News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Chicken or the beef; both claim to come served with ... 

Chicken or the beef; both claim to come served with green

09 May, 2008 04:32 PM
Queensland beef producers have hit out at claims that chicken production is the most environmentally friendly form of livestock farming, instead claiming the State's grassfed beef is the best.

AgForce Cattle board member and Central Queensland beef producer, Justin MacDonnell, says many of the claims made by the poultry industry are not relevant to Australia or are based on dubious science.

"Queensland cattle producers are annoyed that the environmental credentials of our beef are being wrongly criticised," Mr MacDonnell said.

"The latest dubious claim to come to our attention is a report from the United Kingdom promoted by Australian chicken producers which said conventionally produced chicken is the most environmentally efficient meat.

"In our view, that is patently incorrect in an Australian context.

Mr MacDonell says this report follows a string of recent media articles which have suggested red meat production has a negative impact on the environment and that one of the ways for consumers to reduce their carbon footprint is to avoid red meat consumption.

He wants Meat and Livestock Australia to combat the claims head on.

"Anyone with any understanding of the Queensland cattle industry knows there is no more sound, logical and sustainable use of our extensive grasslands than to grow and finish beef cattle," Mr MacDonnell said.

"More than 97pc of Australia's 27 million cattle are currently being raised on natural extensive pasture production systems.

"As consumers become more educated about the supply chain for all kinds of food, any claims about environmental benefits will come under increasing scrutiny and need to be based on sound and relevant scientific evidence."

Consumer group Choice recently said there has been an explosion of green claims on product labels that are either not supported by evidence, poorly explained or irrelevant – leaving shoppers worried and confused by meaningless green logos and waffle.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is also investigating so-called 'green-washing' of consumer goods, with chairman Graeme Samuel reportedly saying that green claims are exactly like any other claim "if they are excessive, if they over-reach in terms of overselling and under delivering, then they run the risk of breaching the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act".

AgForce Cattle is currently working with MLA to ensure that the extensive beef industry puts in place robust systems which match consumer demands for meat that is nutritious, safe and ethically produced, with the welfare of stock demonstrated and the environmental sustainability of the system confirmed.

"We want to develop a third-party auditable standard which demonstrates that animals have been raised in a sustainable system which maximises health benefits, minimises environmental impacts and will be robustly certified as pasture-fed natural beef," Mr MacDonnell said.

"With significant domestic marketing, we believe this natural beef can meet modern consumer demands without any questions of integrity. Consumers can then have absolute faith in the production of pasture fed beef in Queensland and other states of Australia."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
A point being overlooked in this article is the enormous nutritional advantage of any meat produced on grass – as compared to grain.

Grass fed beef, lamb or chicken has the omega 3, 6 and 9 in the correct ratio, plus it has considerably higher levels of CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid) highly desirable in any diet.

This is an extremely strong marketing advantage that producers should promote.

Posted by ggwagga, 12/05/2008 7:52:45 AM
Good heavens, shed-raised chooks environmentally efficient!

How about the cost of bringing their feed hundreds of kms, getting those huge sheds built and those big fans bringing fresh air in and foul air out as well as disposing of the shed waste.

At least grass fed cattle live their lives on grass which grows without man's intervention and the only transport in their lives is when they go to market.

I know which industry is the "green" one.

Posted by Mrs Mac, 12/05/2008 9:03:31 AM
I agree with MLA that as consumers become more educated about the supply chain for all kinds of food, any claims about environmental benefits will come under increasing scrutiny.

And as the truth comes out, we will hopefully see more and more people change to a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Posted by Bernard L Brennan, 12/05/2008 9:50:31 AM
First of all, fighting among livestock industries is not really very healthy as everyone is under stress at present.

However, the report in question is based on the UK situation.

Making unsubstantiated assertions that beef production in Australia is more environmentally efficient than conventionally raised chicken is just unfounded speculation.

The best way to settle the question is for MLA and RIRDC to commission an independent scientific study comparing the environmental efficiency of chicken, pork, beef and lamb in an Australian context.

Let's find out what the real facts are before making fools of ourselves.

Posted by Reality check, 12/05/2008 10:39:25 AM
Bernard Brennan has a sly dig at meat eaters and trots out the same old smug conspiracy theory - i.e. the "truth" would show that if the majority switch to a vegan/vegetarian diet, the environment would be the winner...

But what exactly would the impact be if we had to produce enough protein for the population through crops rather than livestock?

That's an awful lot of arable land needed.

Big footprint indeed.

Not as simple as Bernard suggests... but he's typical of the breed... never let the facts get in the way of blind dogma.

Posted by Eat a vegan, 12/05/2008 11:36:55 AM
When there are studies taken about the so called polloutants from cattle?

Where did they get their results from?? a feedlot? a dairy?

Like the other people have said, most of Queenslands beef comes from grass pastures.

I believe there is a major difference in grass fed beef to grain fed beef.

I personally cannot see the need to feed cattle grain if there is pleanty of pasture grasses available.

Grain cost money and could be better utilised elswhere, maybe it could help with the world's food shortage?

Posted by dusty gal, 12/05/2008 12:40:26 PM
You can argue as much as you like which is better for the environment, but the reality is that meat and dairy production will always cost the earth a hell of a lot more than a vegetarian diet.

A true vegetarian diet uses about half the water of a meat/dairy diet.

A vegetarian diet also only needs about a third of the land used for meat/dairy production.

If you want to be green, stop eating meat!

Posted by Derek, 12/05/2008 1:26:15 PM
Poor old Derek.

The majority of the grasslands where cattle in Australia graze would be destroyed if you tried to grow vegetables there.

Humans don't survive by grazing grass so the best and most sustainable use for our grasslands is to convert the grass into protein via cattle then feed the beef to the humans.

No point in trying to over complicate what is is a simple, sensible and sustainable cycle.

If you want to truly look after our world for future generations to enjoy - EAT MORE GRASS FED BEEF 'with' your vegetables!

Posted by save the world, 12/05/2008 10:21:39 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Northern Beef Week
 
MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Photo Library
 
2UE Royal Broadcast
 
Land Subscriptions
 
Rural Bookshop
 
The Land Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...