A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study for Exported New Zealand Beef:

A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study 

for Exported New Zealand Beef:

A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study 

for Exported New Zealand Beef 

Report prepared for the Meat Industry Association, Ballance Agri- 

Nutrients, Landcorp and MAF 

February 2012 

Lieffering, M., Ledgard, S.F., Boyes, M. and Kemp, R. 

DISCLAIMER: While all reasonable endeavour has been made to ensure the accuracy of the 

investigations and the information contained in this report, AgResearch expressly disclaims 

any and all liabilities contingent or otherwise that may arise from the use of the information.

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................5 

1.1 Basis of Study..................................................................................................5 

1.2 Aims of Study ..................................................................................................6 

1.3 Methodological Issues .....................................................................................6 

2. Emissions Sources and Emissions Reduction Opportunities .................................7 

2.1 Overall Findings...............................................................................................7 

2.2 On Farm ..........................................................................................................8 

2.3 Meat Processing............................................................................................10 

2.4 Transport and Storage...................................................................................12 

2.5 Consumption Stage .......................................................................................13 

3. Variances and Sensitivities ..................................................................................14 

3.1 Animal Types.................................................................................................14 

3.2 Meat Cuts ......................................................................................................16 

3.3 Allocation: Manufacturing Beef......................................................................17 

4. Next Steps............................................................................................................17 

4.1 Continuing Incremental Emissions Improvements.........................................17 

4.1.1 On Farm........................................................................................................18 

4.1.2 Meat Processing ...........................................................................................22 

4.1.3 Transport.......................................................................................................23 

4.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Opportunities................................................23 

A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study for Exported New Zealand Beef February 2012 

i

4.2.1 Research.......................................................................................................23 

4.2.2 Transport.......................................................................................................24 

4.2.3 Consumption.................................................................................................24 

4.3 Progressing GHG Footprinting ......................................................................24 

5. Appendix 1 ...........................................................................................................26 

6. References...........................................................................................................30 


ii

Executive Summary 

1. Background 

This report summarises the first study examining the full life cycle greenhouse gases 

(GHG) footprint of New Zealand beef destined for main export markets. The New 

Zealand meat industry is working to minimise the impact of meat production and 

consumption on the environment, both in terms of GHGs and other sustainability 

measures. 

2. Study Objectives 

The study aims to provide a benchmark, so industry stakeholders can understand the 

GHG footprint for New Zealand beef consumed in the North American, North Asia and 

European markets. 

It also aims to increase the understanding of those involved in the New Zealand beef 

industry supply chain, so they can improve their emissions performance. 

3. Methodology 

This study is unprecedented in its breadth, detail and methodology. For that reason, it is 

not directly comparable with other GHG footprinting studies for beef that have been 

published to date. 

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach was used – consistent with the PAS2050 

published standard for GHG footprinting. LCA examines the impacts of a product, from 

production to consumption. 

GHG emissions analysis undertaken for this study is consistent with New Zealand’s 

GHG accounting methodology, as submitted under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 


1

4. Overall Findings 

The total GHG footprint was calculated at 2.2kg CO2-equivalents for a 100g portion of 

beef. Broken into segments, this equates to 90.3% for the on-farm stage, 2.1% for meat 

processing, 4.2% for transportation, and 3.3% for the consumption phase. 

This overall breakdown of the GHG footprint and the dominance of the on-farm 

component is broadly consistent with the recently completed New Zealand Lamb GHG 

Footprint Study and other international studies of products derived from farmed, 

ruminant livestock. 

Key components of the beef GHG footprint are as follows: 

4.1 On Farm 

On farm, the largest contributors to emissions are natural processes associated with 

cattle consuming pasture. These processes include methane from rumen digestion of 

pasture (via belching, 62% of total footprint) and nitrous oxide from animal excreta on 

soil (17% of total footprint). 

While on-farm emissions are the most significant contributor to the GHG footprint, they 

also present the most difficult challenge in terms of improvements. However, it is 


2

possible to reduce the on-farm portion of the footprint through management practices 

that increase the conversion of pasture to meat. This, in turn, reduces the proportion of 

pasture consumed to “maintain” the herd. 

4.2 Meat Processing 

Meat processing comprises only 2.1% of the beef GHG footprint, but the study identifies 

opportunities for meat processors to reduce this contribution further, particularly in 

relation to energy used for processing and wastewater management. Meat processors 

are addressing these challenges through improved wastewater treatment systems, 

energy efficiency programmes and exploration of alternative fuels for boilers. 

4.3 Transportation 

Oceanic shipping of meat in refrigerated containers from New Zealand to overseas 

markets (based on the relative global distribution), made up nearly 2.6% of the total 

GHG footprint. Oceanic shipping represents 61% of the overall commercial 

transportation and storage contribution to the total footprint. While this reinforces that 

food transportation is not a key determinant of the overall footprint, meat exporters are 

working with shipping lines to reduce this contribution. 

4.4 Consumption 

The consumption-related components account for approximately 3.3% of the total of the 

GHG footprint (increasing to 14.5% if travel to and from the restaurant is included). This 

highlights that the consumer also plays a role in reducing beef’s GHG footprint. 

5. Further Steps 

Action being undertaken to reduce GHGs include: 

5.1 Continuous Improvement 

Across the beef supply chain, farmers, processors and shippers will continue to prioritise 

efficiency and improved environmental performance. 

5.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Initiatives 

New Zealand’s meat industry and government are investing heavily to identify 

innovations capable of significantly reducing pastoral farming GHG emissions. These 

strategic efforts are focused on research and development to create mitigation 

technologies. They include the minimisation of methane from enteric fermentation, 


3

through breeding or vaccines, and the reduction of nitrous oxide emissions, through soil 

additives and nitrogen management practices. 

5.3 Global Coordination of Emissions Measurement 

The New Zealand industry and government are working to coordinate global efforts to 

understand agricultural GHG emissions. One aspect of this is to share the methodology 

applied in this and other GHG footprinting studies, thereby allowing agricultural 

producers around the world to compare and discuss emissions mitigation opportunities 

on a like-for-like basis. 

The New Zealand meat industry’s participants plan to continue working together to 

mitigate emissions throughout the supply chain and to measure overall progress. 

Mitigation efforts will also be encouraged by the implementation of the New Zealand 

Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which puts a price on GHG emissions. 

Industry participants will continue to meet and discuss emissions reduction 

opportunities. The industry plans to repeat this study in the future, to measure its 

progress in reducing the GHG footprint of exported New Zealand beef. 


4

1. Introduction 

The New Zealand meat industry has a strong interest in minimising the impact that 

production and consumption of meat products have on the environment, both in terms of 

GHGs and other important sustainability factors. 

1.1 Basis of Study 

With the assistance of New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), the 

New Zealand meat industry commissioned this study to understand how and where 

production, processing, transportation and consumption of beef meat in key markets 

contribute to the emission of GHGs. 

Study funding partners were the Meat Industry Association, Landcorp Farming, Ballance 

Agri-Nutrients and MAF. Key information support was provided by Beef + Lamb New 

Zealand and individual meat processors. The study was undertaken by AgResearch, a 

New Zealand Crown Research Institute. 

This study is a comprehensive, full life cycle study and therefore beyond the scope of 

previously published, partial life cycle studies of beef. It has used the Life Cycle 

Assessment (LCA) approach and is consistent with the PAS2050 1 published standard 

for GHG footprinting. LCA examines the impacts of a product over its full production 

and consumption life cycle, including dealing with waste. 

On-farm emissions analysis undertaken for this study is consistent with New Zealand’s 

GHG accounting methodology, as submitted under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This methodology does not include the 

accounting of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, nor does it include any 

consideration of carbon sequestration in trees used in a normal farming context – such 

as shelter belts or planting for erosion control or conservation. 

1 Publicly Available Specification 2050 – British Standards Institute 2008 


5

1.2 Aims of this Study 

The purpose of this study was to identify the most significant sources of GHG emissions 

in the beef meat life cycle and those that can be most readily addressed to reduce 

emissions. 

It was anticipated the study would: 

Highlight the “hotspots” for emissions in the beef meat production and consumption 

life cycle. (Hotspots being those points or stages in the life cycle that make the 

most significant contributions to the overall footprint.) 

Analyse the potential to reduce emissions at various stages of the life cycle, 

through the application of known techniques and technologies. 

Create a single, detailed and standardised methodology that can be used 

consistently by the New Zealand beef industry and others when undertaking future 

footprinting studies. 

Direct the industry to those areas where effort and investment to reduce emissions 

are likely to yield the greatest benefits. 

1.3 Methodological Issues 

GHG Footprinting is a relatively young discipline and as such, there are a range of 

methodological issues that have not been conclusively resolved and agreed globally. 

The PAS 2050 is one of several published standards for GHG footprinting and does not 

specify in detail the precise methodological approach that should be applied for complex 

production systems such as those examined in this study. 

Methodological issues in this GHG footprint study were broadly similar to those for the 

recent study on lamb meat produced in New Zealand and exported to the UK 2 . These 

issues included the functional unit used, the system boundary under consideration and 

the choice of allocation methodology. The functional unit was expressed in consumer 

terms, that is, a 100g portion of raw generic (cut unspecified) meat. The system 

boundary included the emissions across the full life cycle of meat, from farm to 

consumption and consumer waste stages (but excluding consumer transport, as 

2 Ledgard et al. 2010 


6

prescribed in PAS 2050). An important consideration when calculating the GHG 

footprint of any product is the allocation of emissions between the various co-products 

and/or by-products. This is especially so for agricultural products, where a single farm 

can produce multiple animal types (e.g. cattle, sheep) and each animal can have 

multiple products (e.g. meat, hides etc.). These considerations are described fully in 

Appendix 1. 

2. Emissions Sources and Reduction Opportunities 

This section summarises the high level findings of the New Zealand Beef GHG Footprint 

Study, including the significant sources of emissions and opportunities for emissions 

reductions. 

2.1 Overall Findings 

Fig. 1 Overall GHG component profile 

The total GHG footprint was calculated at 2.2kg CO2-equivalents (CO2-e) for a 100g 

portion of beef meat. This can be broken down into 90.3% for the on-farm stage, 2.1% 

for meat processing, 4.2% for transportation/storage and 3.3% for the consumption 


7

phase. This overall breakdown of the GHG footprint and the dominance of the on-farm 

component are broadly consistent with other studies of products derived from pastoral 

farmed ruminant livestock. 

2.2 On Farm 

Fig. 2 On-farm GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see Fig. 1) 

On farm, the largest contributors to the GHG footprint are natural processes associated 

with cattle consuming pasture. These processes produce methane from rumen 

digestion of pasture (via belching, 62% of total footprint) and nitrous oxide from animal 

excreta on soil (17% of total footprint). 

It is possible to reduce the on-farm component of the beef meat GHG footprint through 

management practices that increase the conversion of pasture to meat and thereby 

reduce the proportion of pasture consumed to “maintain” the herd. The study examined 

a range of management options that could reduce the GHG footprint of beef, using an 

on-farm case study. 


8

On-farm Case Study: 

The study examined a small range of possible GHG footprint reduction 

initiatives in the context of actual farm models provided by Landcorp Farming. 

These initiatives included: 

Increase the calving rate of beef cows from 90 to 95%. 

All beef cows replaced with a once-bred heifer system, where heifer 

calves (Hereford/Friesian cross, derived from the dairy sector) are 

brought in as weaners in late spring at 100kg liveweight. These 

heifers are reared, have a calf (which is reared to finishing stage) and 

are sold for processing after a short period of weight gain. 

All beef cattle are replaced with an all-steer purchasing/finishing 

system, which involves buying in weaner steers (Hereford/Friesian 

cross) in late spring at 100kg liveweight and finishing them at 300kgplus 

carcass weight. 

All beef cattle replaced with a bull beef system, based on Friesian 

bulls (from the dairy sector) purchased as 100kg weaners in late 

spring and finished at 300kg carcass weight. 

Nil nitrogen fertiliser use (from an already low input), with pasture and 

animal production decreased, based on an assumed reduction of 

10kgDM per kg N applied. 

Of these scenarios, the biggest reduction potential came from increasing the 

efficiency of beef production. Measures such as deriving beef from the dairy 

sector, as well as improved growth rates from bull beef compared to steers or 

heifers resulted in reductions in farm-related GHG emissions of up to 30%. 

Other strategies were estimated to provide only a small reduction. (For 

example, a 5% reduction from ceasing use of N fertiliser on pasture.) 

NB: These scenarios are illustrative only and are not necessarily applicable 

to the whole New Zealand beef sector. 

Emissions from external inputs to farms – such as fertiliser, fuel and electricity – are 

small, due to the low intensity and low input nature of beef farming in New Zealand. For 

example, electricity use contributed less than 0.3% of the total footprint. This is partly 


9

due to low electricity usage, but also because New Zealand’s electricity generation mix 

is high in renewable sources. Nonetheless, further reductions in emissions from 

electricity are being created on some farms through the deployment of technology, such 

as micro-hydro generation. Also, unlike other, more intensive overseas farming 

systems, the use of energy-demanding nitrogen fertilisers on New Zealand beef farms is 

very low. Instead, New Zealand beef farmers rely heavily on clovers in pastures, which 

use sunlight’s energy to fix atmospheric nitrogen and produce no direct GHG emissions. 

2.3 Meat processing 

Fig. 3 Processing GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see Fig. 

1) 

Meat processing made up only 2.1% of the total beef GHG footprint. This was mainly 

from energy use and wastewater processing. Electricity, as well as a range of fossil 

fuels, is used across different plants largely for hot water and steam production. The 

main use of electricity is for chilling or freezing meat. Electricity is also used to operate 

machinery and for lighting and wastewater treatment. Methane and nitrous oxide are 

emitted during some wastewater processes. 

The meat processing stage is only a small part of the GHG footprint, but it is an area 

over which industry has direct control and where technologies are available to reduce 

emissions. While progress is being made on reducing energy use, meat products will 


10

always need to be refrigerated and there will always be a need for hot water and steam 

(for hygiene reasons). For these reasons, there will be natural limits to how far energy 

efficiency can reduce the footprint. 

The meat processing GHG footprint can also be reduced through the use of loweremission 

energy sources. Since 1990, the meat industry has reduced its use of coal, 

through improved efficiency and the deployment of lower-emitting energy sources, 

including natural gas, wood chip and other biomass-fired boilers. 

Wastewater processing is also becoming more emissions efficient, with less use of 

anaerobic pond systems (that produce methane) and more use of land application of 

wastewater. The latter reduces emissions and has the added benefit of capturing 

nutrients for pasture or crop production, rather than allowing those nutrients to escape 

and potentially degrade natural waterways. The study examined the impact of several 

Processing Energy and Wastewater Scenarios 

Several scenarios associated with energy and wastewater treatment in the 

processing stage were examined. Highlights were: 

Switching from an anaerobic waste treatment system to aerobic treatment 

decreased processing emissions by 19-22%. 

Capturing and flaring methane from anaerobic waste treatment systems 

decreased emissions by about 30%. 

Further decreases (38%) were made when the captured methane was used 

for energy. This was due to a lower use of natural gas and lower methane 

emissions. 

However, because meat processing contributed only about 2% of the total GHG 

emissions, even the scenario with the largest impact resulted in only a 1.2% 

decrease in the whole GHG footprint. 

scenarios on GHG emissions from processing. 


11

2.4 Transport and Storage 

Fig. 4 Transport and storage GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall 

footprint; see Fig. 1) 

Oceanic shipping of beef in refrigerated containers from New Zealand to overseas’ 

destinations (based on the relative global distribution) made up about 2.6% of the total 

footprint; this is the main contributor (about 61%) to the transport and storage stage. 

While shipping is an important source of emissions, the relative size of this figure 

highlights that transportation distance influences only a small fraction of the total 

footprint. Focusing solely on this small fraction is an inappropriate and potentially 

misleading means of assessing the overall impact of emissions from a product. 

Repacking and processing meat in Regional Distribution Centres (RDC) made up about 

one-third of GHG emissions in this stage, mainly due to the materials used and the time 

meat spent in storage. 

Other transportation components included road transport of meat from the processing 

plant to the wharf, wharf to RDC and finally, to restaurants. 


12

2.5 Consumption Stage 

Fig. 5 Consumption GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see 

Fig. 1) 

The consumption-related components of beef eaten in a restaurant contributed 3.3% of 

the total GHG emissions. Cooking made up more than half of the emissions from this 

stage, while emissions from dealing with waste also contributed significantly. 

The transportation component of the consumption stage – diners travelling to and from 

the restaurant – was excluded from this study, as required by the PAS2050 method. To 

provide some context, however, had the consumer transport (in this case, using a 

conventional automobile to reach the restaurant) been included in the study, it would 

have added another 13% to the total footprint – more than five times the emissions for 

oceanic shipping and more than seven times the emissions from the entire processing 

stage. 

This figure highlights that consumers can play a significant role in reducing the total life 

cycle GHG footprint of food products – and at relatively low cost. For example, if the 


13

consumer used a low CO2 emission vehicle instead of a conventional automobile, the 

whole footprint decreased by about 0.1kg CO2-e per 100g portion of meat – a reduction 

that equates to about 2.4 times the total emissions from processing the beef in New 

Zealand. The study also examined the impact of increasing the percentage of noneaten 

wastage, from a baseline of 10%, to 20%. This increased the consumption 

emissions by nearly 10%. 

These results highlight that changes outside the direct control of the New Zealand beef 

industry, can have significant effects on the GHG footprint. There is a need to consider 

not just the emissions at the production and processing stages of products, but also 

aspects such as consumer behaviour, when looking at how the whole GHG footprint of 

products can be reduced. 

3. Variances and Sensitivities 

3.1 Animal Types 

New Zealand beef is derived from animals raised under a variety of production systems, 

such as traditional beef breeding farms, bull beef from the dairy industry and cull dairy 

cows. The farm component of the GHG footprint used to calculate the whole GHG 

footprint of generic beef was based on the New Zealand weighted average emissions 

from the main farm classes that produce beef, as well as those from cull dairy cows. For 

each New Zealand farm class (across Beef + Lamb New Zealand’s eight surveyed farm 

classes), a model farm was developed. It included the different cattle types, to 

determine pasture intake and associated GHG emissions, using the New Zealand GHG 

Inventory Model (Clark et al. 2003). This data was then used – in conjunction with 

national statistics on the weights of cull dairy cattle processed and per-animal emissions 

from the previous dairy GHG footprint study 3 , with the GHG emissions allocated 

between meat and milk (see Appendix 1) – to estimate average GHG emissions per kg 

liveweight for all cattle. For cull dairy cows, the GHG emissions from milk and meat 

production were allocated according to biological causality (based on the physiological 

feed requirements of the animal to produce milk and meat). All specific inputs and GHG 

emissions associated with the animal growth phase, from birth to mature liveweight 

within the whole-farm system, were allocated to meat production. This resulted in a 

relative allocation between milk and meat of 86%:14%. As a consequence of this 

allocation, on-farm GHG emissions from cull dairy cows were about 50% lower than 

3 Ledgard et al. 2008 


14

from traditional beef system-raised cattle. Separate analyses were also carried out for 

meat derived from bull calves sourced from the dairy industry, by estimating the 

additional GHG emissions associated with the rearing of bull calves from birth to 

weaning. 

GHG emissions were also calculated for individual beef cattle types, in order to 

understand variability associated with cattle type and age of slaughter. This used 

average New Zealand data on typical weights of different cattle types at slaughter (taken 

from New Zealand slaughter statistics, adjusted to cover July 2004 to June 2005), based 

on animal numbers, carcass weights and average dressing-out percent values. It also 

used data on seasonality of cattle sales, combined with expert opinion, to define typical 

ages of sale. Two bull and steer categories were chosen, with one reaching the same 

finishing weight at 22 months and the other at 30 months. For beef heifers, 22 months 

was used as the average age at slaughter. 

Table 1 the effects of cattle type and age of slaughter on on-farm GHG emissions 

Cattle type Liveweight 

(kg) 

GHG emissions 

(kg CO2e/kg LW) 

Beef breeding cow 409 16.1 

Steer 30 months 576 11.7 

Steer 22 months 576 9.2 

Beef heifer 22 months 424 8.5 

Bull beef 30 months 574 7.9 

Bull beef 22 months 574 7.3 

Table 1 shows the large variation in the calculated farm GHG emissions of the different 

cattle types: they ranged from 7.3kg CO2-e per kg liveweight sold for bull beef, to 16.1kg 

CO2-e per kg liveweight sold for breeding cows. The figures in this table discount the 

gestation emissions from bulls on the assumption that they are all sourced from the 

dairy herd. Differences in time to slaughter (i.e. growth rate_ also had a large effect on 

GHG emissions. For example, steers processed at 30 months, compared to 22 months, 

and had 27% higher GHG emissions. In practice, there is uncertainty around the 

estimate of the average age of slaughter for the different cattle types, due to a lack of 

specific New Zealand statistics – and this is a sensitive parameter in estimating New 

Zealand’s average GHG emissions using this approach. Nevertheless, use of these 

analyses, based on the different cattle types, resulted in a New Zealand weighted 

average within 6% of the main approach described earlier. 


15

3.2 Meat Cuts 

A number of different types and cuts of beef – such as prime cuts or manufacturing beef 

used in products like hamburger patties – are exported from New Zealand. The total 

GHG footprint reported here (2.2kg CO2-e for a 100g portion of beef meat) is the value 

for generic beef shipped to an unspecified overseas market (based on average global 

distribution). By determining a generic beef footprint, the effect of variation in price 

between cuts (which is used when applying economic allocation, see Appendix 1) is 

eliminated and the emissions footprint depends only on the relative prices of the meat 

and co-products. Meat typically represents close to 90% of the total economic value of 

the animal, so fluctuations in co-product prices have only a small effect on the calculated 

footprint. 

The US manufacturing beef market accounts for 55% of New Zealand’s exported beef 

(Beef + Lamb Economic Service). The total GHG footprint of manufacturing beef 

exported to this market – at 1.8kg CO2-e per 100g meat – was nearly 20% lower than 

that calculated for generic beef. This lower value for manufacturing beef implies that 

other cuts, such as prime steaks, have higher GHG emissions. However, it must be 

emphasised that the magnitude of the difference between the cuts/types of meat are 

highly sensitive to the respective prices used in the economic allocation of GHG 

emissions (see Appendix 1). 

The value of 1.8kg CO2-e per 100g meat for manufacturing beef was calculated using 

the weighted average on-farm emissions per kg liveweight for all cattle (i.e. animals from 

all the traditional beef systems, as well as cull dairy cows). In addition, it assumed a 

carcass composition that included prime and other cuts of meat, as well as the meat 

used for manufacturing beef. However, in reality, manufacturing beef is made 

predominantly from cull dairy cows (which usually have no prime cuts and a lower meat 

yield), with varying proportions of bull beef and other cattle types and cuts contributing to 

the mix. Using this methodology, the GHG footprint of manufacturing beef exported to 

the US was calculated to be 1.7kg CO2-e per 100g meat. It should be noted that most, if 

not all, exported New Zealand manufacturing beef is mixed at grinding plants in the US, 

with either local or other imported beef, to produce the final product (e.g. ground beef for 

hamburger patties). Hence, the GHG footprint calculated is for New Zealand 

manufacturing beef that makes up a component of the ground beef consumed in the US, 

rather than the GHG footprint of ground beef consumed in the US. 


16

3.3 Allocation: Manufacturing Beef 

Because of the importance to New Zealand of manufacturing beef exported to the US 

and the large contribution of cull dairy cows to this meat type, it is useful to examine the 

effects of different allocation methodologies and economic values on beef’s GHG 

footprint. The base scenario considers manufacturing beef that is derived from cull dairy 

cows only and used biophysical causality to allocate emissions between milk and meat 

(Section 3.1). This resulted in a total GHG footprint of 1.5kg CO2-e for a 100g portion of 

manufacturing beef. An alternative to biophysical allocation is to use economic 

allocation, which depends on the relative monetary values of the various products 

derived from the dairy system (see Appendix 1). The sensitivity of the calculated GHG 

emissions to different economic allocation parameters can be tested. The historical fiveyear 

fluctuations in milk and meat prices meant that GHG emissions attributed to meat 

using economic allocation ranged from 6-10%. Using the average economic allocation 

value of 8% resulted in an emissions figure of 0.9kg CO2-e for a 100g portion of 

manufacturing beef; this is 40% less than of the value calculated when using the 

biophysical allocation method (1.5kg CO2-e for a 100g portion). This sensitivity analysis 

illustrates the care that must be taken when deciding which allocation methodology to 

apply and, if using economic allocation, which monetary values to use. 

4. Next Steps 

This section outlines the future actions expected or recommended following this study. 

This study has confirmed several areas where the New Zealand red meat sector can 

continue to make incremental improvements in its emissions performance. There are 

also longer-term strategic research initiatives underway, which are intended to produce 

more significant, step-wise improvements in emissions performance. 

The authors note that, with the recent introduction and progressive implementation of 

the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), New Zealand meat industry 

participants will have increasing economic incentive to invest in emissions reductions 

initiatives that can mitigate the newly-created liability associated with emissions. 

4.1 Continuing Incremental Emissions Improvements 

There are immediate opportunities for small, but significant, improvements in the beef 

GHG footprint across the supply chain. 


17

4.1.1 On Farm 

On-farm emissions dominate the GHG footprint of exported New Zealand beef and, 

therefore, this stage represents the largest opportunity to reduce the footprint. A key 

indicator of progress in this metric is the change in farm gate GHG emissions per unit of 

liveweight of cattle slaughtered for export over time. Figure 6 shows this change for the 

years 1990-1991 to 2010-2011. The data is based on the yearly kill statistics of 

exported cattle, which are reported in the classes of steers, heifers, cows, bulls and cull 

cows from the dairy herd. By assuming typical ages and weights at slaughter and 

applying the different on-farm GHG emission factors for the different animal types 

(Section 3.1), an estimate of on-farm GHG emissions can be made. Over this period, 

there has been a clear decrease of about 12% in on-farm emissions per kg liveweight 

(Fig. 6). 

Fig. 6 Change in farm related GHG emissions (kg CO2-e per kg liveweight) from 1990 

to 2010 of cattle slaughtered for export. The line shows the moving five-year average. 

There are several reasons for the decrease. Over the past two decades, beef farmers 

have made, and are likely to continue making, steady productivity gains – through the 

use of improved animal and forage genetics and through new and improved 


18

management practices and technologies. Such productivity gains will result in further 

reductions in the beef GHG footprint, as fixed emissions sources are divided over 

greater product output. A second reason for the decline in on-farm emissions is that this 

value includes the contribution of dairy cull cows and bulls. The substantial increase in 

the dairy industry and cow numbers has resulted in more beef being derived from this 

source. The lower on-farm GHG emissions of cull cows (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2), 

therefore, also contribute to the decrease in the calculated on-farm GHG emissions of 

exported beef. 

Some beef farmers are employing measures specifically targeted at enhancing 

environmental sustainability, including GHG emissions. These measures should be 

continued and encouraged. They include: 

Tree planting on farms to reduce soil erosion through wind or water action. 

Such tree planting also acts as a carbon sink – removing carbon dioxide from 

the atmosphere and sequestering it as biomass 4 . 

Retention and management of long-term perennial grass and clover pastures, 

thereby reducing inputs, including emissions intensive nitrogen fertilisers and 

emissions associated with pasture renewal. 

Minimum intervention practices, such as no-till and direct seed drilling, on farms 

where seasonal forage crops are grown, to reduce soil carbon losses 5 . 

Two examples of initiatives by meat processing companies in helping their farmer 

suppliers increase environmental sustainability are provided below. 

4 It should be noted that UNFCCC rules for accounting GHG inventories do not allow the 

consideration of small-scale tree planting on farms as a source of carbon removals and such plantings 

have therefore not been included as a removal in this footprint study. 

5 Soil carbon accumulation in pasture systems is not a component of New Zealand’s official GHG 

inventory and therefore benefits of increased soil carbon retention have not been incorporated in the 

on-farm component of this beef footprint study. 


19

Alliance Group hoofprint® 

Alliance Group Ltd has developed a web-based software programme which will 

enable suppliers to calculate and monitor the animal-related GHG emissions from 

their farming operation. The software, called hoofprint®, is made up of a series of 

modules, which together produce an estimate of GHG emissions for a particular 

farm. The emissions estimate is presented in the form of carbon dioxide 

equivalents. The software is flexible and adapts to different beef farming systems. 

hoofprint® captures and stores data, which can be used to quantify farm-to-farm, as 

well as year-to-year differences in farm emissions. It can also be used as a tool to 

drive reductions in on-farm GHG emissions. 


20

FarmIQ Systems 

Some agricultural practices yield win-win outcomes. New Zealand livestock farmers 

need knowledge and tools relating to sustainable farming practices, in order to help 

mitigate agricultural GHG emissions. FarmIQ Systems is a new Silver Fern Farms 

and Landcorp Farming Ltd joint venture company formed to create a transformational 

integrated “plate to pasture” value chain model. 

The New Zealand Government (via the Primary Growth Partnership) is jointly funding 

a seven-year programme that covers all facets of the integrated value chain, starting 

with understanding existing and future consumer requirements and distilling these 

back through each part of the chain. 

Key aspects of the work programme include; market research, product development, 

production optimisation, on-farm nutrition, genetics and enhancement of productive 

capacity. 

The sustainability co-benefits may vary from place to place because of differences in 

climate, soil, or the way the practice is adopted. FarmIQ will also open up the 

possibility of farmers comparing their performance with other farms that have similar 

soils, climate and production systems. It will also facilitate the exchange of ideas on 

improvement options and increase engagement with key customers along the value 

chain. 

FarmIQ will help position the sector for other sustainability opportunities in the future, 

through nurturing understanding and mitigating solutions. 

Beef + Lamb New Zealand has a range of on-farm initiatives aimed at improving 

environmental outcomes through the efficient use of resources. These include: 

A toolkit for the development and use of Land and Environment Plans for 

farmers. This is a step-by-step process to document the land and environmental 

issues on individual farms and identify ways the farmer can address them. 

A programme to encourage the use of a nutrient budgeting model (Overseer®), 

to ensure optimal use of fertiliser nutrients and lime and to minimise 

environmental emissions. (It should be noted, however, that losses of nutrients 

to waterways from sheep and beef farms are already considerably less than 

those from intensive farming systems.) 

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) has also initiated support 

for a range of initiatives at a national level, including: 

Case study farms throughout New Zealand, whereby on-farm GHG emissions 

were estimated and a range of alternative farm systems or mitigations were 


21

modelled (including economic implications), based on a farmer focus study 

group approach. 

Development of the Overseer® model for farmers to optimise fertiliser use and 

minimise effects of nutrient losses to waterways. 

Further development of the Overseer® model to include estimation of the cradleto-farm-gate 

GHG footprint, using research from this project and other national 

GHG footprinting projects. 

4.1.2 Meat Processing 

Historical data and anecdotal evidence suggest New Zealand meat processors have 

made significant progress in decreasing their contribution to the beef GHG footprint, 

primarily through improved energy efficiency and methods for wastewater management. 

This study suggests continuing this work presents further opportunities for improvement. 

The amount of meat obtained from an animal or carcass is an important determinant of 

the GHG footprint of beef. For a given animal, the higher the meat yield, the lower the 

corresponding GHG emissions per kg meat. An example of one meat company’s 

initiative in this area is given below. 

VIAscan® 

Alliance Group Limited is continuing to develop and implement visual imaging 

analysis technology for beef carcass yield grading, to assist with on-farm production 

efficiency management decisions. 

New Zealand meat processors have used readily-available tools, including Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) energy audits, to identify areas of their 

business where energy can be saved. These savings may come through better 

management practices, such as scheduling and coordination of energy intensive 

activities, and targeted repairs and maintenance (i.e. fixing leaks and investing in new 

technology, such as automated high-speed chiller doors, LED lighting or biomass 

boilers). 


22

Reducing Processing Emissions from Energy Use 

Alliance Group Limited continues to pursue energy efficiency initiatives and, 

between 2000 and 2010, reduced GHG emissions from processing energy use by 

26% per unit of production. 

4.1.3 Transport 

While oceanic shipping is already the most emissions-efficient method of transporting 

produce, shipping lines and shippers are actively pursuing further gains in efficiency. 

Meat exporters are working alongside shipping lines to identify how shipping fuel usage 

can be reduced, while still delivering product to market without compromising quality or 

food safety. 

Shipping lines’ current initiatives to improve efficiency and reduce emissions include: 

Upgrading to larger, more efficient vessels. 

Reducing the speed of vessels (slow steaming). 

Optimising shipping routes, shipping hubs and ship-to-shore communication – to 

reduce total overall distances and speeds travelled. 

4.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Opportunities 

There are several longer-term strategic actions underway that may, in due course, 

create the opportunity for large, step-wise reductions in the beef GHG footprint. 

4.2.1 Research 

For several years, an association of New Zealand’s pastoral sector groups and the 

Government have invested significantly in the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research 

Consortium 6 . The consortium has a key focus on developing methods to reduce 

methane and nitrous oxide emissions on farm. Potential strategies for reducing 

methane include vaccines, feed additives and selective breeding for “low-methane” plant 

6 (PGgRc) – A joint venture established in 2002 between Fonterra Ltd, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, 

DEEResearch Ltd, AgResearch, PGGWrightson Ltd, FertResearch (FMRA), DairyNZ and Landcorp. 


23

and animal traits. Emerging options for nitrous oxide reduction include nitrification 

inhibitors and soil and feed management practices. 

The Government also recently approved a $5 million annual investment to the New 

Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC), targeting mitigation 

strategies for reducing on-farm emissions. As part of this investment, funding of $1.2 

million (from the NZAGRC) was used to build the New Zealand Ruminant Methane 

Measurement Centre (NZRMMC) in 2011. The centre is the largest purpose-built facility 

of its kind in the world. In addition, the NZAGRC contributed $0.5 million to set up the 

National Centre for Nitrous Oxide Measurement (NCNOM) in April 2011. The NCNOM 

triples New Zealand's capacity to measure nitrous oxide GHG emissions. Finally, New 

Zealand was a founding member of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural 

Greenhouse Gases, which encourages internationally-linked mitigation research. 

4.2.2 Transport 

Shipping innovations under investigation include new vessel designs, with hulls that 

require less energy and are most efficient when travelling at slower speeds, as well as 

new refrigerants with much lower global warming potential than traditional chemicals 

that are appropriate for use in containers. 

4.2.3 Consumption 

This study indicated that consumer behaviour can have a marked impact on the GHG 

footprint of beef. Behaviour changes included using to a more efficient vehicle (or public 

transport) when travelling to the restaurant (in this case), and minimising the wastage of 

purchased meat. 

4.3 Progressing GHG Footprinting 

This study has highlighted the complexity of calculating a GHG footprint for a product 

like meat and the many decisions that need to be made around how accounting 

elements are treated. The authors consider a common, harmonised and comprehensive 

GHG footprinting methodology is essential, if purchasers and producers are to make 

valid comparisons of the GHG impact of beef meat products. It is important to seek an 

internationally standardised approach, so studies can be compared. 


24

The sponsors of this study will continue working together to facilitate and encourage 

emissions reductions that will reduce the beef GHG footprint. They expect this study will 

be repeated in the future, in order to measure the progress of improvements. 


25

5. Appendix 1 

The Developing Science of GHG Footprinting 

While the PAS2050 and the ISO LCA standards 7 set out broad principles that should be 

observed in GHG footprinting, they do not provide detailed methodology on how to treat 

the complex accounting decisions that arise when assessing the footprint of specific 

products, such as meat and multi-product enterprises (like pastoral sheep and beef 

farming). There are important issues that need to be considered when interpreting and 

comparing the results of this study. 

It is generally not appropriate to compare this study to other previously published GHG 

footprint studies. This study is unique and unprecedented in its breadth and is aimed at 

helping New Zealand farmers, processors and exporters understand the beef GHG 

footprint and focus on the most effective ways to improve that footprint throughout the 

life cycle. This work does not, however, provide a basis for comparison against others, 

nor is it suitable for customers to compare competing products. This is because, at this 

stage, there are inconsistencies in the GHG footprinting methodologies used in different 

studies. This lack of a standardised and consistently applied methodology highlights a 

major challenge for those retailers and regulators around the world that have a stated 

interest in applying GHG footprint labels to retailed food products. Such labelling will not 

provide credible or valid information to direct consumer purchasing decisions until such 

time as there are tightly defined and globally agreed methodologies for undertaking 

GHG footprint studies of certain product categories. There are, however, published 

studies that make a narrow comparison between two or more products using a like-forlike 

methodology 8 . 

Other published partial LCA studies tend not to describe the methodology adopted in 

detail 9 . In this study, researchers have used their judgement to apply methodologies 

best suited to the requirements and intent of the PAS2050 and relevant ISO standards 

for LCA. Nonetheless, choosing the most appropriate “accounting treatment” for certain 

emissions has still proved difficult in a number of areas. 

7 International Standards Organisation, ISO14040 and 14044 (2006) 

8 For example; Williams et al., 2008 

9 For example see Williams et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2010; EBLEX 2009 


26

It is, however, appropriate to compare the results of this study with GHG footprint 

studies that have the same methodologies, such as the recent study on lamb meat 

produced in New Zealand and exported to the UK 10 . The whole footprint estimate of 

2.2kg CO2-e per 100g for exported generic beef is about 16% higher than the lamb 

estimate of 1.9kg CO2-e per 100g meat for unspecified lamb meat. This difference is 

largely due to lambs’ faster finishing times and the higher fecundity of sheep. 

This beef study is the second published meat GHG footprint study (the first being the 

lamb study) to cover the entire life cycle from farm, through to cooking and eating the 

meat, and the disposal of waste and sewage. Researchers have sought to apply the 

most comprehensive approach possible, which means there will be methodological 

differences – particularly in terms of scope – between this and other published studies 

examining the GHG footprint of meat products. 

Methodological Considerations 

There are some key accounting treatment decisions that need to be made when 

calculating a GHG footprint. 

System boundaries: This study covered the emissions across the full life cycle of meat, 

from farm to consumption and consumer waste stages (though excluding consumer 

transport, as prescribed in PAS 2050). Other published meat GHG footprint studies 

have covered only a part of the life cycle – typically the farm only, or farm to RDC. 

Functional unit: To illustrate the results in consumer terms, this report considers a 100g 

portion of raw generic (cut unspecified) meat as the functional unit under consideration. 

This unit represents the portion size of, say, the meat patty of a hamburger or a prime 

piece of steak. Other studies have calculated a footprint per kg of animal liveweight, per 

kg of carcass weight or even per unit of land area. 

Allocation decisions between different product streams: For GHG footprint studies of 

biologically produced products – particularly animal products – allocation decisions are 

hugely influential on the footprint calculation. In reality, New Zealand beef comes from 

farms that produce a certain amount of emissions in any given year from a range of 

saleable products. These products might include “finished” cattle and lambs for 

processing, breeding or “unfinished” stock for sale to other farmers, culled animals, 

wool, and in some cases crops, such as grain or stored feed (i.e. hay or silage). In 

10 Ledgard et al., 2010 


27

calculating the beef GHG footprint, researchers must decide what portion of the farm’s 

total emissions should be allocated to the beef product. They must then also decide 

what portion of a processor’s total emissions should be allocated to beef (as opposed to 

other outputs, such as hides, offal, tallow, etc.) and so on – throughout the life cycle. 

Figure 7 illustrates key allocation decision points in the life cycle. This study used the 

biophysical allocation between different animal types on farm, based on the amount of 

feed they consumed. Biophysical allocation between milk and meat production was 

based on the physiological feed requirements of the animal to produce milk and meat. 

Economic allocation was used at the meat processing stage between meat and nonmeat 

products. Other studies have used nil (no allocation of emissions to non-meat 

products), economic or mass-based allocation. 

Total farm 

%? 

%? 

Emissions 

allocated to other 

farm products 

Processing 

Fig. 7 Key allocation decisions in beef GHG footprinting 

Emissions allocated to 

other beef products (e.g. 

hides, offal) 

Meat 

Emissions factors for oceanic shipping: Estimating the emissions associated with 

oceanic shipping is complex, given that product may be carried by more than one type 

of ship, on different routes and at varying speeds. This study uses a relatively high 

emissions factor for shipping, so the estimate, which was at the upper end of the 

published range, could be considered a worst case scenario. 

Global Warming Potential factors: Only a relatively small portion of the beef GHG 

footprint is actually made up of emissions of carbon dioxide. The convention for a single 

“carbon dioxide equivalents” figure to express the GHG footprint requires that emissions 

of methane, nitrous oxide and fugitive refrigerants are converted into CO2 equivalents 

using fixed conversion rates, known as Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors. This 


%? 

%? 

28

study used the latest IPCC (2006) GWP100 figures of 25 for methane and 298 for 

nitrous oxide. Other studies have used alternative GWP figures. 

Carbon sequestration on farm: There are undoubtedly instances in New Zealand sheep 

and beef farming where carbon stores are being accumulated. This may be in the 

growing of shelter belts, the reversion of marginal land into native bush or the planting of 

steeper land with trees for erosion prevention. There is also a significant amount of 

research underway to understand the performance and potential of pastoral soils in 

accumulating soil carbon. Currently, soil carbon sequestration is not thoroughly 

understood by scientists. However, recent surveys of soil carbon status on sheep and 

beef farms on New Zealand hill country have shown that levels are increasing 11 . 

Similarly, French researchers 12 have produced an estimate of the rate of soil carbon 

sequestration in sheep grazing pasture, which could offset some of the emissions from 

farming operations. In this study, the net emissions from sheep and beef farms were 

estimated in a manner consistent with the New Zealand GHG Inventory, as reported to 

the UNFCCC. This approach does not consider sequestration, either through growth of 

trees on farms or accumulation of carbon in soils. 

Data availability: Comprehensive data sets are critical to achieving accurate estimates of 

the average GHG footprint. At the farm stage, a detailed Beef + Lamb New Zealand 

data set was used – covering more than 460 farms throughout the country (sampled to 

be statistically representative of the sheep and beef farming sector and stratified to 

cover the wide range of different farm types, from extensive high country through to 

more intensive rolling land). At the meat processing stage, detailed data was obtained 

from a survey of nine beef-only processing plants, accounting for more than 60% of the 

total beef processed in New Zealand. 

The authors are confident the quantity and quality of data utilised in this study is 

sufficiently robust to produce a representative picture of New Zealand beef meat 

production as a whole. Other smaller studies – based on a limited number of case study 

farms, for instance – do not deliver such a representative result. 

11 Schipper et al., 2010 

12 Sousanna et al., 2004 


29

6. References 

BRAY, S. & WILLCOCKS, J. (2009) Net carbon position of the Queensland beef 

industry. Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries: 

www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/AnimalIndustries_Beef/Net-carbon-beef-industry.pdf 

CLARK, H., BROOKES, I. & WALCROFT, A. S. (2003) Enteric Methane Emissions from 

New Zealand Ruminants 1990 - 2001 Calculated Using an IPCC Tier 2 Approach. 

Unpublished report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington. 

DOOLEY A.E., SMEATON D. & MCDERMOTT A. (2005) A Model of the New Zealand 

Beef Value Chain. Paper presented at MODSIM 2005: 

www.mssanz.org.au/modsim05/papers/dooley.pdf 

EBLEX (2009) Change in the Air: the English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap - 

Phase 1: www.eblex.org.uk/roadmap/roadmap-phase-1.pdf 

LEDGARD S.F., BASSET-MENS C., BOYES M. & CLARK H. (2008) Carbon footprint 

measurement - Milestone 6: Carbon footprint for a range of milk suppliers in New 

Zealand. Report to Fonterra. AgResearch, Hamilton. 41p. 

LEDGARD, S.F., McDEVITT, J., BOYES, M., LIEFFERING, M. & KEMP, R. (2010) 

Greenhouse gas footprint of lamb meat: Methodology report. Report to MAF. 

AgResearch, Hamilton. 36p. 

LIEFFERING M., LEDGARD S. L., BOYES, M. & KEMP, R. (2010) Beef Greenhouse 

Gas Footprint: Final report. Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and 

Forestry. Contract “MAF POL 0809-1111”. 

PETERS, G., ROWLEY, H.V., WEIDEMANN, S., TUCKER, R., SHORT, M., & SCHULZ, 

M. (2010) Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison 

with Overseas Studies; Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 1327-1332. 

SCHIPPER, L. A., PARFITT, R. L., ROSS, C., BAISDEN, W. T., CLAYDON, J. J., & 

FRASER S. (2010) Gains and losses of C and N stocks in New Zealand pasture soils 

depend on land use. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 139: 611-617. 

SOUSANNA, J.-F., LOISEAU, P., VUICHARD, N., CESCHIA, E., BALESDENT, J., 

CHEVALLIER, T. & ARROUAYS, D. (2004) Carbon cycling and sequestration 

opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use and Management 20, 219-230. 


30

WILLIAMS, A., PELL, E., WEBB, J., MOORHOUSE, E. & AUDSLEY, E. (2008) 

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Food Commodities Procured for UK 

Consumption through a Diversity of Supply Chains. DEFRA Project FO0103. 


31

A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study for Exported New Zealand Beef:

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?