MLA's Jason Strong on methane emissions and fake meat at Outlook 2023

The first comes from the broader community but the second comes from beef producers themselves.

The first is: "What are you guys doing about methane emissions". The second: "What are we doing about plant-based protein."

Mr Strong outlined his answers to both at the big government agricultural forecasting event Outlook 2023 in Canberra last week in a session about the environmental impact of raising animals for food.

ALSO SEE:

"I'm really challenged by how maligned the livestock sector is in this discussion when we've done more, for longer, than anybody, anywhere else in the world," he said.

"It seems every week a new group discovers there is a climate issue and decides they are going to find the solution.

"Unfortunately for us, a cow is very recognisable so it's an easy target.

"If we stopped driving our cars it would deliver twice the improvement to the environment than if we stop eating meat three or four times a week but that seems a bit too confronting."

The time was long overdue for a more realistic, and truthful, conversation on the topic, he argued.

Red meat is produced across around 50 per cent of the Australian land mass and most of that country can't be utilised for anything else, Mr Strong explained.

"Ruminants can take low-quality biomass and turn it into highly nutritious food," he told a packed Outlook room.

"We get this linear, simple argument that a solution to methane emissions is to reduce livestock numbers and use the land for something else but in reality, of the broader landmass in Australia, only 8pc is used for cropping.

"That's not because we are only just discovering how to crop. It's because we don't have the option, it's not suitable."

And while methane is indeed one of the most destructive gases, biogenic methane is very different to methane from fossil fuels.

Biogenic methane cycles through the system in around 12 years. It's re-utilised by pasture and converted back through the livestock system.

Australia's livestock sector has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 57pc since the baseline year of 2005 and is actively working towards achieving the ambitious target to be carbon neutral by 2030.

The ways that has been achieved: improved animal genetics, herd and flock management, more efficient rumen function, the use of high quality legumes in pastures, feed supplements and measuring soil carbon.

While global figures do vary, data suggests that by sector, livestock and its related impacts account for only 8pc of GHG emissions.

"Given that, shouldn't the question be: How can the people responsible for the other 90pc of emissions learn from the fact your industry has halved its emissions since 2005," Mr Strong said.

"But I've never been asked that."

When it comes to laboratory-grown and plant-based meat alternatives, the worst thing beef producers could do was talk about it, Mr Strong said.

That provides more publicity than alternative meat marketers could ever garner themselves.

The trend to replicate the sensory experience of natural meat had been going on for decades and there was no huge groundswell of people turning away from red meat, Mr Strong said.

"Plant-based protein in Australia accounts for 0.4pc of the market," he said.

"The growth rate this year halved for the second year in a row; the people who buy this product spend less on protein than other customers, they spend less on their overall grocery basket than other customers and they shop less often.

"It's a product that accounts for 0.4pc of the category and the people who buy it are miserable so why do they get so much of our attention?"

Asked if livestock producers, or MLA, might ever 'go into business' with alternative meats in a similar manner to how dairy co-operative Norco has partnered with lab milk start-up Eden Brew, Mr Strong answered 'maybe'.

"If you think about it in its purest sense it's no different to running a mixed farm," he said.

"It's possible one farm could contribute to both a plant-based and a red meat pathway.

"The issue is not about having alternative products in the market. We don't think about chicken in the same way we do about plant-based proteins.

"It's about the way these products are promoted via the denigration of ours. That's not ok.

"Overwhelmingly the makers of these products have taken the approach of denigrating livestock production systems around water usage, animal welfare and the environment.

"What the plant-based industry has shown, however, is that if you do that in an untruthful way then consumers are too smart for that.

"They've done themselves a massive disservice by the approach they've taken."

All that said, Mr Strong acknowledged the world would need alternative meat options to feed a growing population.

And that claiming livestock production has no impact on the environment and that 'everyone should leave us alone' was the other extreme and not ok either.

"We have to find the middle ground and that means having more complex, detailed conversations," he said.

"But if (alternative protein makers) are going to try to promote their untested, unprofitable, highly manufactured food by denigrating the meat sector they should expect a fight."