Grignon Energie Positive: An innovative ecological intensification project for society and the planet.

An innovative ecological intensification project for society and the planet.

« La mission de l’humanité, c’est de transformer l’énergie solaire en conscience. » (Humanity’s mission is to transform solar energy into awareness.)

Patrick Viveret, French philosopher

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION to the Grignon Energie Positive

programme............................................ page 1 Origins and context of the programme............................ page 2

A multi-party project ................................................. page 3

Presentation of the Grignon farm .................................. page 4

ASSESSING the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions

and greenhouse gas emissions ..................... page 5 Our sustainability ambition and goals: The “3 Ps” hat trick .. page 6

Results of the 1st carbon and energy assessment of the farm

in 2006 ................................................................. page 7

Results put into perspective ........................................ page 8

Precise environmental accounting ................................ page 9

MEASURING the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions

and greenhouse gas emissions ................... page 10 Measuring crops’ nitrous oxide emissions ........................ page 11

Measuring cows’ enteric methane emissions .................... page 12

REDUCING the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions

and greenhouse gas emissions ................... page 13 Adapting the production system .................................. page 14

A distinct improvement in the energetic and carbon

performance of milk production ................................. page 15

More mitigated results for cash crops ........................... page 16

An example of innovation: Chaff harvest ...................... page 17

The production of renewable energy with miscanthus ....... page 18

The production of renewable energy using

biomethanization and photovoltaic .............................. page 19

Beyond fossil fuel and greenhouse gas .......................... page 20

INFORMING the professionals, the general public and

the future generation ............................. page 21 Communicating positively towards the professionals ......... page 22

An innovative way of communicating to the

general public ........................................................ page 23

Introduction to the Grignon Energie Positive programme

Page 1

Origins and context of the programme

Measuring Reducing Introduction Assessing

Page 2

Informing

It is time to take action, to show that a both productive and sustainable agriculture is possible.


society

A multi-party project

AgroParisTech, Europe’s leading Institute of research, education and technology for Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences.

Private and public partners.

Board of directors: Olivier Lapierre (Director of Céréopa and Professor at AgroParisTech), Thierry Doré (Professor at AgroParisTech and researcher at INRA*), Bernard de Franssu (Director of the Grignon Farm).

Operations team: Marion Barral (Communications Project Manager), Dominique Tristant (Technical Project Manager), Sophie Carton, Yves Python (Project Executives).

Scientific board: Philippe Schmidely (Researcher in animal nutrition), Benoît Gabrielle (Researcher in crop production), Jean-Pierre Henry (Researcher in ecology), Thierry Bonaudo (Researcher in animal production).

The Grignon Energie Positive programme (GE+) takes place at AgroParistech’s experimental farm near Paris, in partnership with private and public companies.

Céréopa, consultancy arm of AgroParisTech with high expertise in economic and environmental modelling and assessment of agro-food systems.

The experimental farm at Grignon, used by researchers and students to experiment with new technologies in order to meet key issues in agriculture.

Measuring Reducing Introduction Assessing Informing


Page 3

* INRA: French institute for agronomic research

Presentation of the Grignon farm

CATTLE 120 dairy cows > 1,2 million L milk/year.

500 meat ewes.

DIRECT SELLING

Shop on the farm.

EDUCATION 10 000 visitors/year: schools, students, general public, professionals.

PROCESSING AND CONDITIONNING Bottled milk, yoghurts and cream.

CROPS Cereals, fodder crops, grassland, energetic crops.


LOCATION 40 km South-West from Paris. 546 hectares.


The Grignon farm benefits from an exceptional scientific environment. INRA (French institute for agronomic research) researchers and AgroParisTech students experiment all year long with innovative solutions that will be part of tomorrow’s agriculture. The diversity of the Grignon farm enables the study of different productions and their complex interactions. Consisting of three parts separated by up to 30 km, the farm offers a unique opportunity to study the environmental impacts of farming practices in different areas. With its cows producing 10,000 litres of milk/year and wheat yields reaching 9 tons/ha in 2008, it is a showcase for a both productive and environmentally performing agriculture using the means of ecological intensification. In addition to that, the production of yoghurts, milk and cream on the farm enables the study of the environmental impacts of whole food chains, instead of being limited to the farm boundaries. Last but not least, its location on the outskirts of Paris makes it a life-size educational tool for the general public and schools.

Page 4

Assessing the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions

Page 5



The performance triangle

In Grignon we believe that environmental performance must rhyme with economic performance to be legitimate. In terms of environmental performance, our objective is to reduce the farm's carbon emissions as much as possible through agronomic means and to compensate locally (on the farm and its surroundings) the emissions we cannot eliminate. We also aim at becoming a positive energy farm, that is to say a farm that produces more energy than it actually consumes. Therefore we will be able to produce energy for society. But we also think that progress towards environmental sustainability should not disengage agriculture from production. The recent hunger crisis and the world demographic growth are signals of a future where food scarcity in both developing and developed countries will be a major issue in the forthcoming decades. Therefore we believe that the first mission of agriculture should always be to produce food.

Our sustainability ambition and goals: The “3 P's” hat trick

PerfAgroP3, a simulation tool to assess the “3 P's” at the scale of a farm

PerfAgroP3 models all the different types of productions of the farm and their interactions. It enables the assessment of different technical solutions and their impacts on profit (economic margin), fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and food production (calories and proteins).

Page 6

Example: Simulation with PerfAgroP3 of the introduction of three different solutions on the Grignon farm



Results of the 1st carbon and energy assessment of the farm in 2006

The fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions assessment of the farm was done in 2006, with the farm data from 2005 and the bilan Planète

methodology and references.

This study gave the following results:

17 millions MJ fossil fuel consumption, which is the equivalent of the average consumption of

100 persons ;

2,600 tons CO2 -eq, which corresponds to the

emissions of 440 persons.

Page 7

http://www.solagro.org/site/256.html



Results put into perspective...

These figures correspond to:

The fossil fuel consumption of 100 persons ;

The greenhouse gas emissions of 440 persons.

The Grignon farms feeds:

7,500 persons (proteins*) ;

9,500 persons (calories*).

*Calculated using FAO nutritional references.

Page 8



Precise environmental accounting In order to improve our assessments, we have developed the environmental performance dashboard. This original tool traces all the incoming and outgoing flows on the farm. It is made of

three modules:

1 The "references" module: It is made of all the impact coefficients that we use for our assessments. They come from different scientific sources and are regularly updated.

2 The "flows" module: It contains the monthly data of the energy and matter flows of the farm.

3 The "crop management system" module: It contains all the technical information about the crop management on the farm.

The outputs of the environmental performance

dashboard are:

Crops: MJ or kg CO2 per ton and per ha.

Cowshed: MJ or kg CO2 per L of milk and per kg of meat.

Sheepfold and dairy: MJ or kg CO2 per € of activity

turnover or per kg of final product.

Page 9

Measuring the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions

Page 10

Reducing Introduction Assessing Informing

An innovative ecological intensification project for society and the planet. Measuring

Measuring crops' nitrous oxide emissions Due to the lack of reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions, a system enabling the measurement of crops' nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions was set up in Grignon.

Experimental protocol:

A hermetic chamber is laid on the ground.

Three air samples are made while N2O is accumulating in the chamber.

N2O emitted by the soil is trapped in the chamber. Its concentration grows with time.

The samples are analysed in order to determine the N2O concentration.

The concentration gradient indicates the soil N2O emissions dynamic.

Time

Concentration

Gradient

First results : The first results of the N2O emissions measurements on different crops in the Grignon farm are coherent with the IPCC and INRA (French institute for agronomic research) bibliography data.

Alfafa 2008 Alfafa 2009

Maize 2008 Spring barley 2009

Switchgrass 2008 Switchgrass 2009

Miscanthus 2008 Miscanthus 2009

Meadow 2008 Meadow 2009

Wheat 2008 Winter barley 2009

Winter barley 2008 Maize 2009

Wheat 2009

Crops

Forest

Chambers

N20 (%) in total nitrogen loss Page 11

Reducing Introduction Assessing Informing

An innovative ecological intensification project for society and the planet. Measuring

Measuring cows’ enteric methane emissions Over the last few months we have been testing equipment designed for the measurement of cows’ enteric methane emissions. This equipment is now fully operational. Coupled with a system that measures cows’ individual daily feed ingestion, it offers the opportunity to test the effect of different diets on cows’ enteric methane emissions.

Illustrations:

The method we have selected consists of the measurement of enteric CH4 emissions using a trace gas, SF6. This method was developed by an American research team and its reliability is now recognised by the scientific community. Methodology:

1. The animal ingests a capsule (picture 1) that emits SF6 with a continuous flow. SF6 is a greenhouse gas also referred to as "sulphur hexafluoride". Its global warming potential is 22,800 times that of CO2 when compared over a 100 year period. Once located in the cow’s rumen, the

capsule remains active for 4 to 6 months.

2. A PVC vacuum tube (picture 2) is fixed around the cow’s

neck.

3. The tube is then connected to a capillary tube (3a). This capillary tube reaches a filter located just above the cow’s nostrils (3b). The depression effect sucks in the gas eructed by the animal (blue arrow). After 24 hours, the air sample contained in the PVC tube is collected and is then

analysed to determine the SF6 and CH4 concentrations.

The first cattle feed trials are not complete yet, hence the results cannot be communicated at this stage of research.

Page 12

Reducing the Grignon farm fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions

Page 13

Keeping a high production level

> to maximise the efficiency of all the

resources put into the production system (cattle feed, electricity for the cowshed and the milking machine, etc.).

More grazing for non-productive cows

> to take advantage of a low-energy

feed when the cows' nutritional needs are lower.

Introduction of more legumes in the crop rotation

> to reduce the use of fertilizers

> to produce more forage for the cattle.

Increase in cattle feed energetic density with products like rape cake (which fat also has the ability to reduce cows’ enteric methane emissions).

Test (3 ha) of energetic crops (switchgrass and miscanthus)

> to produce renewable

energy.

Minimal soil work whenever possible

> to improve carbon soil storage

> to reduce the energetic cost of

mechanization and more specifically of soil work.

Cereal chaff harvest

> to reduce weeding

(see page 16)

> to facilitate the

implementation of minimal soil work.

After the initial carbon and energy assessment, different technical solutions were simulated with PerfAgroP3 (see page 6). The most efficient of them were selected and have been implemented on the farm since 2007.

Introduction Assessing Informing

An innovative ecological intensification project for society and the planet. Measuring Reducing

Adapting the production system

Page 14

- 40% fossil fuel consumption

-17% greenhouse gas

emissions

Consommations énergétiques (MJ / yaourt)

2006 2008

Etapes agricoles* 0,56 0,41

Fabrication 0,62 0,62

Emballages et services extérieurs

0,64 0,64

Total 1,82 1,67

Emissions de gaz à effet de serre (g.éq.CO2 / yaourt)

2006 2008

Etapes agricoles* 114 96

Fabrication 18 18

Emballages et services extérieurs

41 41

Total 173 155

* catégorie comprenant la production du lait à Grignon sur place et les étapes agricoles de la poudre de lait incorporée au yaourt

The peak in August 2007 and the trough in August 2008 are due to the time-lag of effluents spreading from one year to another. During the 12 months preceding August 2007, there was only one effluent spreading whereas there were three during the 12 months preceding August 2008. Please note that effluents are counted as negative in our environmental assessments because their impacts are attributed to the crops that use them as fertilizers.



A distinct improvement in the energetic and carbon performance of milk production

Others

Cattle feed

Effluents transfer (eq. chemical NPK)

The path to progress

The improvement of the Grignon yogurt fossil fuel and carbon profile

An efficiency gained through cattle feed optimization

Fossil fuel consumptions (MJ/yoghurt)

Greenhouse gas emissions (g CO2 eq. /yoghurt)

Agricultural stages*

Processing

Packaging and external services

Agricultural stages*

Processing

Packaging and external services

* Item includes milk production at the Grignon farm and agricultural stages that are necessary to produce the milk powder that is added to the yoghurts.

Page 15

The global greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumptions of crops have increased over the last three years. This is due to a very favourable winter in 2006 with good soil mineralisation and as a consequence, very little

fertilizer use in 2007.



More mitigated results for cash crops

Page 16

Fo

ssil

fuel

co

nsu

mp

tio

n

(GJo

ule

s/ye

ar)

Glo

bal w

armin

g in

dex

(ton

s CO

2 /year)

Graph. 1

Number of persons fed (calories)

Number of persons fed (proteins)

+21%

+34%

Graph. 2

Fossil fuel Greenhouse gas

Environmental costs structure of cash crops

Others

Machines

Fuel

Effluents

Chemical fertilizers

Graph. 3

Nevertheless, the ability of the farm to feed people has grown dramatically. Fossil fuel

consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 15 and 23% per person fed.

The structure of the environmental costs of cash crops shows that fertilization is the most impacting item. Nitrogen balances are carried out every year in Grignon in order to reduce the impact of fertilization. However, as mentioned previously, the availability of nitrogen for plants is very much influenced by climate. In addition to that, we try to apply nitrogen in its organic form rather than chemical form, whenever and wherever possible. But the effects of organic nitrogen are not immediate, thus this creates a bias in our analysis because we don’t

immediately benefit from our practices.

RESULTS 1

2 3

Hypotheses used in PerfAgroP3 for chaff

Average yield 0.5 to 2.5 ton/ha Use Cattle feed

Differences between the chaff harvest + no tillage option compared to the initial situation

Harvesting cost +66€/ha Harvesting time +1hour/ha Herbicide -20€/ha

Prices 2007/2008

Fuel price 0.8€/L Fertilizer price 214€/ton (ammo 26,5) Wheat price 175€/ton

With the prices of 2008 (fuel at 0.8 €/L, fertilizers at 214 €/ton), the increase by 21% of the economic margin occurs with very few changes in the crop rotation and the same milk

production.

The more the fuel price increases, the more chaff harvesting associated with no-tillage becomes an

economically interesting option.

PerfAgroP3 (see page 6) was used in 2008 to evaluate the interest of associating chaff harvest to no-tillage for cereal crops (which represent 1/3 of the total crop surface at Grignon). Here are some

results of this study.

In the 2008 context, the chaff harvesting + no tillage system reduces environmental impacts (4% decrease in fossil fuel consumption) and increases the number of persons fed (+ 200 persons). This is due to the fact that chaff is used as cattle feed and as a consequence less

forage and more cereals can be produced on the farm.

"Feeding" performance

€€

Environmental performance

Economic performance

Initial situation

Chaff harvest + no tillage

Page 17



Chaff is made up of glumes, hulls, unthreshed heads and pods, short straw, leaf material and whole or cracked kernels or seeds from cereal, oilseed and pulse crops. Weed seeds are also a major component of chaff. Chaff can be used: > As combustible material for a biomass boiler ; > As cattle feed for cows and sheep (option chosen at Grignon in 2008) ; > As litter, especially for poultry.

An example of innovation: Chaff harvest

Variations in economic margin according to changes in fuel and fertilisers prices

Base 100: Economic margin 2007/2008

Initial production system

Chaff harvest + No tillage

Initial production system

Chaff harvest + No tillage

Fuel and fertilizer prices 2007/2008

Prices x 2

State-of-the-art knowledge (November 2008) Permanent crop rich in lignin and cellulose Reproduction: vegetative multiplication Fertilization: 0 to 100 kg N/ha, P and K often not necessary Yields: 5 to 10 tons of dry matter/ha the 2d year and 12 to 20

the following years.

Hypotheses: Yields: 15 ton/ha on the Grignon plateau, 10 ton/ha in the park Energetic value: 0.28 toe/ton Price of the substituted fuel: 700 €/1000 Litres Price of miscanthus used as combustible: 132€/ton *

The Grignon farm becomes a "positive energy farm" with 70 ha of miscanthus: The economic performance is virtually unchanged (+ 4%) The net energetic balance is positive: + 65 toe The use of miscanthus as combustible (replacing fuel) compensates about 1,250

tons of CO2 / year The farm feeds 6,300 persons

Crop life length: 15 to 20 years Implantation: potato planter, manure spreader

or specific planter Implantation cost: 3,000 to 3,500 €/ha Harvesting cost: 40 à 45 €/ton of dry matter Calorific value: 4,700 kWh/ton of dry matter

Pilot Miscanthus field at Grignon

20,000 rhizomes/ha planted in May 2008 on 1,5 ha Chemical weeding but no fertilization June 2008: Only 10 to 30% of plants grown, probably

because of hydric stress.

Major damage (20 to 25% of all the rhizomes) because of birds. Crop grinding in February 2009, 1st sprouts in April 2009.

1

2

3

Sensibility study: The ratio "miscanthus surface" / "Total crop surface" is

significantly influenced by the yield and selling price of miscanthus and by the price of wheat.

Implantation costs, paid off over 15 years, do not have an impact on miscanthus surfaces.

PerfAgroP3 simulation results

We can ensure good growth and good yields of miscanthus with high implantation costs (specific material, high quality rhizomes, etc.).

Miscanthus et Grignon, April 2009

* Taking into account transport and storage loss and a price of 474 € / toe (i.e. 90 $ / barrel) for miscanthus. Page 18



The production of renewable energy with miscanthus

The biomethanization project at Grignon:

A preliminary study for the installation in Grignon of a biomethanization unit was done in partnership with Suez.

Characteristics of the digester planned for Grignon:

10,000 tons of waste (half farm waste, half urban waste) Urban waste:

□ Organic waste from supermarkets □ Domestic organic waste (grass-cutting) □ Restaurants grease □ Etc.

Biogas cogeneration: 387 kW electric engine, heat will be used on the farm

Simulation results:

Economics: 2,250 k€ investment to install the digester and the heat network

Energy: Production of 664 toe, twice more than what the farm actually used in 2008 (315 toe)

□ 3 051 MWh electric energy sold □ 2 350 MWh thermal energy

Greenhouse gas: "Compensation" of 1,760 tons CO2 eq/ year which corresponds to 81% of the total greenhouse gas emissions of the farm in 2008.

Photovoltaic opportunities at Grignon:

Hypothesis: 1,000 m2 of roof usable on the farm 500 m2 photovoltaic panels Investment: 390 k€ Return on investment time: 14 years Production of 45,990 kWh / year (4 toe / year) = 1,3% of the total farm

consumptions in 2008 Compensation of 3.86 tons of CO2 / year = 0,2 % of the total farm emissions

in 2008

Photovoltaic doesn’t seem to be very efficient in terms of energetic production and greenhouse gas emissions compensation. However, it doesn’t use any arable land, hence it doesn’t impact the capacity of the farm to produce food (in opposition to energetic crops for example).

Page 19



The production of renewable energy using biomethanization and photovoltaic

The future biomethanization unit in Grignon

Biodiversity

This year a biodiversity follow-up was initiated in Grignon. This follow-up is done in partnership with organisations known for their expertise in this domain. Our follow-up is focused on three flora and fauna taxons widely recognized as good indicators of agricultural biodiversity.

Avifauna, in partnership with LPO1.

Butterflies, in partnership with Paris Natural History Museum. Meadow and

field borders flora, in partnership with CBNBP2.

Water quality

We regularly use two diagnostic methods to check water quality and pollution

risks on the farm.

Aquasite assesses risks of punctual pollution by pesticides. This tool shows that good practices are used in Grignon and that these practices have to be

maintained because many visitors come to the farm every day.

Aqualea assesses risks of diffuse pollution by fertilizers. The Aqualea methodology was used on 39% of the cultivated land on the farm. For the years 2003/2004 and 2004/2005, the analysis showed low risks of nitrate

leaching to water.

1 LPO: Ligue Protectrice des Oiseaux (organization for birdlife protection) 2 CBNBP: Conservatoire Botanique National du Bassin Parisien (French organization for botanical conservation in Paris region) 3 IBEA: Indice de Biodiversité des Exploitations Agricoles (Farm biodiversity indicator)

We also use the IBEA3 methodology to assess the impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity. The first assessment made in 2007/2008 revealed a global positive impact of the Grignon farm on biodiversity. This is partly due to the cattle diversity (coexistence on the farm of bovines and 2 breeds of ovine) and to the great variety of landscapes on the farm territory. However, some practices appear to be damaging to biodiversity and we are trying to reduce them: fertilization, deep ploughing, mowing mode and period. We will soon complete this study with indicators of soil and water

biodiversity.

The Grignon Energie Positive programme, although mainly focused on the issues of energy and

climate, also takes into account other environmental dimensions: water and biodiversity.

Page 20



Beyond fossil fuel and greenhouse gas

Informing the professionals, the general public and the future generation

Page 21

A course for AgroParisTech students about agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions was created two years ago. The GE+ team very often participates in seminars and conferences. They also organise visits to the farm. From January to July, the team has participated in or has organised one activity per week on average.

Page 22

We have created a technical watch database. It is focused on energy and climate change issues in agriculture. The database is available to the

public on the following URL:

http://www.agroparistech.fr/energiepositive/PMB/opac_css/

Content in July 2009: 1400 titles, 2400 authors.

Visits (Jan. to July. 09) : 18 000 visits, 84 visitors / day.

This initiative gives us the opportunity to compare our performances to other

projects and data available in the scientific literature.

(a) Extensive, New-Zealand

(b) Conventional, Sweden

(c) Organic, Sweden (d) Conventional

intensive, Germany

(e) Conventional extensive, Germany

(f) Organic, Germany

Benchmark of the energetic cost of milk

Fo

ssil

fuel

co

nsu

mp

tio

n

(MJ

/ L m

ilk)

(a) 50% of optimal pesticides use, Germany, 1997-2001

(b) Organic farming, Germany, 2002-2006

Benchmark of the energetic cost of wheat

Fo

ssil

fuel

co

nsu

mp

tio

n

(MJ

/ to

n w

hea

t)

The GE+ website has an average of 3,000 visits/month: http://www.agroparistech.fr/energiepositive/ This website is enriched by a quarterly newsletter sent to 1,260 subscribers.



Communicating positively towards the professionals

Basset-mens C., Ledgard S., Carran A. (2005) First Life Cycle Assessment of Milk Production from New Zealand Dairy Farm Systems, Ecological Economics in Action December 11-13, 2005 Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Deike S., Pallutt B., Christen O. (2008) Investigations on the energy efficiency of organic and integrated farming with specific emphasis on pesticide use intensity, Europ. J. Agronomy 28 . 461–470 Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn A., Mylan, J. (2006) Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption, Research report completed for Defra by Manchester Business School Roger F. , Le Lan B., Kanyarushoki C., Van der Werf H., Bras A., Cadoret P., Tirard S., Seuret J.M. (2007) Systèmes bovins lait bretons : Consommations d'énergie et impacts environnementaux sur l'air, l'eau et le sol, Rencontres Recherches Ruminants (3R ), 14. Paris, les 5 et 6 décembre 2007 / INRA Williams A.G., Audsley E., Sandars D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities, Main Report. Defra. Research Project IS0205.

http://www.agroparistech.fr/energiepositive/PMB/opac_css/

http://www.agroparistech.fr/energiepositive/

Visits of the farm for schools are organised all year long. In addition to that, we develop educational tools about food, nutrition and climate change that we can use

outside the farm (in schools, for special events, etc.)

The miniature positive farm

The miniature positive farm was created for the Paris International Agricultural Show in 2008. It shows the relative importance of each farm activity on the global greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumptions. A leaflet explains in detail the solutions adopted

at the Grignon farm to reduce these impacts.

The game "It is good on my plate, for

me and for my planet!"

In this game, children have to create a meal that is both nutritionally balanced and low-carbon emitting. The game exists in three versions: board game, giant school version

(see beneath) and card game.

The "yoghurt-bike" exhibit

In the yoghurt-bike exhibit, people have to pedal to produce the quantity of energy that is necessary to produce one Grignon yoghurt. It helps them understand how energy-dependant our food is. It is also an interesting basis for discussion about the solutions we are testing at Grignon to reduce

our fossil fuel consumptions.

Page 23



An innovative way of communicating to the general public

Ferme expérimentale AgroParisTech de Grignon 78850 THIVERVAL-GRIGNON

Telephone: (33 1) 30 54 57 40 Fax : (33 1) 30 54 53 26 Website: http://www.agroparistech.fr/ergiepositive/ E-mail: [email protected]

Authors: Marion Barral, Sophie Carton.

Have also contributed to the edition of this document: Olivier Lapierre, Dominique Tristant, Bernard de Franssu, Thierry Bonaudo, Thierry Doré, Yves Python and Philippe Schmidely.

Photos: Marion Barral, Sophie Carton, Anne Dessagne, Yves Python, Anne-Lise Jacquot, Philippe Huet. The authors of this document are the only ones who can be held responsible for its content.

http://www.agroparistech.fr/energiepositive/

mailto:[email protected]