8 minute read
Greener pastures
The red meat industry is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases; it might also be one of the most well-equipped to achieve carbon neutrality.
WORDS: Madeline Woolway
GLOBALLY, PRODUCTION OF red meat, including cattle and sheep, is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to Australian government reports, direct livestock emissions account for about 70 per cent of GHG emissions by the Australian agricultural sector and 11 percent of total national greenhouse gas emissions.
While other carbon-intensive industries such as coal have failed to act thus far, the red meat industry is taking steps to curb its GHG emissions, with Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030.
The goal was set in response to changing consumer demands as well as emerging threats and market disruptors. When push comes to shove, the red meat industry is both a cause of, and vulnerable to, the effects of climate change. Contributing $18 billion dollars to Australia’s gross domestic product, it’s also a sector many Australians rely upon for their livelihoods.
“Clearly, the red meat industry is recognised as being high carbon, so we’ve taken the lead,” says Pip Band, Sustainability Strategy & Stakeholder manager at MLA.
To this end, MLA, the industry’s peak body for research and advertising, commissioned a CSIRO-led report into the potential to reduce and then offset remaining GHG emissions. Published in 2018, the Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the Australian red meat production and processing sectors found it would be possible for the industry to meet MLA’s target.
Enter Flinders + Co. In late 2018, the foodservice meat distribution company announced it had become completely carbon neutral.
Originally known as Flinders Island Meat, the company relaunched their brand identity in 2018 with a renewed focus on ‘cultivating a better food world’. Managing director James Madden, who founded the company with his father David in 2011, says the decision to pursue carbon neutrality manifested out of a desire to develop projects that would engage and challenge the company’s team on a daily basis.
In order to gain carbon neutral certification, the business was analysed by consultants from the Carbon Reduction Institute (CRI). The extensive process threw up a number of opportunities for emissions reductions and offsets, but it also highlighted the sheer size of the project. “CRI did an analysis and came back to us with a number things we might be able to do to reduce our footprint,” says Madden.
The audit looked at every aspect of the business including direct and indirect emissions. Emissions from Flinders + Co owned and operated boilers, furnaces and vehicles were taken into account as were emissions generated from purchased electricity and delivery vehicles. Even the transportation of employees to and from work was included in the business’ total emissions. “The carbon footprint of those activities was very small in comparison to the carbon footprint of the product we sell,” says Madden.
The industry was aware of the main sources behind its high GHG emissions long before the MLA report was published. “We know the big ones are methane and any emissions from land use change,” says Band. “It was more to look at theoretically, from a modelling perspective, is it worth setting a target?”
The MLA team had a hunch that while the red meat industry is one of the biggest contributors to GHG emissions, becauseof the production systems used here, theAustralian industry is well placed to reduceand offset emissions.
Work on the Greenhouse Gas mitigationpotential of the Australian red meatproduction and processing sectors reportbegan with the goal of identifying potentialpathways for the industry to achieve carbonneutrality. “We had a hypothesis that we,with our production systems in Australiabeing predominately grass-fed and utilisingrange lands and grass areas, would be in areally good spot — particularly comparedto overseas systems — to become carbonneutral,” says Band.
Carbon neutrality is two-fold. First, allpossible emissions need to be reduced,after which leftover emissions should beoffset by contributing to carbon reductionschemes elsewhere. According to MLA, the Australian red meat industry can meet both expectations. The report highlighted several opportunities: land management practice change, feed additives and vaccines to reduce the release of methane and improved animal husbandry and management to increase production efficiencies.
“What we, as the research, development and adoption body, have done is taken 12 months to unpick [the report] to look at what’s practical, what’s commercially viable and what the best pathways are to enable us as an industry to get there,” says Band. “A key area we’re really focused on is suppressing methane. We know there are bioadditives that prohibit production of methane. One of the most promising is red algae — it can reduce methane by 90 per cent.”
While enteric fermentation that results in methane emissions could be reduced through feed additives or supplements in feedlot cattle, implementing the approach will require substantial investment in new technologies and delivery mechanisms that are applicable to grazing livestock. “There’s a whole range of options,” says Band. “Slow-release devices or a vaccine — which is probably not the preference — can do the job, but it’s about how to do it in a cost-effective and practical way.”
Presently, the CSIRO and James Cook University are conducting trials and research into incorporating red algae as a feed additive in more intensive farming situations, with particular attention paid to how a commercialisation plan could be developed to distribute it across the extensive industry.
Other pathways to emissions reduction include savanna burning management, reduced deforestation and changing the way herds are managed in order to increase productivity and thereby decrease methane emissions per unit of meat produced. No matter the approach, remaining emissions would need to be offset.
“When you think about carbon neutrality, it’s reducing emissions, but it’s also the ability to offset or store carbon,” says Band. While the meat industry works with an offsets program, it’s unique. “Unlike other industries, we operate in the natural environment,” says Band. “So, we have the ability to store carbon ourselves.”
There is scope for emissions from red meat production to be offset through carbon sequestration or the storage of carbon in plants and soil. Theoretically, developing more efficient livestock management practices could result in the ability to reduce deforestation and encourage reforestation and humaninduced regeneration, all of which are viable methods for carbon sequestration.
“A lot of companies are looking at what their overall balances are at the moment and what that might mean for say, more trees in the landscape [in order] to have a longer [term] carbon neutral approach,” says Band. In the meantime, there’s an ability for brands to utilise offets in the short term. Most of the offsets that are purchased are generated through agricultural, especially livestock, enterprises.
The CRI’s audit of Flinders + Co carbon emissions revealed opportunities for the business to reduce its emissions, such as switching its facilities to renewable energy. However, it also exposed areas where that wouldn’t be possible. The analysis looked at each supply chain and calculated the carbon footprint of each kilo of meat sold by the company. “There will always be some carbon emissions that we put into the atmosphere, so to offset that, we need to look at carbon credits and supporting projects that help take that carbon out of the air,” says Madden.
Flinders + Co set out to achieve a couple of things with their offset choices. “First, we wanted to try to support projects based in Australia and in the agricultural industry,” says Madden. “If we’re going to spend money on offsets, how can we support the industry we’re operating in?”
Choosing the right carbon offset programs could encourage farmers and other people in the supply chain to look at carbon neutral projects themselves. One of the selected projects is from Flinders + Co beef supplier Greenham in Tasmania. “They recently switched their steam boiler from coal to a renewable biomass,” says Madden. “The renewable biomass is actually a waste product from daisy flowers, which are grown in Tasmania.” Switching fuels has decreased the Cape Grim and Robbins Island supplier’s carbon footprint by about 90 per cent. “They had to invest quite a lot of money to
convert all their equipment, but now the project generates carbon offsets and we’re purchasing some of the carbon offsets from them,” says Madden. “It keeps all the money within the sector.”
Undertaking carbon balances on the same level as Flinders + Co is incredibly complicated. “We’ve got a couple of projects looking at how we can simplify the carbon calculator to make it a lot more accessible to producers around the country,” says Band. “MLA is doing carbon balances with producers across different regions and styles of production, so we can take that modelled information and really ground truth it.”
The effort is worth it — implementing pathways to reduce and offset carbon emissions from the red meat production and processing industry makes sense, ethically and economically.
Of the $18bn in GDP the industry generates, only 30 per cent is from the domestic market. The primary reason behind MLA’s decision to set the target was based on an understanding that consumer demands are changing, especially in high export markets.
Going carbon neutral will up the industry’s competitive advantage, says Band. “It’s a good opportunity to access higher value [export] markets as well as connect with [domestic] consumers who value low-carbon, environmentally conscious food production.”
While Madden wanted an idealistic project that would engage Flinders + Co employees, he’s the first to admit there’s a strategic motivation, too. “Looking at the data out there about purchasing habits among millennials, we could see environmentalism and social purpose are playing more of a role in people’s decisions,” he says. “We wanted to help our clients key into that demographic.”
Beyond changing consumer demands, Band points to pay-offs in productivity as another benefit.
“Probably 90 per cent of what we’ve uncovered also has productivity benefits,” says Band. “The red algae has a 40–50 per cent productivity increase. It’s definitely a hard sell [in terms of just] reducing methane production, but methane is lost energy, so it’s a loss in productivity.”
In its early days, the pursuit of carbon neutrality isn’t perfect. “At this stage, we’re absorbing the costs,” says Madden. He’s adamant the decision will pay off. “For every dollar I spend on carbon neutrality, I want to get an extra $100 in revenue. It’s an idealistic project, but we’re looking at marketing activity as well. That’s how we’re trying to rationalise the expense — can we get more clients who are willing to consider us because of these credentials?”
It’s also about leading the way towards a better food future. “What we want to do is show the consumer cares and that they’re willing to change their purchasing habits to support it,” says Madden. “Then we can start sending price signals down the supply chain. Ultimately, someone has to go first.”
If the rest of the industry follows suit, Australia could be well on the way to becoming the first country in the world to have carbon neutral red meat. ■
