topic Discussion in March focused on the use of the term regenerative and its relation to Nature Positive Production. We heard several examples of how a range of practices can contribute to improved performance, biodiversity and reduced climate impact.

We know that livestock production systems in many parts of the globe are reservoirs of biodiversity, providing valuable mixed use habitat for wildlife alongside food production.

In Canada for example, cattle production is approximately 33% of Canada’s total agricultural land, YET it provides two-thirds (68%) of the wildlife habitat capacity. Those same ranches store a phenomenal amount of carbon in the soil and contribute to a healthy ecosystem. They are part of a climate and biodiversity positive food system.

We must be careful however, not to imply that all cattle production systems are climate and biodiversity positive. Management is critical to both outcomes, and it seems that often management that benefits biodiversity also benefits climate, as demonstrated in the film series “Roots So Deep” and the associated published research.

Adoption of systems that benefit climate and biodiversity is therefore one of the tools that we can encourage in order to help us meet our global climate and nature positive goals. The direct relationship between national roundtables and the cattle sectors in their countries is the mechanism that can deliver context relevant change.

In the calls for a reduction of global livestock numbers, we frequently see land take and the associated emissions cited as the reason for requiring a change. Encouraging systems that increase biodiversity, such as silvopastoral systems, where appropriate, is one strategy to meet our goal.

We should also take baseline emissions scenarios into account as compared to livestock grazing or mixed livestock and wildlife. This recent paper shows that emissions from wildlife can be equivalent to those from livestock, and that the loss in food production by removing livestock would not automatically yield any climate benefits.

Since livestock grazing systems also provide more wildlife habitat than croplands, it seems fair to conclude that in biodiversity, food security and climate terms, livestock production provides a useful compromise in many geographies when managed well.

There are a variety of actors that can lever change. While there is a lot of talk about carbon or biodiversity offsets that could earn producers extra money, I personally believe that we should be focusing more on insets. I cannot see the logic of selling the credit for your own good work to an organisation that continues to pollute with impunity, and thus losing the ability to make a claim about your own sustainability.

To make insets work, we need the whole value chain, including the financiers, to be involved in a system that rewards producers for the gains they make. Since many large corporations have made commitments that require reporting on scope 3 emissions, insetting is a rational choice. They will have to understand the emissions in their supply chain, anyway, and developing positive relationships with suppliers makes good business sense.

Furthermore, this leads to positive change that can make the supply chain itself more resilient, rather than outsourcing a solution to external parties.


Ruaraidh Petre, GRSB Executive Director


GRSB Featured on Ash Cloud Podcast

Ruaraidh Petre, Executive Director of GRSB was recently featured on the podcast Ash Cloud. Petre and Ash Sweeting discussed creating positive climate impact on the vast landmass under beef production. To listen to the podcast, click here.

To view the transcript, click here.

Animal Health and Welfare: Pain Mitigation

Since GRSB was founded, we have had a focus on animal welfare; see our Principle on Animal Health & Welfare and our goal to provide cattle with good quality of life and an environment where they can thrive. As such, we have recognised animal welfare as being one of the key areas of sustainability for the beef industry. Not only is welfare a key issue in the ethics and the societal acceptance of beef production, but it is instrumental in other aspects of sustainability, including the use of natural resources, emissions and efficiency, as well as farmer livelihoods.

In both our P&C and our Goal, we reference the World Organisation for Animal Health’s (WOAH) terrestrial code for beef cattle welfare; while WOAH is the global organisation for animal health and welfare, there are a wide range of challenges posed by different production systems, regions, breeds and categories of animals.  Social stress related to stocking density is more likely in highly intensive systems, whereas extensive systems may expose beef cattle to predation risk, parasites or fluctuations in feed availability while hot climates are more likely to lead to heat stress. Different breeds may also have varying susceptibility to heat stress or disease while different categories of animals require different management. Solutions tailored to each context are needed to address their challenges and optimize beef cattle welfare.

Measurement of welfare presents its own challenges. Animal welfare audits tend to focus on resources, e.g. the facilities, equipment and management practices on farms. However, these audits don’t measure direct outcomes for the animals. Animal-based indicators that cover behaviour, physiology, health, hygiene, locomotion and body condition scores aim to provide more objective information on how the animals are coping with their environment and management.

While animal-based measures are the most direct way to determine welfare, they do require observation and even with sampling methodologies e.g. Welfare Quality® Assessment, this presents a challenge to move to scale. A combination of animal and resource based measures presents a way to set and measure targets. We know, for example, that transport and handling are stressful for cattle, leading to compromised immunity. Both preconditioning and personnel training in low stress handling can improve outcomes. We also know that the adoption of pain mitigation (anaesthetics or analgesics) improves outcomes for cattle undergoing painful procedures such as castration or dehorning, so this is a clear positive action handlers can take.

The Australian Beef Sustainability Framework, in line with the national red meat industry, aspires to 100% use of pain relief in unavoidable aversive procedures by 2030. Similarly, the European Roundtable on Beef Sustainability has a target for the use of pain relief for all surgical procedures, and all forms of castration, dehorning and disbudding. The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef also has set a target to utilise practices that support animal welfare such as breed selection, polled (no horned) animals and pain relief. The challenge is that not all countries have registered products for pain mitigation in cattle. The US has no products for on-label use in cattle. The USRSB has a target that cow calf operations, transporters and lot feeders have BQA certification.

A logical alternative to the pain of dehorning is to breed polled cattle, and while this cannot be achieved overnight and may not be an option for everyone, GRSB member AACo in Australia has set a target to introduce the poll gene throughout their herd, and has already reached 25%. At the same time, AACo is working with key industry partners to develop an internationally recognised AHW certification standard for extensive beef production by 2024.

GRSB processor members are the next link in the chain after producers and also play a key role in cattle welfare, and just as producers are committed to good welfare, processors are also striving to achieve high standards. Cargill is recognised for their commitment to animal welfare by the Business Benchmark for Animal Welfare (BBFAW ) in Tier 2. JBS has developed a global scorecard with 19 indicators, developed against the five freedoms of animal welfare, which is being implemented across all of their operations. Similarly Tyson uses the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework across its global operations and introduced the Tyson Foods FarmCheck® program to audit welfare on farm.

GRSB’s working group on Animal Welfare will be identifying more practical projects we can support to achieve our goal of providing cattle with a life worth living in an environment in which they can thrive over the coming years, as well as collecting more data on the achievements of our members in this area.


Ruardiah Petre, Executive Director

Ceres Tag joins Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

Ceres Tag, the world’s first direct to satellite livestock monitoring platform has joined the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB).

At Ceres Tag we believe change needs to happen to enable a sustainable future and with the other members of GRSB, we believe that beef can be a sustainable of protein for the world – however beef does have challenges to overcome in biosecurity, deforest free supply chains, methane emissions and other information often misrepresented public discourse.

Ceres Tag joined GRSB to assist members in providing the compliance evidence to automate reporting on the sustainability and ESG. These credentials are the key for unlocking the potential for the Red Meat industry to provide highly nutritious protein that consumers can feel good about consuming.  The ability of Ceres Tag to provide beef producers with automated certified data on location, welfare and sustainable use of land delivered via satellite for each individual animal during it’s life is an important piece of GRSB partnerships.

Ceres Tag is the only automated, unlimited range, sickness detection and contact tracing platform, requiring no towers or cell coverage. Should a biosecurity incursion occur of national significance, Ceres Tag products and data history are able to provide the information to simulate the extent of the incursion. This has the potential to save millions of animals from unnecessary culling and enable professionals to make fast and accurate decisions on the most appropriate management process to control and eradicate the necessary animals.  A solution that could thereby improve the impact on animal welfare, environmental devastation, and the profound economic and social impact that results.

Recent announcement by the EU Community to ensure deforest free supply chains can also be addressed by the automated Ceres Tag data. Simple recording of location coordinates is a standard part of a Ceres Tag data packet on every Ceres Tag and occurs in any location and for any supply chain ownership link that the animal may be in during its lifetime without the risk created by human manual input error.

However, for Ceres Tag, it is the soon to be released Pasture Feed Intake to measure; daily pasture intake, daily methane emissions, feed efficiency and phenotype traits for genetic selection that has the potential to have a significant impact all over the globe and to provide credible evidence, to back the sustainable production statements made about beef production which the GRSB members are also aligned. This automated, auditable, compliance evidence will enable producers of beef to have the confidence to represent their product with truth and integrity.

Ceres Tag is the 21st Century traceability and sustainability partner for the beef industry.