This is a good summary concluding, "UK beef is.... much better than the global average. However, it is still very high in emissions compared to pork, chicken and eggs. Also it is terrible compared to plant protein sources such as beans and lentils. "
As someone who's kind of involved with agricultural people (through the heritage goose conservation project) I do sometimes feel that claims about the benefits of eating locally produced animal products don't stack up as well as advocates suggest.
For one thing, the fact that Europe chopped down forest for pasture long ago doesn't give us much moral high ground re: deforestation. The reason why land use change isn't included in most carbon trading schemes is that it benefits those who already exploited their resources.
This is also a major reason not to allow rotational grazing/ soil sequestration to count as CO2 reduction. Two family farms side by side, one has overgrazed and degraded the land and the other hasn't: guess which would be able to claim CO2 benefits from changing their processes.
There's also the belief that our farmer neighbours must be the good guys adopting best practice, and the harm done to the climate by agriculture must be by Bad Foreigners in Other Places. Which is... an assumption worth questioning on an individual product basis.
I'm also unclear as to why enteric fermentation by cows in Europe is apparently much less CO2e emitting than elsewhere - if anyone knows, tell me. (Better land, more intensively bred stock used so more productive?)
