24 September 2021 – July 2021’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which highlighted the agricultural emission reductions required to ease the pressures from climate change, has further prompted the industry to take action in formulating emission reduction strategies.
In response to the report, a recent article by banking giant ING has laid out a framework for how meat producers can reach their emissions targets and lower their carbon footprint through mitigation strategies in animal feed and across the supply chain.
Since 2005 European agricultural emissions have fallen by 3%, well short of the targeted 40% reduction by 2030, which the European Commission believes is required to meet the European Green Deal objectives and the Fit for 55 strategy.
Despite the majority of emission mitigation taking place at the feed and rearing stages of animal protein production, meat producers have an obligation to help in reducing emissions across all aspects of the supply chain if industry goals are to be met. These emission reductions outside of a businesses direct operations are known as scope 3 emissions.
|
Kiran Sanchit |
At present, only a small number of meat producers have committed to scope 3 emissions, but that number is “growing”, said Keiran Sanchit, Managing Director and Head of Food and Agriculture (EMEA) at ING. The article cites the scale and influence of major meat producers as being key to rewarding the market and consumers for making changes to combat emissions. |
Increasingly, meat processors are taking responsibility for emissions along the value chain, not just within their operations, and are focussing on data to help them achieve their goals.
Data on feed composition and use can be used to calculate the CO2 footprint of a given meat and as well as identifying opportunities to reduce emissions, Thijs Geijer, Senior Economist covering the food and agriculture sector at ING, told Feedinfo.
|
“However, data on feed composition and feed use can be commercially sensitive so there has to be a mutual benefit for meat processors, feed companies and farmers,” Thijs expanded. He sees this as a positive, as it increases knowledge along the supply chain of compound feed’s ability to nourish animals while still reducing emissions. |
Thijs Geijer |
He also acknowledged that it is increasingly important as “customers like retailers seek to know the exact carbon footprint of the end product.” A growing number of producers and consumers are showing more interest in animal welfare, but the market is only starting to see a greater emphasis put on the carbon footprint/emissions of products, Thijs told us.
Mitigation Strategies
The report outlines three methods by which producers can reduce emissions:
1. Increase the share of more sustainable sources of animal feed;
2. Make use of additives to reduce methane and manure related emissions;
3. Improve the feed conversion rate so less feed is needed to produce a kg of meat.
The success of each of these mitigation strategies is dependent on the animals being reared, as well as the applications of each method. The report highlights how better feed conversion rates are most relevant to beef, pork and poultry producers, while emissions reductions through feed additives are most applicable to the beef and dairy industries. At the same time, changes to increase the sustainability of feed mixes have the greatest chance of impacting the pork and poultry markets.
Feedinfo asked the pair at ING if there was one method which had greater potential for reducing emissions across the industry, and was told that in each case it is best to combine solutions.
“Changing the composition of feed is especially relevant for European meat producers, due to their greater reliance on protein crops from South America,” Sanchit told us. Adding that, “some [methane-reducing] feed additives look most promising in ruminants,” but that “it’s a delicate balance as changing feed composition or introducing additives in the diet can also negatively affect feed conversion rate.”
In addition to the three methods presented above, the report states that the use of alternative ingredients (insects, algae, etc.) will continue to grow and that the majority of them have shown strong promise in reducing emissions through feed. However, Thijs urged caution, “while insects do create a lot of ‘buzz’ as a novel protein source, their impact will be very small when it comes to pork and poultry feed,” as the small scale and low availability of finished product limits supply.
Instead, he believes the focus on local protein and feed sources to be a much larger contributor to feed-based emissions reductions, confirming that, “several European meat processors have clear targets to increase the use of local protein in their supply chain.”
Use of local ingredients cuts down emissions from transport and in some cases ingredient processing. “For beef, for example, grass-fed systems (such as in Ireland) have a lower footprint compared to feedlot systems. Meanwhile, for pork, emission intensity per kg of meat is generally lower in regions with ample local feed supplies like North -America and Russia.”
Costs the Key
The costs associated with each method, or alternative ingredient, will of course be one of the biggest drivers of their adoption. A sentiment echoed by Mr Sanchit, “retailers will be looking for distinctive concepts and products as long as the price isn’t too far removed from the reference price.”
The report states that for pork production feed costs make up around 50% of total costs, for poultry rearing this figure is closer to 75%, while in beef it can range from 15-50% depending on the breed and rearing method of the cattle as well as the overall quality of the meat.
The duo at ING believe governmental incentives for meat producers are forcing companies to adopt new emissions reduction strategies. “Policies like the EU Green Deal and Fit for 55 make it very clear that companies need to contribute to the global goals if they want to keep their ‘license to produce’ in the future,” Thijs told us.
“Ideally this would be accompanied by a higher price for meat products. This very much depends on rising consumer awareness and willingness to pay a premium for a staple product as well as retail initiatives to develop new concepts and improve standards,” he continued.
