By Ian Mason*
New Zealand agriculture contributed 50% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, an unusually high proportion by world standards. Dairy farming was responsible for about half of the 39.1 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) emitted, or 25% of all emissions.
Addressing the problem of New Zealand’s agricultural emissions has mainly focused on technical fixes aimed at reducing methane and nitrous oxide produced by livestock and fertiliser and relying on voluntary agreements with the industry.
But these measures may not result in substantial emissions reductions any time soon. Reductions of less than 1% are predicted according to one analysis of a government/industry accord, which forms the basis of a recently announced pricing scheme for agricultural emissions.
New Zealand farmers will start to pay a levy on agricultural emissions by 2025 https://t.co/d2x9zYiGTI
— Bloomberg Green (@climate) October 25, 2022
Exploring alternatives to conventional farming is therefore timely and urgent. One such alternative with the potential to drastically reduce agricultural emissions – while at the same time helping restore ecological quality – is to use fermentation technology.
This would allow some yet-to-be-determined proportion of dairy and meat farming to be replaced by “precision fermentation” of high-protein products, a process akin to brewing.
It might seem like a radical step for a traditional agricultural nation, but given the urgency of the problem, New Zealand needs to consider it at least.
Using bacteria to make protein
In his recent book Regenesis, British journalist and activist George Monbiot discusses the prospects for precision fermentation, or single-cell protein (SCP) production. In particular, he highlights a process developed by Finnish startup Solar Foods.
This process employs hydrogen-oxidising bacteria as an alternative means of food production with a much lower climate impact. The end product is a nutritious high-protein powder suitable for use as a food ingredient and as a component of new foods.
Key to this process are the production of hydrogen by electrolysis of tap water and the direct capture of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide from the air. Hydrogen produced in this way can also be used to make ammonia for use as a nitrogen source for the bacteria.
In a comprehensive life-cycle analysis, Finnish researchers determined that each kilogram of product made using hydroelectricity created about one kilogram of CO₂-eq emissions, requiring 18 kilowatt-hours of electricity.
The product itself is comprised of 65-75% protein, 4-10% fat, 18-20% carbohydrates, 4-10% minerals and 5% moisture. This means it has a high protein content, complemented by smaller amounts of fats (mostly polyunsaturated), carbohydrates and nutrients.
Where could the electricity come from?
New Zealand has a world-class wind resource, both onshore and offshore. Major developers have recently revealed plans for more than six gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind farms off the Taranaki and Waikato coastlines. The first is due to be operational by the end of this decade.
Using a 1GW offshore wind farm as an example, this could supply enough electricity to produce about 240,000 tonnes of SCP product a year, containing about 160,000 tonnes of protein. The carbon footprint, based on the Finnish life-cycle analysis, would be around 0.25 megatonnes of CO₂-eq emissions.
The same amount of milk protein produced at a dairy farm would have a carbon footprint of about 3.6 megatonnes of CO₂-eq emissions (based on the average emissions intensity from a recently updated life-cycle analysis).
If replaced by the SCP product, this would result in an 18.9% reduction in dairy-sector emissions and milk production based on 2019-2020 levels. Net emissions to the global atmosphere would also be reduced.
Milk contains a large proportion of fat – about 125% of the protein content compared to about 10% for the SCP product. Lactose and other nutrients, plus meat and by-products from culled cows and bobby calves, would also be removed from production under this process.
The extent to which these might be substituted with plant-based or precision-fermentation alternatives requires further investigation. Using vegetable oils to supply the difference in fat would add about 0.7 megatonnes of CO₂-eq emissions to the SCP footprint.
If the equivalent land area was retired from intensive dairy farming this would allow a range of alternative land uses, including rewilding of sensitive areas.
Given New Zealand’s serious degradation of water quality due to nutrient runoff associated with intensive farming, this would have obvious environmental and ecological benefits.
It would also provide a permanent carbon sink of native bush, adding further to the net emissions reduction.
Transition to a new system
Animal agriculture is deeply embedded in New Zealand’s culture, society and economy. Discussing alternative means of food production will therefore require a thoughtful, detailed and respectful conversation focused on a just partial transition to new systems.
New development funding would be well spent on comprehensive consultation, pilot trials of the SCP technology under local conditions and on training.
What is signalled is a very real prospect for capping and then reducing the scale of our industrial animal farming. It’s an opportunity to fit within the greenhouse gas budget we need to live within to avoid the 2.7℃ warmer world we now appear to be heading for.
It is also an opportunity to write a new chapter in New Zealand’s environmental history. Adding to the menu the “rich, mellow and filling” SCP pancake George Monbiot enjoyed in Finland sounds like a good option, too.
* Ian Mason, Research Fellow in Renewable Energy Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
38 Comments
Would t it just be easy and cheaper just to cut our agriculture production by 75% and just supply the countries own needs? What's the point of shifting our production to something anyone anywhere in the world with cheap electricity can do but a bigger closer consumer base?
Yes, the last 2 seasons I have used Power whey instead of milk powder based CMR. It does have whey in it , but also hydrolised wheat etc. The caves do well on it , one of its main benefits is the lack of bloating, which to me indicates less gas production. Probiotics as well .
That’s right, and that is why it won’t happen here. The author is completely wrong here. This process could only be used in New Zealand if there was a financial advantage in doing so.
We have efficient grass fed farms here, making ok quality products, that is an advantage for us.
there is no advantage is producing some fake food in a warehouse here, as there is no point of difference and we have no cost advantage, so won’t happen. Manufacture of this (if it ever happens) would ne low cost rubbish food for poor people. The wealthy will still want to eat natural quality products and they may need to pay a premium for that. Our agriculture industry will remain intact for this reason.
Just like Catholics used to not eat meat on Fridays, These anti animal eating religious people will keep hammering away at their religious beliefs, regardless of how irrational they are. The author is an activist, with a particular barrow to push.
Another point: when the hell is a wind resource not world class? Without doing a lot of research, my bullshit detector went off the scale at that bit. The author has lost credibility, and never regained it for the rest of the opinion piece.
I am involved in several projects across New Zealand making SCP. The value proposition is not grass fed cows vs SCP. It’s utilising waste biomass and converting it into high value feed.
Think of it as a value add for existing industries (maximising low cost streams) not a competition.
It’s going to be happening in New Zealand just in a different form to what the author describes.
then we go broke.... we have to export to pay for imports. I know we can seek to transition to other industries, but that will take time.
as it stands we currently have a severe bop issue with the importing of all these wonderful electric vehicles... it akin to stopping working but still expecting to shop at pak n save with no money..
If the proposition is ‘we are wealthy enough to pay another country to offset our emissions and still maintain our lifestyle’ the does it follow that all high emitting societies can do the same? Are there enough new trees globally and enough waste land to grow them on to offset all excess emissions? I suspect not and we find ourselves with the conundrum of impoverishing our nation to eliminate our carbon emissions from agriculture. An awful decision to make which is probably beyond our current political system to be able to deliver. The climate act goals of carbon zero seems unattainable without mass impoverishment and the associated loss of social cohesiveness. A grim prospect.
Who said anything about asking? Our dear deluded sociopathic leaders will do no such thing. After all they know they are right as they live in a virtual thought world without the difficult feedback ordinary people get from the physical world. Theirs is a world of comfortable delusions.
... yes ... if pasture land & existing farm shelterbelts were taken into account we as a nation would be CO2 negative ... that is , emissions subtractors ... the world would be obligated to pay us $ billions annually for being CO2 suckers ...
Yes folks : as a nation we are CO2 suckers ...
gladtobekiwi
Alas, that is not correct.
The facts very clearly say otherwise.
If we are going to win the arguments for why pastoral agriculture is critically important for NZ's future, then the starting point is to acknowledge the facts and not put up arguments that are incorrect.
KeithW
Carbon dioxide is indeed a plant food. There is no valid argument against that.
Carbon dioxide is also a greenhouse gas. There is also no valid argument about that. But there is scope for debate about the quantification of the relationship, typically expressed in terms of 'climate sensitivity'. That debate is an important one but it gets drowned out by noise from people at the extremes shouting at each other.
KeithW
Yes, quite. My apologies for allowing my frustration to get the better of me. You are a decent bloke and I very much appreciate that you take the trouble to reply to comments. I will attempt to outline my thoughts in a more rigorous manner.
My working hypothesis is that our "representatives" no longer represent our best interests. They are a bunch of "useful idiots", to use Stalin's phrase, ie, they are easily led by comfortable delusions promoted by overseas interests. The intentions of these "overseas interests" are unknowable and may not be benign.
Any discussion of "why" is bound to lead to speculation and conspiracy theory, but we can look at the basis of the argument and test its validity. As I understand it, the idea is that the world has warmed since 1705 or thereabouts, which seems valid. "Therefore it must be due to industrial activity" is a hypothesis.
If we look at a longer timeframe, then 1705 was pretty much the coldest time in the last 5000 years, so mean reversion would seem a more probable explanation.
Over longer periods of time we see the rise of civilisations when temperatures are rising; followed by their collapse when temperatures are falling. Migrations of peoples follow the same pattern. Thus warming periods appear largely benign. The recent rise in world population also confirms this view.
Thus, my hypothesis is that the arguments are political not scientific. The concept of "settled science" is anathema to me, as that way we would all still believe the earth is flat and the sun travels around the earth. They were settled science for a very long time. The fact that such arguments are used to suppress discussion is confirmatory evidence.
Assuming this is a scientific debate rather than a political one may not be adaptive. Does this make sense?
The science around the carbon cycle is very clear. CO2 and H2O are consumed by plants to grow in the first place. Livestock eat pasture keeping it in a vegetative state while emitting methane. Growing pasture transpires emitting hydroxyl ions which convert methane to Co2 in the atmosphere and so the cycle continues. This science experiment has been going on for over millions of years and its called mother nature. To say something has drastically changed within that in the last 100 years is what is incorrect.
Apparently bugs are next on the menu for the proles.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-future-of-protein-bugs-biotech-vege-burg…
While it's good to do this fundamental research, realistically there's much better protein sources invented by nature already.
Take hemp for example, it contains all 9 essential amino acids, rich in healthy fats & fibre and the rest of the plant can be used in almost all industries.
If only we could get over our overly idiotic fear or hemp because of it's psychoactive brother cannabis!!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.