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:
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong>:
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong><br />
Report prepared <strong>for</strong> the Meat Industry Association, Ballance Agri-<br />
Nutrients, Landcorp and MAF<br />
February 2012<br />
Lieffering, M., Ledgard, S.F., Boyes, M. and Kemp, R.<br />
DISCLAIMER: While all reasonable endeavour has been made to ensure the accuracy of the<br />
investigations and the in<strong>for</strong>mation contained in this report, AgResearch expressly disclaims<br />
any and all liabilities contingent or otherwise that may arise from the use of the in<strong>for</strong>mation.
Table of Contents<br />
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1<br />
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................5<br />
1.1 Basis of <strong>Study</strong>..................................................................................................5<br />
1.2 Aims of <strong>Study</strong> ..................................................................................................6<br />
1.3 Methodological Issues .....................................................................................6<br />
2. Emissions Sources and Emissions Reduction Opportunities .................................7<br />
2.1 Overall Findings...............................................................................................7<br />
2.2 On Farm ..........................................................................................................8<br />
2.3 Meat Processing............................................................................................10<br />
2.4 Transport and Storage...................................................................................12<br />
2.5 Consumption Stage .......................................................................................13<br />
3. Variances and Sensitivities ..................................................................................14<br />
3.1 Animal Types.................................................................................................14<br />
3.2 Meat Cuts ......................................................................................................16<br />
3.3 Allocation: Manufacturing <strong>Beef</strong>......................................................................17<br />
4. Next Steps............................................................................................................17<br />
4.1 Continuing Incremental Emissions Improvements.........................................17<br />
4.1.1 On Farm........................................................................................................18<br />
4.1.2 Meat Processing ...........................................................................................22<br />
4.1.3 Transport.......................................................................................................23<br />
4.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Opportunities................................................23<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
i
4.2.1 Research.......................................................................................................23<br />
4.2.2 Transport.......................................................................................................24<br />
4.2.3 Consumption.................................................................................................24<br />
4.3 Progressing GHG <strong>Footprint</strong>ing ......................................................................24<br />
5. Appendix 1 ...........................................................................................................26<br />
6. References...........................................................................................................30<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
ii
Executive Summary<br />
1. Background<br />
This report summarises the first study examining the full life cycle greenhouse gases<br />
(GHG) footprint of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef destined <strong>for</strong> main export markets. The <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> meat industry is working to minimise the impact of meat production and<br />
consumption on the environment, both in terms of GHGs and other sustainability<br />
measures.<br />
2. <strong>Study</strong> Objectives<br />
The study aims to provide a benchmark, so industry stakeholders can understand the<br />
GHG footprint <strong>for</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef consumed in the North American, North Asia and<br />
European markets.<br />
It also aims to increase the understanding of those involved in the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef<br />
industry supply chain, so they can improve their emissions per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
3. Methodology<br />
This study is unprecedented in its breadth, detail and methodology. For that reason, it is<br />
not directly comparable with other GHG footprinting studies <strong>for</strong> beef that have been<br />
published to date.<br />
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach was used – consistent with the PAS2050<br />
published standard <strong>for</strong> GHG footprinting. LCA examines the impacts of a product, from<br />
production to consumption.<br />
GHG emissions analysis undertaken <strong>for</strong> this study is consistent with <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s<br />
GHG accounting methodology, as submitted under the United Nations Framework<br />
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
1
4. Overall Findings<br />
The total GHG footprint was calculated at 2.2kg CO2-equivalents <strong>for</strong> a 100g portion of<br />
beef. Broken into segments, this equates to 90.3% <strong>for</strong> the on-farm stage, 2.1% <strong>for</strong> meat<br />
processing, 4.2% <strong>for</strong> transportation, and 3.3% <strong>for</strong> the consumption phase.<br />
This overall breakdown of the GHG footprint and the dominance of the on-farm<br />
component is broadly consistent with the recently completed <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Lamb GHG<br />
<strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> and other international studies of products derived from farmed,<br />
ruminant livestock.<br />
Key components of the beef GHG footprint are as follows:<br />
4.1 On Farm<br />
On farm, the largest contributors to emissions are natural processes associated with<br />
cattle consuming pasture. These processes include methane from rumen digestion of<br />
pasture (via belching, 62% of total footprint) and nitrous oxide from animal excreta on<br />
soil (17% of total footprint).<br />
While on-farm emissions are the most significant contributor to the GHG footprint, they<br />
also present the most difficult challenge in terms of improvements. However, it is<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
2
possible to reduce the on-farm portion of the footprint through management practices<br />
that increase the conversion of pasture to meat. This, in turn, reduces the proportion of<br />
pasture consumed to “maintain” the herd.<br />
4.2 Meat Processing<br />
Meat processing comprises only 2.1% of the beef GHG footprint, but the study identifies<br />
opportunities <strong>for</strong> meat processors to reduce this contribution further, particularly in<br />
relation to energy used <strong>for</strong> processing and wastewater management. Meat processors<br />
are addressing these challenges through improved wastewater treatment systems,<br />
energy efficiency programmes and exploration of alternative fuels <strong>for</strong> boilers.<br />
4.3 Transportation<br />
Oceanic shipping of meat in refrigerated containers from <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> to overseas<br />
markets (based on the relative global distribution), made up nearly 2.6% of the total<br />
GHG footprint. Oceanic shipping represents 61% of the overall commercial<br />
transportation and storage contribution to the total footprint. While this rein<strong>for</strong>ces that<br />
food transportation is not a key determinant of the overall footprint, meat exporters are<br />
working with shipping lines to reduce this contribution.<br />
4.4 Consumption<br />
The consumption-related components account <strong>for</strong> approximately 3.3% of the total of the<br />
GHG footprint (increasing to 14.5% if travel to and from the restaurant is included). This<br />
highlights that the consumer also plays a role in reducing beef’s GHG footprint.<br />
5. Further Steps<br />
Action being undertaken to reduce GHGs include:<br />
5.1 Continuous Improvement<br />
Across the beef supply chain, farmers, processors and shippers will continue to prioritise<br />
efficiency and improved environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
5.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Initiatives<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s meat industry and government are investing heavily to identify<br />
innovations capable of significantly reducing pastoral farming GHG emissions. These<br />
strategic ef<strong>for</strong>ts are focused on research and development to create mitigation<br />
technologies. They include the minimisation of methane from enteric fermentation,<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
3
through breeding or vaccines, and the reduction of nitrous oxide emissions, through soil<br />
additives and nitrogen management practices.<br />
5.3 Global Coordination of Emissions Measurement<br />
The <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> industry and government are working to coordinate global ef<strong>for</strong>ts to<br />
understand agricultural GHG emissions. One aspect of this is to share the methodology<br />
applied in this and other GHG footprinting studies, thereby allowing agricultural<br />
producers around the world to compare and discuss emissions mitigation opportunities<br />
on a like-<strong>for</strong>-like basis.<br />
The <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat industry’s participants plan to continue working together to<br />
mitigate emissions throughout the supply chain and to measure overall progress.<br />
Mitigation ef<strong>for</strong>ts will also be encouraged by the implementation of the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which puts a price on GHG emissions.<br />
Industry participants will continue to meet and discuss emissions reduction<br />
opportunities. The industry plans to repeat this study in the future, to measure its<br />
progress in reducing the GHG footprint of exported <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
4
1. Introduction<br />
The <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat industry has a strong interest in minimising the impact that<br />
production and consumption of meat products have on the environment, both in terms of<br />
GHGs and other important sustainability factors.<br />
1.1 Basis of <strong>Study</strong><br />
With the assistance of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), the<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat industry commissioned this study to understand how and where<br />
production, processing, transportation and consumption of beef meat in key markets<br />
contribute to the emission of GHGs.<br />
<strong>Study</strong> funding partners were the Meat Industry Association, Landcorp Farming, Ballance<br />
Agri-Nutrients and MAF. Key in<strong>for</strong>mation support was provided by <strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> and individual meat processors. The study was undertaken by AgResearch, a<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Crown Research Institute.<br />
This study is a comprehensive, full life cycle study and there<strong>for</strong>e beyond the scope of<br />
previously published, partial life cycle studies of beef. It has used the Life Cycle<br />
Assessment (LCA) approach and is consistent with the PAS2050 1 published standard<br />
<strong>for</strong> GHG footprinting. LCA examines the impacts of a product over its full production<br />
and consumption life cycle, including dealing with waste.<br />
On-farm emissions analysis undertaken <strong>for</strong> this study is consistent with <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s<br />
GHG accounting methodology, as submitted under the United Nations Framework<br />
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This methodology does not include the<br />
accounting of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, nor does it include any<br />
consideration of carbon sequestration in trees used in a normal farming context – such<br />
as shelter belts or planting <strong>for</strong> erosion control or conservation.<br />
1 Publicly Available Specification 2050 – British Standards Institute 2008<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
5
1.2 Aims of this <strong>Study</strong><br />
The purpose of this study was to identify the most significant sources of GHG emissions<br />
in the beef meat life cycle and those that can be most readily addressed to reduce<br />
emissions.<br />
It was anticipated the study would:<br />
Highlight the “hotspots” <strong>for</strong> emissions in the beef meat production and consumption<br />
life cycle. (Hotspots being those points or stages in the life cycle that make the<br />
most significant contributions to the overall footprint.)<br />
Analyse the potential to reduce emissions at various stages of the life cycle,<br />
through the application of known techniques and technologies.<br />
Create a single, detailed and standardised methodology that can be used<br />
consistently by the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef industry and others when undertaking future<br />
footprinting studies.<br />
Direct the industry to those areas where ef<strong>for</strong>t and investment to reduce emissions<br />
are likely to yield the greatest benefits.<br />
1.3 Methodological Issues<br />
GHG <strong>Footprint</strong>ing is a relatively young discipline and as such, there are a range of<br />
methodological issues that have not been conclusively resolved and agreed globally.<br />
The PAS 2050 is one of several published standards <strong>for</strong> GHG footprinting and does not<br />
specify in detail the precise methodological approach that should be applied <strong>for</strong> complex<br />
production systems such as those examined in this study.<br />
Methodological issues in this GHG footprint study were broadly similar to those <strong>for</strong> the<br />
recent study on lamb meat produced in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> and exported to the UK 2 . These<br />
issues included the functional unit used, the system boundary under consideration and<br />
the choice of allocation methodology. The functional unit was expressed in consumer<br />
terms, that is, a 100g portion of raw generic (cut unspecified) meat. The system<br />
boundary included the emissions across the full life cycle of meat, from farm to<br />
consumption and consumer waste stages (but excluding consumer transport, as<br />
2 Ledgard et al. 2010<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
6
prescribed in PAS 2050). An important consideration when calculating the GHG<br />
footprint of any product is the allocation of emissions between the various co-products<br />
and/or by-products. This is especially so <strong>for</strong> agricultural products, where a single farm<br />
can produce multiple animal types (e.g. cattle, sheep) and each animal can have<br />
multiple products (e.g. meat, hides etc.). These considerations are described fully in<br />
Appendix 1.<br />
2. Emissions Sources and Reduction Opportunities<br />
This section summarises the high level findings of the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> GHG <strong>Footprint</strong><br />
<strong>Study</strong>, including the significant sources of emissions and opportunities <strong>for</strong> emissions<br />
reductions.<br />
2.1 Overall Findings<br />
Fig. 1 Overall GHG component profile<br />
The total GHG footprint was calculated at 2.2kg CO2-equivalents (CO2-e) <strong>for</strong> a 100g<br />
portion of beef meat. This can be broken down into 90.3% <strong>for</strong> the on-farm stage, 2.1%<br />
<strong>for</strong> meat processing, 4.2% <strong>for</strong> transportation/storage and 3.3% <strong>for</strong> the consumption<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
7
phase. This overall breakdown of the GHG footprint and the dominance of the on-farm<br />
component are broadly consistent with other studies of products derived from pastoral<br />
farmed ruminant livestock.<br />
2.2 On Farm<br />
Fig. 2 On-farm GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see Fig. 1)<br />
On farm, the largest contributors to the GHG footprint are natural processes associated<br />
with cattle consuming pasture. These processes produce methane from rumen<br />
digestion of pasture (via belching, 62% of total footprint) and nitrous oxide from animal<br />
excreta on soil (17% of total footprint).<br />
It is possible to reduce the on-farm component of the beef meat GHG footprint through<br />
management practices that increase the conversion of pasture to meat and thereby<br />
reduce the proportion of pasture consumed to “maintain” the herd. The study examined<br />
a range of management options that could reduce the GHG footprint of beef, using an<br />
on-farm case study.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
8
On-farm Case <strong>Study</strong>:<br />
The study examined a small range of possible GHG footprint reduction<br />
initiatives in the context of actual farm models provided by Landcorp Farming.<br />
These initiatives included:<br />
Increase the calving rate of beef cows from 90 to 95%.<br />
All beef cows replaced with a once-bred heifer system, where heifer<br />
calves (Here<strong>for</strong>d/Friesian cross, derived from the dairy sector) are<br />
brought in as weaners in late spring at 100kg liveweight. These<br />
heifers are reared, have a calf (which is reared to finishing stage) and<br />
are sold <strong>for</strong> processing after a short period of weight gain.<br />
All beef cattle are replaced with an all-steer purchasing/finishing<br />
system, which involves buying in weaner steers (Here<strong>for</strong>d/Friesian<br />
cross) in late spring at 100kg liveweight and finishing them at 300kgplus<br />
carcass weight.<br />
All beef cattle replaced with a bull beef system, based on Friesian<br />
bulls (from the dairy sector) purchased as 100kg weaners in late<br />
spring and finished at 300kg carcass weight.<br />
Nil nitrogen fertiliser use (from an already low input), with pasture and<br />
animal production decreased, based on an assumed reduction of<br />
10kgDM per kg N applied.<br />
Of these scenarios, the biggest reduction potential came from increasing the<br />
efficiency of beef production. Measures such as deriving beef from the dairy<br />
sector, as well as improved growth rates from bull beef compared to steers or<br />
heifers resulted in reductions in farm-related GHG emissions of up to 30%.<br />
Other strategies were estimated to provide only a small reduction. (For<br />
example, a 5% reduction from ceasing use of N fertiliser on pasture.)<br />
NB: These scenarios are illustrative only and are not necessarily applicable<br />
to the whole <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef sector.<br />
Emissions from external inputs to farms – such as fertiliser, fuel and electricity – are<br />
small, due to the low intensity and low input nature of beef farming in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. For<br />
example, electricity use contributed less than 0.3% of the total footprint. This is partly<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
9
due to low electricity usage, but also because <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s electricity generation mix<br />
is high in renewable sources. Nonetheless, further reductions in emissions from<br />
electricity are being created on some farms through the deployment of technology, such<br />
as micro-hydro generation. Also, unlike other, more intensive overseas farming<br />
systems, the use of energy-demanding nitrogen fertilisers on <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef farms is<br />
very low. Instead, <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef farmers rely heavily on clovers in pastures, which<br />
use sunlight’s energy to fix atmospheric nitrogen and produce no direct GHG emissions.<br />
2.3 Meat processing<br />
Fig. 3 Processing GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see Fig.<br />
1)<br />
Meat processing made up only 2.1% of the total beef GHG footprint. This was mainly<br />
from energy use and wastewater processing. Electricity, as well as a range of fossil<br />
fuels, is used across different plants largely <strong>for</strong> hot water and steam production. The<br />
main use of electricity is <strong>for</strong> chilling or freezing meat. Electricity is also used to operate<br />
machinery and <strong>for</strong> lighting and wastewater treatment. Methane and nitrous oxide are<br />
emitted during some wastewater processes.<br />
The meat processing stage is only a small part of the GHG footprint, but it is an area<br />
over which industry has direct control and where technologies are available to reduce<br />
emissions. While progress is being made on reducing energy use, meat products will<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
10
always need to be refrigerated and there will always be a need <strong>for</strong> hot water and steam<br />
(<strong>for</strong> hygiene reasons). For these reasons, there will be natural limits to how far energy<br />
efficiency can reduce the footprint.<br />
The meat processing GHG footprint can also be reduced through the use of loweremission<br />
energy sources. Since 1990, the meat industry has reduced its use of coal,<br />
through improved efficiency and the deployment of lower-emitting energy sources,<br />
including natural gas, wood chip and other biomass-fired boilers.<br />
Wastewater processing is also becoming more emissions efficient, with less use of<br />
anaerobic pond systems (that produce methane) and more use of land application of<br />
wastewater. The latter reduces emissions and has the added benefit of capturing<br />
nutrients <strong>for</strong> pasture or crop production, rather than allowing those nutrients to escape<br />
and potentially degrade natural waterways. The study examined the impact of several<br />
Processing Energy and Wastewater Scenarios<br />
Several scenarios associated with energy and wastewater treatment in the<br />
processing stage were examined. Highlights were:<br />
Switching from an anaerobic waste treatment system to aerobic treatment<br />
decreased processing emissions by 19-22%.<br />
Capturing and flaring methane from anaerobic waste treatment systems<br />
decreased emissions by about 30%.<br />
Further decreases (38%) were made when the captured methane was used<br />
<strong>for</strong> energy. This was due to a lower use of natural gas and lower methane<br />
emissions.<br />
However, because meat processing contributed only about 2% of the total GHG<br />
emissions, even the scenario with the largest impact resulted in only a 1.2%<br />
decrease in the whole GHG footprint.<br />
scenarios on GHG emissions from processing.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
11
2.4 Transport and Storage<br />
Fig. 4 Transport and storage GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall<br />
footprint; see Fig. 1)<br />
Oceanic shipping of beef in refrigerated containers from <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> to overseas’<br />
destinations (based on the relative global distribution) made up about 2.6% of the total<br />
footprint; this is the main contributor (about 61%) to the transport and storage stage.<br />
While shipping is an important source of emissions, the relative size of this figure<br />
highlights that transportation distance influences only a small fraction of the total<br />
footprint. Focusing solely on this small fraction is an inappropriate and potentially<br />
misleading means of assessing the overall impact of emissions from a product.<br />
Repacking and processing meat in Regional Distribution Centres (RDC) made up about<br />
one-third of GHG emissions in this stage, mainly due to the materials used and the time<br />
meat spent in storage.<br />
Other transportation components included road transport of meat from the processing<br />
plant to the wharf, wharf to RDC and finally, to restaurants.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
12
2.5 Consumption Stage<br />
Fig. 5 Consumption GHG component profile (smaller pie is the overall footprint; see<br />
Fig. 1)<br />
The consumption-related components of beef eaten in a restaurant contributed 3.3% of<br />
the total GHG emissions. Cooking made up more than half of the emissions from this<br />
stage, while emissions from dealing with waste also contributed significantly.<br />
The transportation component of the consumption stage – diners travelling to and from<br />
the restaurant – was excluded from this study, as required by the PAS2050 method. To<br />
provide some context, however, had the consumer transport (in this case, using a<br />
conventional automobile to reach the restaurant) been included in the study, it would<br />
have added another 13% to the total footprint – more than five times the emissions <strong>for</strong><br />
oceanic shipping and more than seven times the emissions from the entire processing<br />
stage.<br />
This figure highlights that consumers can play a significant role in reducing the total life<br />
cycle GHG footprint of food products – and at relatively low cost. For example, if the<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
13
consumer used a low CO2 emission vehicle instead of a conventional automobile, the<br />
whole footprint decreased by about 0.1kg CO2-e per 100g portion of meat – a reduction<br />
that equates to about 2.4 times the total emissions from processing the beef in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. The study also examined the impact of increasing the percentage of noneaten<br />
wastage, from a baseline of 10%, to 20%. This increased the consumption<br />
emissions by nearly 10%.<br />
These results highlight that changes outside the direct control of the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef<br />
industry, can have significant effects on the GHG footprint. There is a need to consider<br />
not just the emissions at the production and processing stages of products, but also<br />
aspects such as consumer behaviour, when looking at how the whole GHG footprint of<br />
products can be reduced.<br />
3. Variances and Sensitivities<br />
3.1 Animal Types<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef is derived from animals raised under a variety of production systems,<br />
such as traditional beef breeding farms, bull beef from the dairy industry and cull dairy<br />
cows. The farm component of the GHG footprint used to calculate the whole GHG<br />
footprint of generic beef was based on the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> weighted average emissions<br />
from the main farm classes that produce beef, as well as those from cull dairy cows. For<br />
each <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> farm class (across <strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s eight surveyed farm<br />
classes), a model farm was developed. It included the different cattle types, to<br />
determine pasture intake and associated GHG emissions, using the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> GHG<br />
Inventory Model (Clark et al. 2003). This data was then used – in conjunction with<br />
national statistics on the weights of cull dairy cattle processed and per-animal emissions<br />
from the previous dairy GHG footprint study 3 , with the GHG emissions allocated<br />
between meat and milk (see Appendix 1) – to estimate average GHG emissions per kg<br />
liveweight <strong>for</strong> all cattle. For cull dairy cows, the GHG emissions from milk and meat<br />
production were allocated according to biological causality (based on the physiological<br />
feed requirements of the animal to produce milk and meat). All specific inputs and GHG<br />
emissions associated with the animal growth phase, from birth to mature liveweight<br />
within the whole-farm system, were allocated to meat production. This resulted in a<br />
relative allocation between milk and meat of 86%:14%. As a consequence of this<br />
allocation, on-farm GHG emissions from cull dairy cows were about 50% lower than<br />
3 Ledgard et al. 2008<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
14
from traditional beef system-raised cattle. Separate analyses were also carried out <strong>for</strong><br />
meat derived from bull calves sourced from the dairy industry, by estimating the<br />
additional GHG emissions associated with the rearing of bull calves from birth to<br />
weaning.<br />
GHG emissions were also calculated <strong>for</strong> individual beef cattle types, in order to<br />
understand variability associated with cattle type and age of slaughter. This used<br />
average <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> data on typical weights of different cattle types at slaughter (taken<br />
from <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> slaughter statistics, adjusted to cover July 2004 to June 2005), based<br />
on animal numbers, carcass weights and average dressing-out percent values. It also<br />
used data on seasonality of cattle sales, combined with expert opinion, to define typical<br />
ages of sale. Two bull and steer categories were chosen, with one reaching the same<br />
finishing weight at 22 months and the other at 30 months. For beef heifers, 22 months<br />
was used as the average age at slaughter.<br />
Table 1 the effects of cattle type and age of slaughter on on-farm GHG emissions<br />
Cattle type Liveweight<br />
(kg)<br />
GHG emissions<br />
(kg CO2e/kg LW)<br />
<strong>Beef</strong> breeding cow 409 16.1<br />
Steer 30 months 576 11.7<br />
Steer 22 months 576 9.2<br />
<strong>Beef</strong> heifer 22 months 424 8.5<br />
Bull beef 30 months 574 7.9<br />
Bull beef 22 months 574 7.3<br />
Table 1 shows the large variation in the calculated farm GHG emissions of the different<br />
cattle types: they ranged from 7.3kg CO2-e per kg liveweight sold <strong>for</strong> bull beef, to 16.1kg<br />
CO2-e per kg liveweight sold <strong>for</strong> breeding cows. The figures in this table discount the<br />
gestation emissions from bulls on the assumption that they are all sourced from the<br />
dairy herd. Differences in time to slaughter (i.e. growth rate_ also had a large effect on<br />
GHG emissions. For example, steers processed at 30 months, compared to 22 months,<br />
and had 27% higher GHG emissions. In practice, there is uncertainty around the<br />
estimate of the average age of slaughter <strong>for</strong> the different cattle types, due to a lack of<br />
specific <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> statistics – and this is a sensitive parameter in estimating <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>’s average GHG emissions using this approach. Nevertheless, use of these<br />
analyses, based on the different cattle types, resulted in a <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> weighted<br />
average within 6% of the main approach described earlier.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
15
3.2 Meat Cuts<br />
A number of different types and cuts of beef – such as prime cuts or manufacturing beef<br />
used in products like hamburger patties – are exported from <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. The total<br />
GHG footprint reported here (2.2kg CO2-e <strong>for</strong> a 100g portion of beef meat) is the value<br />
<strong>for</strong> generic beef shipped to an unspecified overseas market (based on average global<br />
distribution). By determining a generic beef footprint, the effect of variation in price<br />
between cuts (which is used when applying economic allocation, see Appendix 1) is<br />
eliminated and the emissions footprint depends only on the relative prices of the meat<br />
and co-products. Meat typically represents close to 90% of the total economic value of<br />
the animal, so fluctuations in co-product prices have only a small effect on the calculated<br />
footprint.<br />
The US manufacturing beef market accounts <strong>for</strong> 55% of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s exported beef<br />
(<strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb Economic Service). The total GHG footprint of manufacturing beef<br />
exported to this market – at 1.8kg CO2-e per 100g meat – was nearly 20% lower than<br />
that calculated <strong>for</strong> generic beef. This lower value <strong>for</strong> manufacturing beef implies that<br />
other cuts, such as prime steaks, have higher GHG emissions. However, it must be<br />
emphasised that the magnitude of the difference between the cuts/types of meat are<br />
highly sensitive to the respective prices used in the economic allocation of GHG<br />
emissions (see Appendix 1).<br />
The value of 1.8kg CO2-e per 100g meat <strong>for</strong> manufacturing beef was calculated using<br />
the weighted average on-farm emissions per kg liveweight <strong>for</strong> all cattle (i.e. animals from<br />
all the traditional beef systems, as well as cull dairy cows). In addition, it assumed a<br />
carcass composition that included prime and other cuts of meat, as well as the meat<br />
used <strong>for</strong> manufacturing beef. However, in reality, manufacturing beef is made<br />
predominantly from cull dairy cows (which usually have no prime cuts and a lower meat<br />
yield), with varying proportions of bull beef and other cattle types and cuts contributing to<br />
the mix. Using this methodology, the GHG footprint of manufacturing beef exported to<br />
the US was calculated to be 1.7kg CO2-e per 100g meat. It should be noted that most, if<br />
not all, exported <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> manufacturing beef is mixed at grinding plants in the US,<br />
with either local or other imported beef, to produce the final product (e.g. ground beef <strong>for</strong><br />
hamburger patties). Hence, the GHG footprint calculated is <strong>for</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
manufacturing beef that makes up a component of the ground beef consumed in the US,<br />
rather than the GHG footprint of ground beef consumed in the US.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
16
3.3 Allocation: Manufacturing <strong>Beef</strong><br />
Because of the importance to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> of manufacturing beef exported to the US<br />
and the large contribution of cull dairy cows to this meat type, it is useful to examine the<br />
effects of different allocation methodologies and economic values on beef’s GHG<br />
footprint. The base scenario considers manufacturing beef that is derived from cull dairy<br />
cows only and used biophysical causality to allocate emissions between milk and meat<br />
(Section 3.1). This resulted in a total GHG footprint of 1.5kg CO2-e <strong>for</strong> a 100g portion of<br />
manufacturing beef. An alternative to biophysical allocation is to use economic<br />
allocation, which depends on the relative monetary values of the various products<br />
derived from the dairy system (see Appendix 1). The sensitivity of the calculated GHG<br />
emissions to different economic allocation parameters can be tested. The historical fiveyear<br />
fluctuations in milk and meat prices meant that GHG emissions attributed to meat<br />
using economic allocation ranged from 6-10%. Using the average economic allocation<br />
value of 8% resulted in an emissions figure of 0.9kg CO2-e <strong>for</strong> a 100g portion of<br />
manufacturing beef; this is 40% less than of the value calculated when using the<br />
biophysical allocation method (1.5kg CO2-e <strong>for</strong> a 100g portion). This sensitivity analysis<br />
illustrates the care that must be taken when deciding which allocation methodology to<br />
apply and, if using economic allocation, which monetary values to use.<br />
4. Next Steps<br />
This section outlines the future actions expected or recommended following this study.<br />
This study has confirmed several areas where the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> red meat sector can<br />
continue to make incremental improvements in its emissions per<strong>for</strong>mance. There are<br />
also longer-term strategic research initiatives underway, which are intended to produce<br />
more significant, step-wise improvements in emissions per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
The authors note that, with the recent introduction and progressive implementation of<br />
the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat industry<br />
participants will have increasing economic incentive to invest in emissions reductions<br />
initiatives that can mitigate the newly-created liability associated with emissions.<br />
4.1 Continuing Incremental Emissions Improvements<br />
There are immediate opportunities <strong>for</strong> small, but significant, improvements in the beef<br />
GHG footprint across the supply chain.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
17
4.1.1 On Farm<br />
On-farm emissions dominate the GHG footprint of exported <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef and,<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e, this stage represents the largest opportunity to reduce the footprint. A key<br />
indicator of progress in this metric is the change in farm gate GHG emissions per unit of<br />
liveweight of cattle slaughtered <strong>for</strong> export over time. Figure 6 shows this change <strong>for</strong> the<br />
years 1990-1991 to 2010-2011. The data is based on the yearly kill statistics of<br />
exported cattle, which are reported in the classes of steers, heifers, cows, bulls and cull<br />
cows from the dairy herd. By assuming typical ages and weights at slaughter and<br />
applying the different on-farm GHG emission factors <strong>for</strong> the different animal types<br />
(Section 3.1), an estimate of on-farm GHG emissions can be made. Over this period,<br />
there has been a clear decrease of about 12% in on-farm emissions per kg liveweight<br />
(Fig. 6).<br />
Fig. 6 Change in farm related GHG emissions (kg CO2-e per kg liveweight) from 1990<br />
to 2010 of cattle slaughtered <strong>for</strong> export. The line shows the moving five-year average.<br />
There are several reasons <strong>for</strong> the decrease. Over the past two decades, beef farmers<br />
have made, and are likely to continue making, steady productivity gains – through the<br />
use of improved animal and <strong>for</strong>age genetics and through new and improved<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
18
management practices and technologies. Such productivity gains will result in further<br />
reductions in the beef GHG footprint, as fixed emissions sources are divided over<br />
greater product output. A second reason <strong>for</strong> the decline in on-farm emissions is that this<br />
value includes the contribution of dairy cull cows and bulls. The substantial increase in<br />
the dairy industry and cow numbers has resulted in more beef being derived from this<br />
source. The lower on-farm GHG emissions of cull cows (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2),<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e, also contribute to the decrease in the calculated on-farm GHG emissions of<br />
exported beef.<br />
Some beef farmers are employing measures specifically targeted at enhancing<br />
environmental sustainability, including GHG emissions. These measures should be<br />
continued and encouraged. They include:<br />
Tree planting on farms to reduce soil erosion through wind or water action.<br />
Such tree planting also acts as a carbon sink – removing carbon dioxide from<br />
the atmosphere and sequestering it as biomass 4 .<br />
Retention and management of long-term perennial grass and clover pastures,<br />
thereby reducing inputs, including emissions intensive nitrogen fertilisers and<br />
emissions associated with pasture renewal.<br />
Minimum intervention practices, such as no-till and direct seed drilling, on farms<br />
where seasonal <strong>for</strong>age crops are grown, to reduce soil carbon losses 5 .<br />
Two examples of initiatives by meat processing companies in helping their farmer<br />
suppliers increase environmental sustainability are provided below.<br />
4 It should be noted that UNFCCC rules <strong>for</strong> accounting GHG inventories do not allow the<br />
consideration of small-scale tree planting on farms as a source of carbon removals and such plantings<br />
have there<strong>for</strong>e not been included as a removal in this footprint study.<br />
5 Soil carbon accumulation in pasture systems is not a component of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s official GHG<br />
inventory and there<strong>for</strong>e benefits of increased soil carbon retention have not been incorporated in the<br />
on-farm component of this beef footprint study.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
19
Alliance Group hoofprint®<br />
Alliance Group Ltd has developed a web-based software programme which will<br />
enable suppliers to calculate and monitor the animal-related GHG emissions from<br />
their farming operation. The software, called hoofprint®, is made up of a series of<br />
modules, which together produce an estimate of GHG emissions <strong>for</strong> a particular<br />
farm. The emissions estimate is presented in the <strong>for</strong>m of carbon dioxide<br />
equivalents. The software is flexible and adapts to different beef farming systems.<br />
hoofprint® captures and stores data, which can be used to quantify farm-to-farm, as<br />
well as year-to-year differences in farm emissions. It can also be used as a tool to<br />
drive reductions in on-farm GHG emissions.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
20
FarmIQ Systems<br />
Some agricultural practices yield win-win outcomes. <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> livestock farmers<br />
need knowledge and tools relating to sustainable farming practices, in order to help<br />
mitigate agricultural GHG emissions. FarmIQ Systems is a new Silver Fern Farms<br />
and Landcorp Farming Ltd joint venture company <strong>for</strong>med to create a trans<strong>for</strong>mational<br />
integrated “plate to pasture” value chain model.<br />
The <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Government (via the Primary Growth Partnership) is jointly funding<br />
a seven-year programme that covers all facets of the integrated value chain, starting<br />
with understanding existing and future consumer requirements and distilling these<br />
back through each part of the chain.<br />
Key aspects of the work programme include; market research, product development,<br />
production optimisation, on-farm nutrition, genetics and enhancement of productive<br />
capacity.<br />
The sustainability co-benefits may vary from place to place because of differences in<br />
climate, soil, or the way the practice is adopted. FarmIQ will also open up the<br />
possibility of farmers comparing their per<strong>for</strong>mance with other farms that have similar<br />
soils, climate and production systems. It will also facilitate the exchange of ideas on<br />
improvement options and increase engagement with key customers along the value<br />
chain.<br />
FarmIQ will help position the sector <strong>for</strong> other sustainability opportunities in the future,<br />
through nurturing understanding and mitigating solutions.<br />
<strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> has a range of on-farm initiatives aimed at improving<br />
environmental outcomes through the efficient use of resources. These include:<br />
A toolkit <strong>for</strong> the development and use of Land and Environment Plans <strong>for</strong><br />
farmers. This is a step-by-step process to document the land and environmental<br />
issues on individual farms and identify ways the farmer can address them.<br />
A programme to encourage the use of a nutrient budgeting model (Overseer®),<br />
to ensure optimal use of fertiliser nutrients and lime and to minimise<br />
environmental emissions. (It should be noted, however, that losses of nutrients<br />
to waterways from sheep and beef farms are already considerably less than<br />
those from intensive farming systems.)<br />
In <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) has also initiated support<br />
<strong>for</strong> a range of initiatives at a national level, including:<br />
Case study farms throughout <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, whereby on-farm GHG emissions<br />
were estimated and a range of alternative farm systems or mitigations were<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
21
modelled (including economic implications), based on a farmer focus study<br />
group approach.<br />
Development of the Overseer® model <strong>for</strong> farmers to optimise fertiliser use and<br />
minimise effects of nutrient losses to waterways.<br />
Further development of the Overseer® model to include estimation of the cradleto-farm-gate<br />
GHG footprint, using research from this project and other national<br />
GHG footprinting projects.<br />
4.1.2 Meat Processing<br />
Historical data and anecdotal evidence suggest <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat processors have<br />
made significant progress in decreasing their contribution to the beef GHG footprint,<br />
primarily through improved energy efficiency and methods <strong>for</strong> wastewater management.<br />
This study suggests continuing this work presents further opportunities <strong>for</strong> improvement.<br />
The amount of meat obtained from an animal or carcass is an important determinant of<br />
the GHG footprint of beef. For a given animal, the higher the meat yield, the lower the<br />
corresponding GHG emissions per kg meat. An example of one meat company’s<br />
initiative in this area is given below.<br />
VIAscan®<br />
Alliance Group Limited is continuing to develop and implement visual imaging<br />
analysis technology <strong>for</strong> beef carcass yield grading, to assist with on-farm production<br />
efficiency management decisions.<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> meat processors have used readily-available tools, including Energy<br />
Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) energy audits, to identify areas of their<br />
business where energy can be saved. These savings may come through better<br />
management practices, such as scheduling and coordination of energy intensive<br />
activities, and targeted repairs and maintenance (i.e. fixing leaks and investing in new<br />
technology, such as automated high-speed chiller doors, LED lighting or biomass<br />
boilers).<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
22
Reducing Processing Emissions from Energy Use<br />
Alliance Group Limited continues to pursue energy efficiency initiatives and,<br />
between 2000 and 2010, reduced GHG emissions from processing energy use by<br />
26% per unit of production.<br />
4.1.3 Transport<br />
While oceanic shipping is already the most emissions-efficient method of transporting<br />
produce, shipping lines and shippers are actively pursuing further gains in efficiency.<br />
Meat exporters are working alongside shipping lines to identify how shipping fuel usage<br />
can be reduced, while still delivering product to market without compromising quality or<br />
food safety.<br />
Shipping lines’ current initiatives to improve efficiency and reduce emissions include:<br />
Upgrading to larger, more efficient vessels.<br />
Reducing the speed of vessels (slow steaming).<br />
Optimising shipping routes, shipping hubs and ship-to-shore communication – to<br />
reduce total overall distances and speeds travelled.<br />
4.2 Strategic Emissions Reduction Opportunities<br />
There are several longer-term strategic actions underway that may, in due course,<br />
create the opportunity <strong>for</strong> large, step-wise reductions in the beef GHG footprint.<br />
4.2.1 Research<br />
For several years, an association of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s pastoral sector groups and the<br />
Government have invested significantly in the Pastoral <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> Research<br />
Consortium 6 . The consortium has a key focus on developing methods to reduce<br />
methane and nitrous oxide emissions on farm. Potential strategies <strong>for</strong> reducing<br />
methane include vaccines, feed additives and selective breeding <strong>for</strong> “low-methane” plant<br />
6 (PGgRc) – A joint venture established in 2002 between Fonterra Ltd, <strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>,<br />
DEEResearch Ltd, AgResearch, PGGWrightson Ltd, FertResearch (FMRA), DairyNZ and Landcorp.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
23
and animal traits. Emerging options <strong>for</strong> nitrous oxide reduction include nitrification<br />
inhibitors and soil and feed management practices.<br />
The Government also recently approved a $5 million annual investment to the <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> Agricultural <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> Research Centre (NZAGRC), targeting mitigation<br />
strategies <strong>for</strong> reducing on-farm emissions. As part of this investment, funding of $1.2<br />
million (from the NZAGRC) was used to build the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Ruminant Methane<br />
Measurement Centre (NZRMMC) in 2011. The centre is the largest purpose-built facility<br />
of its kind in the world. In addition, the NZAGRC contributed $0.5 million to set up the<br />
National Centre <strong>for</strong> Nitrous Oxide Measurement (NCNOM) in April 2011. The NCNOM<br />
triples <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>'s capacity to measure nitrous oxide GHG emissions. Finally, <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> was a founding member of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural<br />
<strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong>es, which encourages internationally-linked mitigation research.<br />
4.2.2 Transport<br />
Shipping innovations under investigation include new vessel designs, with hulls that<br />
require less energy and are most efficient when travelling at slower speeds, as well as<br />
new refrigerants with much lower global warming potential than traditional chemicals<br />
that are appropriate <strong>for</strong> use in containers.<br />
4.2.3 Consumption<br />
This study indicated that consumer behaviour can have a marked impact on the GHG<br />
footprint of beef. Behaviour changes included using to a more efficient vehicle (or public<br />
transport) when travelling to the restaurant (in this case), and minimising the wastage of<br />
purchased meat.<br />
4.3 Progressing GHG <strong>Footprint</strong>ing<br />
This study has highlighted the complexity of calculating a GHG footprint <strong>for</strong> a product<br />
like meat and the many decisions that need to be made around how accounting<br />
elements are treated. The authors consider a common, harmonised and comprehensive<br />
GHG footprinting methodology is essential, if purchasers and producers are to make<br />
valid comparisons of the GHG impact of beef meat products. It is important to seek an<br />
internationally standardised approach, so studies can be compared.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
24
The sponsors of this study will continue working together to facilitate and encourage<br />
emissions reductions that will reduce the beef GHG footprint. They expect this study will<br />
be repeated in the future, in order to measure the progress of improvements.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
25
5. Appendix 1<br />
The Developing Science of GHG <strong>Footprint</strong>ing<br />
While the PAS2050 and the ISO LCA standards 7 set out broad principles that should be<br />
observed in GHG footprinting, they do not provide detailed methodology on how to treat<br />
the complex accounting decisions that arise when assessing the footprint of specific<br />
products, such as meat and multi-product enterprises (like pastoral sheep and beef<br />
farming). There are important issues that need to be considered when interpreting and<br />
comparing the results of this study.<br />
It is generally not appropriate to compare this study to other previously published GHG<br />
footprint studies. This study is unique and unprecedented in its breadth and is aimed at<br />
helping <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> farmers, processors and exporters understand the beef GHG<br />
footprint and focus on the most effective ways to improve that footprint throughout the<br />
life cycle. This work does not, however, provide a basis <strong>for</strong> comparison against others,<br />
nor is it suitable <strong>for</strong> customers to compare competing products. This is because, at this<br />
stage, there are inconsistencies in the GHG footprinting methodologies used in different<br />
studies. This lack of a standardised and consistently applied methodology highlights a<br />
major challenge <strong>for</strong> those retailers and regulators around the world that have a stated<br />
interest in applying GHG footprint labels to retailed food products. Such labelling will not<br />
provide credible or valid in<strong>for</strong>mation to direct consumer purchasing decisions until such<br />
time as there are tightly defined and globally agreed methodologies <strong>for</strong> undertaking<br />
GHG footprint studies of certain product categories. There are, however, published<br />
studies that make a narrow comparison between two or more products using a like-<strong>for</strong>like<br />
methodology 8 .<br />
Other published partial LCA studies tend not to describe the methodology adopted in<br />
detail 9 . In this study, researchers have used their judgement to apply methodologies<br />
best suited to the requirements and intent of the PAS2050 and relevant ISO standards<br />
<strong>for</strong> LCA. Nonetheless, choosing the most appropriate “accounting treatment” <strong>for</strong> certain<br />
emissions has still proved difficult in a number of areas.<br />
7 International Standards Organisation, ISO14040 and 14044 (2006)<br />
8 For example; Williams et al., 2008<br />
9 For example see Williams et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2010; EBLEX 2009<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
26
It is, however, appropriate to compare the results of this study with GHG footprint<br />
studies that have the same methodologies, such as the recent study on lamb meat<br />
produced in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> and exported to the UK 10 . The whole footprint estimate of<br />
2.2kg CO2-e per 100g <strong>for</strong> exported generic beef is about 16% higher than the lamb<br />
estimate of 1.9kg CO2-e per 100g meat <strong>for</strong> unspecified lamb meat. This difference is<br />
largely due to lambs’ faster finishing times and the higher fecundity of sheep.<br />
This beef study is the second published meat GHG footprint study (the first being the<br />
lamb study) to cover the entire life cycle from farm, through to cooking and eating the<br />
meat, and the disposal of waste and sewage. Researchers have sought to apply the<br />
most comprehensive approach possible, which means there will be methodological<br />
differences – particularly in terms of scope – between this and other published studies<br />
examining the GHG footprint of meat products.<br />
Methodological Considerations<br />
There are some key accounting treatment decisions that need to be made when<br />
calculating a GHG footprint.<br />
System boundaries: This study covered the emissions across the full life cycle of meat,<br />
from farm to consumption and consumer waste stages (though excluding consumer<br />
transport, as prescribed in PAS 2050). Other published meat GHG footprint studies<br />
have covered only a part of the life cycle – typically the farm only, or farm to RDC.<br />
Functional unit: To illustrate the results in consumer terms, this report considers a 100g<br />
portion of raw generic (cut unspecified) meat as the functional unit under consideration.<br />
This unit represents the portion size of, say, the meat patty of a hamburger or a prime<br />
piece of steak. Other studies have calculated a footprint per kg of animal liveweight, per<br />
kg of carcass weight or even per unit of land area.<br />
Allocation decisions between different product streams: For GHG footprint studies of<br />
biologically produced products – particularly animal products – allocation decisions are<br />
hugely influential on the footprint calculation. In reality, <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef comes from<br />
farms that produce a certain amount of emissions in any given year from a range of<br />
saleable products. These products might include “finished” cattle and lambs <strong>for</strong><br />
processing, breeding or “unfinished” stock <strong>for</strong> sale to other farmers, culled animals,<br />
wool, and in some cases crops, such as grain or stored feed (i.e. hay or silage). In<br />
10 Ledgard et al., 2010<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
27
calculating the beef GHG footprint, researchers must decide what portion of the farm’s<br />
total emissions should be allocated to the beef product. They must then also decide<br />
what portion of a processor’s total emissions should be allocated to beef (as opposed to<br />
other outputs, such as hides, offal, tallow, etc.) and so on – throughout the life cycle.<br />
Figure 7 illustrates key allocation decision points in the life cycle. This study used the<br />
biophysical allocation between different animal types on farm, based on the amount of<br />
feed they consumed. Biophysical allocation between milk and meat production was<br />
based on the physiological feed requirements of the animal to produce milk and meat.<br />
Economic allocation was used at the meat processing stage between meat and nonmeat<br />
products. Other studies have used nil (no allocation of emissions to non-meat<br />
products), economic or mass-based allocation.<br />
Total farm<br />
%?<br />
%?<br />
Emissions<br />
allocated to other<br />
farm products<br />
Processing<br />
Fig. 7 Key allocation decisions in beef GHG footprinting<br />
Emissions allocated to<br />
other beef products (e.g.<br />
hides, offal)<br />
Meat<br />
Emissions factors <strong>for</strong> oceanic shipping: Estimating the emissions associated with<br />
oceanic shipping is complex, given that product may be carried by more than one type<br />
of ship, on different routes and at varying speeds. This study uses a relatively high<br />
emissions factor <strong>for</strong> shipping, so the estimate, which was at the upper end of the<br />
published range, could be considered a worst case scenario.<br />
Global Warming Potential factors: Only a relatively small portion of the beef GHG<br />
footprint is actually made up of emissions of carbon dioxide. The convention <strong>for</strong> a single<br />
“carbon dioxide equivalents” figure to express the GHG footprint requires that emissions<br />
of methane, nitrous oxide and fugitive refrigerants are converted into CO2 equivalents<br />
using fixed conversion rates, known as Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors. This<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
%?<br />
%?<br />
28
study used the latest IPCC (2006) GWP100 figures of 25 <strong>for</strong> methane and 298 <strong>for</strong><br />
nitrous oxide. Other studies have used alternative GWP figures.<br />
Carbon sequestration on farm: There are undoubtedly instances in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> sheep<br />
and beef farming where carbon stores are being accumulated. This may be in the<br />
growing of shelter belts, the reversion of marginal land into native bush or the planting of<br />
steeper land with trees <strong>for</strong> erosion prevention. There is also a significant amount of<br />
research underway to understand the per<strong>for</strong>mance and potential of pastoral soils in<br />
accumulating soil carbon. Currently, soil carbon sequestration is not thoroughly<br />
understood by scientists. However, recent surveys of soil carbon status on sheep and<br />
beef farms on <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> hill country have shown that levels are increasing 11 .<br />
Similarly, French researchers 12 have produced an estimate of the rate of soil carbon<br />
sequestration in sheep grazing pasture, which could offset some of the emissions from<br />
farming operations. In this study, the net emissions from sheep and beef farms were<br />
estimated in a manner consistent with the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> GHG Inventory, as reported to<br />
the UNFCCC. This approach does not consider sequestration, either through growth of<br />
trees on farms or accumulation of carbon in soils.<br />
Data availability: Comprehensive data sets are critical to achieving accurate estimates of<br />
the average GHG footprint. At the farm stage, a detailed <strong>Beef</strong> + Lamb <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
data set was used – covering more than 460 farms throughout the country (sampled to<br />
be statistically representative of the sheep and beef farming sector and stratified to<br />
cover the wide range of different farm types, from extensive high country through to<br />
more intensive rolling land). At the meat processing stage, detailed data was obtained<br />
from a survey of nine beef-only processing plants, accounting <strong>for</strong> more than 60% of the<br />
total beef processed in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
The authors are confident the quantity and quality of data utilised in this study is<br />
sufficiently robust to produce a representative picture of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> beef meat<br />
production as a whole. Other smaller studies – based on a limited number of case study<br />
farms, <strong>for</strong> instance – do not deliver such a representative result.<br />
11 Schipper et al., 2010<br />
12 Sousanna et al., 2004<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
29
6. References<br />
BRAY, S. & WILLCOCKS, J. (2009) Net carbon position of the Queensland beef<br />
industry. Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries:<br />
www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/AnimalIndustries_<strong>Beef</strong>/Net-carbon-beef-industry.pdf<br />
CLARK, H., BROOKES, I. & WALCROFT, A. S. (2003) Enteric Methane Emissions from<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Ruminants 1990 - 2001 Calculated Using an IPCC Tier 2 Approach.<br />
Unpublished report prepared <strong>for</strong> the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington.<br />
DOOLEY A.E., SMEATON D. & MCDERMOTT A. (2005) A Model of the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
<strong>Beef</strong> Value Chain. Paper presented at MODSIM 2005:<br />
www.mssanz.org.au/modsim05/papers/dooley.pdf<br />
EBLEX (2009) Change in the Air: the English <strong>Beef</strong> and Sheep Production Roadmap -<br />
Phase 1: www.eblex.org.uk/roadmap/roadmap-phase-1.pdf<br />
LEDGARD S.F., BASSET-MENS C., BOYES M. & CLARK H. (2008) Carbon footprint<br />
measurement - Milestone 6: Carbon footprint <strong>for</strong> a range of milk suppliers in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. Report to Fonterra. AgResearch, Hamilton. 41p.<br />
LEDGARD, S.F., McDEVITT, J., BOYES, M., LIEFFERING, M. & KEMP, R. (2010)<br />
<strong>Greenhouse</strong> gas footprint of lamb meat: Methodology report. Report to MAF.<br />
AgResearch, Hamilton. 36p.<br />
LIEFFERING M., LEDGARD S. L., BOYES, M. & KEMP, R. (2010) <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Greenhouse</strong><br />
<strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong>: Final report. Report to the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Ministry of Agriculture and<br />
Forestry. Contract “MAF POL 0809-1111”.<br />
PETERS, G., ROWLEY, H.V., WEIDEMANN, S., TUCKER, R., SHORT, M., & SCHULZ,<br />
M. (2010) Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison<br />
with Overseas Studies; Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 1327-1332.<br />
SCHIPPER, L. A., PARFITT, R. L., ROSS, C., BAISDEN, W. T., CLAYDON, J. J., &<br />
FRASER S. (2010) Gains and losses of C and N stocks in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> pasture soils<br />
depend on land use. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 139: 611-617.<br />
SOUSANNA, J.-F., LOISEAU, P., VUICHARD, N., CESCHIA, E., BALESDENT, J.,<br />
CHEVALLIER, T. & ARROUAYS, D. (2004) Carbon cycling and sequestration<br />
opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use and Management 20, 219-230.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
30
WILLIAMS, A., PELL, E., WEBB, J., MOORHOUSE, E. & AUDSLEY, E. (2008)<br />
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Food Commodities Procured <strong>for</strong> UK<br />
Consumption through a Diversity of Supply Chains. DEFRA Project FO0103.<br />
A <strong>Greenhouse</strong> <strong>Gas</strong> <strong>Footprint</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Exported</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> February 2012<br />
31