The environmental
cost of New Zealand
food production
Ray Hilborn & Pierre Tellier
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 1
Copyright © New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd
ISBN: 978-0473-17824-6
Electronic copies and the online appendix are available at
www.seafood.co.nz
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd
Private Bag 24-901, Wellington 6142
Seafood Industry House
74 Cambridge Terrace, Wellington 6011
The environmental
cost of New Zealand
food production
Ray Hilborn & Pierre Tellier
4 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
about this report
“Must I stop eating fish?” asked an anguished friend after
reading yet another article about the sustainability of
fish. Inquiries as to what he would eat instead elicited the
expected response: beef, chicken and pork, his usual ‘guiltfree’ dinner choices.
Is meat indeed a “better” choice than fish?
For an answer, we must look at the true cost of that
vital piece of protein on our plate. As soon as we look beyond
the money we exchange for it, our certainties begin to waver.
Like an iceberg, most of the costs of our food are hidden
and rarely, if ever, thought about. This report looks at the
underwater portion of our food iceberg and is the result of
two years literature reviews on the environmental impacts of
food production.
The report grew out of a request by the New Zealand
Seafood Industry Council to consider the environmental
impacts of New Zealand fisheries, and an obvious comparison
is with the New Zealand dairy and meat industries, and with
its competitors in the rest of the world.
We looked at all the studies we could find on
environmental impacts of New Zealand fish, dairy and meat
production, but failed to find sufficient specific studies on
New Zealand aquaculture and had to be content to report
results from the analysis of aquaculture elsewhere.
Increasing awareness of the environmental impacts
of human activities has brought more scrutiny to all sectors
of the New Zealand economy, and even though New
Zealand is proud of its “clean-green” image, NGOs here and
internationally have focused considerable public attention
on the environmental consequences of many New Zealand
industries in the form of single issue campaigns such as
fishing impact on seabed flora and fauna, water pollution
and the importation of palm oil products for stock feed.
Internationally, NGOs have urged retail and consumer
boycotts of New Zealand fisheries products such as Antarctic
toothfish, orange roughy and hoki, and have been successful
in persuading various retailers to stop selling some of these
products.
At the governmental level, environmental concerns
have led to NGOs calling for policy changes, such as banning
the importation of palm oil products, and closing the Ross
Sea to fishing.
Because environmental impacts take many forms, the
“least impact” method of food production depends on which
kind of impact is of concern. If, for instance, the concern is
with water use, water pollution, antibiotics and fertiliser, wild
fisheries harvest wins hands down. If, on the other hand, you
are looking at food production per unit area, dairy is hard to
beat. While we have not been able to collect enough data
on New Zealand aquaculture to include anything beyond
production statistics in this report, it is clear from other work
(Hall et al. 2011) that shellfish production per unit area is very
high, and it has low impacts across many environmental
indicators.
Finally, if we compare New Zealand fish, dairy and meat
production systems with the rest of the world, how do we
stack up against some of the big boys?
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 1
acknowledgements
Our first thanks must go to the many authors who did the
work on which we rely. We have collected no original data in
this report, simply summarised work already done by others.
We also thank the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council for
their support of the project.
2 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
acronyms, abbreviations
and units of measure
•
Acidification potential: Many production processes
contribute acidic substances to air, water and soils that
are implicated in a range of environmental threats
including acid rain, soil acidification and changing pH
of soils and water. Typical substances are: Sulphur
dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Ammonia (NH3).
Acid depositions have negative impacts on natural
ecosystems and the man-made environment such as
buildings. The main sources for emissions of acidifying
substances are agriculture and fossil fuel combustion
to produce electricity for heating and transport.
Expressed as tonnes of SO2 equivalents.
•
Carcass weight: the weight of a carcass after slaughter.
Skin and offal have been removed but bones are still in.
•
Enteric fermentation: The bacterial process in the
stomach of ruminants (sheep, cattle) that breaks down
the complex carbohydrates of plants into simpler
chemicals that can be more easily digested but also
results in the release of greenhouse gases, especially
methane, through flatulence and belching.
•
Eutrophication potential: a measure used in life cycle
assessment to calculate impacts due to excessive
levels of macronutrients in the environment caused by
emissions of nutrients to air, water and soil. Expressed
as equivalent kg of phosphate (PO4).
•
GHG (greenhouse gas): One of several gases (including
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) that
contribute to global warming. Usually measured as
equivalent kg of carbon dioxide (CO2).
•
GigaJoule: a measure of energy, constituting 109 Joules.
The joule has replaced the calorie as the standard
international unit of food energy. There are 4.2 joules
in a calorie. A human daily diet may consist of 2000
kilocalories, or 8,400,000 joules. One tonne of oil
contains approximately 42 gigajoules.
•
Green weight: the weight of fish before processing, all
skin, bones and internal organs are included.
•
LCA (life cycle assessment): A process to determine
the inputs and outputs required to produce specific
products, such as a litre of milk or a kilogram of lamb.
•
MegaJoule: One million (106) joules. See GigaJoules
•
TerraJoule: 1000 GigaJoules. See GigaJoules.
•
Tonne: 1000 kg.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 3
summary
The production of dairy, meat and fish is the backbone of
the New Zealand economy and constitutes 37.5% of New
Zealand export earnings. In the last decade, greater public
awareness has brought particular concerns with the
biodiversity impacts of fishing, freshwater pollution caused
by the dairy industry, and the carbon footprint of New
Zealand meat in the export markets. Using existing published
reports, we evaluated how New Zealand fisheries, dairy, and
meat production impact the environment through a range
of measures that include inputs of energy, fresh water,
fertiliser, pesticide and toxic chemicals, antibiotics and land
area requirements. We also evaluated outputs including
greenhouse gases, acidification of air and water, and
eutrophication of water.
We compared the inputs required and outputs
produced for a standard serving of fish, meat or dairy
that contains 40 g of protein, which is in the range of the
recommended daily amount for human consumption. All
three New Zealand industries impact the environment
less than comparable industries in other countries. New
Zealand fishing fleets use no significant freshwater, fertiliser,
pesticides or antibiotics, and the major New Zealand fishing
fleets produce less greenhouse gas per portion than New
Zealand dairy and meat. The dairy and meat industries
require less energy input per serving and produce more
servings per unit of land area than the fishing industry does
per unit of ocean.
This report is a first attempt to synthesize a wide range
of individual studies, many made with differing methods. We
believe it is the major results that are of interest rather than
the details of any particular calculation. Much more work is
needed in the general field of measurement of environmental
impacts of food production.
Many of our results are readily apparent; wild fisheries
simply do not impact the environment in the many ways
that dairy and meat production do. There have been previous
comparisons of energy use and greenhouse gas production
between fisheries and agriculture, and our results are broadly
similar. Dairy production is generally the most efficient.
There are considerable differences between fisheries, most
notably that high volume fisheries such as hoki and southern
blue whiting tend to have a low impact, whereas high value
and low volume fisheries such as rock lobster tend to come in
on the high end.
4 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
The biodiversity impacts of the different production
methods proved to be the hardest to quantify. At one
level the results are obvious. Agriculture has dramatically
transformed much of the land mass of New Zealand,
replacing native habitats with exotic species and converting
much of the native forest to pasture. The direct loss of
biodiversity from species extinctions and changes in
abundance is more attributable to human migration and
introduction of exotic species to islands, rather than to
the introduction of agriculture as a consequence of that
human migration. Wild fisheries have also changed their
ecosystems by reducing the abundance of targeted species
and likely affecting non-targeted species by reducing their
prey or predators. However, marine ecosystems when
sustainably fished remain natural functioning ecosystems.
The potential recovery time of marine ecosystems from
exploitations is almost certainly much less than the recovery
time for terrestrial systems converted to agriculture, where
it might take centuries for natural forest ecosystems to
re-establish. Furthermore, the marine ecosystems of New
Zealand have not been modified to the same extent as
terrestrial ecosystems have been following the deliberate
and accidental introduction of new species of flora and
fauna over the last 1000 years. The extent of terrestrial
species introductions are such that reversion to the previous
“natural” abundance of remaining native species-based
ecosystems is probably unachievable.
New Zealand dairy, meat and wild fisheries production
all have lower environmental impacts than the comparable
industries in other countries where data are available.
New Zealanders can be proud of their food production
industries, but must recognize that all food production
has environmental costs and depending on which form
of environmental impact one considers most important
different forms of food will have the smallest impact.
1
new zealand seafood
and agriculture production
How do we feed the nine billion people we
expect by the mid-century? And more
urgently, how do we provide more food to
the chronically undernourished right now?
Estimates are that world food production
needs to increase by 70-100% to meet those
demands (Godfray et al. 2010).
New Zealand, with its many advantages, has been a major
exporter of food. A temperate climate combined with
advanced production systems make the New Zealand dairy,
sheep and beef industries among the most competitive in the
world. A large economic zone and productive fish resources
result in significant exports of marine sourced wild fish.
Consequently, increasing world demand for food will be a
significant factor in New Zealand’s economic growth and
prosperity over the next half century.
Table 1 summarises the New Zealand production of
milk, sheep and lamb, beef, wild fisheries and aquaculture.
Since there are major differences in the units of production,
ranging from litres of milk, tonnes of carcass weight or
tonnes of green weight of fish, we have provided two
standardised units, tonnes of protein and food energy in
Gigajoules.
Table 1. Production of New Zealand dairy, meat, fisheries and
aquaculture products. Data sources and details of calculations
are provided in the online appendix.
Amount
Produced
Units
Year
Energy
(GigaJoules)
Protein
(Tonnes)
40 g Protein
Portions
(millions)
New Zealand
Dairy
17,339,000
1000
litres
2010-2011
48,549,200
651,946
16,299
New Zealand
Sheep & Lamb
470,900
tonnes
carcass
weight
2009-2010
3,359,176
96,320
2,408
New Zealand
Beef
635,300
tonnes
carcass
weight
2009-2010
5,982,144
129,948
3,249
New Zealand
Fisheries
418,306
tonnes
green
weight
2010-2011
644,020
27,601
690
New Zealand
Aquaculture
104,950
tonnes
green
weight
2009
118,836
4,844
121
item
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 5
item
Energy
Protein
New Zealand
Dairy
83%
72%
New Zealand
Sheep & Lamb
6%
11%
New Zealand
Beef
10%
14%
New Zealand
Fisheries
1%
3%
New Zealand
Aquaculture
<1%
1%
Because of the long shipping distances to many
markets, a number of studies have dealt with the greenhouse
gas footprint of New Zealand dairy and meat production and
have generally found that shipping accounts for a very small
portion of the total greenhouse gas footprint. Moreover,
since New Zealand sheep, beef and dairy animals are largely
pasture raised, the total greenhouse gas production from
these New Zealand meat and dairy products delivered to
markets such as Europe, is less than the equivalent produced
in Europe (Ledgard et al. 2010,Basset-Mens et al. 2009).
The potential for carbon trading and taxation is also
stimulating research on greenhouse gas emissions from
all forms of New Zealand agriculture (Ministry for the
Environment 2010) and fishing (Roxburgh Plume Ltd 2010).
All food production has environmental costs beyond
greenhouse gases. We must also count in soil, water and air
pollution as well as the loss of biodiversity through habitat
conversion and exploitation. There is a more diffuse, and
less comprehensive, literature on the other environmental
impacts of food production.
The purpose of this report is to assemble the existing
data on the environmental impacts of New Zealand
fisheries, and provide a comparison with animal protein
from dairy, sheep and beef. Once our analysis is complete,
we can compare the results of the New Zealand fishing,
dairy and livestock industries with published estimates
for other places using a recently published meta-analysis
(de Vries and de Boer 2010).
6 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
Table 2. Proportion of New Zealand food
energy and protein production from the
different production methods.
New Zealand production of pork and
poultry are not included.
2
How do we measure
environmental impact?
The steps involved in bringing farmed food to
the table include:
1. direct and indirect farming activities such
as land conversion, fuel consumption by
machinery and use of fertiliser, pesticides and
antibiotics,
2. transport, processing and warehousing
between the farm and retail outlets.
This includes fuel, machinery, shipping
and packing materials and energy for
refrigeration and storage,
3. retail related use of energy and materials
needed to store and market the product, and
4. transportation to and preparation in the
home or restaurant.
Figure 1. Energy expenditures in different stages of US food
production, processing and consumption.
From University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable Systems.
Figure 1 shows an overview of energy expenditures in the
various processes of US food production. Surprisingly,
farming accounts for only 21% of total energy needed,
whereas home refrigeration and food preparation are the
most energy intensive stages.
In fisheries the calculation of inputs and outputs relates
to the process of catching the fish, dominated by the use
of fuel. None of the dynamics of the marine ecosystem are
part of the calculation because the ecosystem would be
there in the absence of fishing. In contrast, on a farm the
environmental impacts include all the actions of the farm
animals, and all the inputs into the farm, such as irrigation,
animal husbandry and fertiliser application. These are
included because the animals and inputs would not occur
if the farm was not operated. We can now compare the
environmental costs of different foods and production
methods with a well-established method known as “Life
Cycle Assessment” (LCA) that attempts to determine the total
inputs used and the outputs from the production of
a specific commodity. Much of this work is published in the
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Most of the available LCA data on farming stop at the
farm gate (i.e. the assessments only consider the actual food
production phase, not the subsequent transport, retailing
or consumption), although for New Zealand meat products
there has been considerable analysis of the greenhouse gas
production by transport from farm to distant markets.
Similarly for fishing, the available data stop at the dock !GRICULTURALPRODUCTION
where a fishing vessel lands its catch.
4RANSPORT
2ESTAURANTS#ATERERS
0ACKAGING
&OOD2ETAIL
20.8%
(OME2EFRIGERATION
0REPARATION
15.8%
0ROCESSING
!GRICULTURALPRODUCTION
4RANSPORT
2ESTAURANTS#ATERERS
31.7%
13.9%
0ACKAGING
&OOD2ETAIL
(OME2EFRIGERATION
0REPARATION
0ROCESSING
6.9%
6.9%
4.0%
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 7
Table 3. Environmental inputs and outputs from
food production
Input
OutPut
Energy
Greenhouse gases
Fresh water
Eutrophication potential
FERTILISER
5 - 10 - 5
Fertiliser
Acidification potential
Pesticides
Soil erosion
Antibiotics
Biodiversity impacts
Surface impacted
(land and sea floor)
Solid waste and debris
including discarded
fishing gear
Antifouling paints
on fishing vessels
8 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
For the purpose of this analysis we will also stop
at the farm gate and the dock. Processing, transport and
retail costs will not be considered. The estimates for fisheries
that use factory-processor vessels will therefore not be
strictly comparable. The fuel used in such a vessel covers
not only harvesting, but also processing of the catch and
accommodation of the crew. The energy used in processing
(both shore based and on-board) was estimated to be well
under 10% of the energy used in harvesting across a wide
range of fisheries studied in Norway (Schau et al. 2009)
so this will not affect the broad comparisons made here.
Reviewing the existing LCA literature on farm
production and fishing, we identified the potential inputs
and outputs that would ideally be considered (Table 3).
In farming, the major inputs are energy for machinery,
such as irrigation and milking plants, freshwater (largely
for irrigation), fertiliser, pesticides, antibiotics and land.
Environmental outputs are greenhouse gases (primarily
in New Zealand from the enteric fermentation of the
ruminants), soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity due to land
conversion and water pollution. In addition, two measures
that have achieved wide acceptance in the LCA literature are
eutrophication and acidification potential. Eutrophication
potential measures the amount of nutrients released into air,
water and soil and is normally measured as kg of phosphate
(PO4) equivalents. Acidification potential measures the
release of a range of acidic substances that contribute to air,
water and soil pollution and is usually measured as kg
of sulphur dioxide (SO2) equivalents.
Greenhouse gases are also produced from land
conversion; chopping down and burning forests to produce
agricultural land, or ploughing virgin grasslands, all release
a considerable pulse of greenhouse gases. For the purposes
of this report, we will ignore land conversion impacts.
Biodiversity impacts of land conversion and water pollution
are very poorly documented and not considered in any LCA
we have seen.
The major inputs to fishing are fuel and vessels.
Almost all the greenhouse gas output comes from fuel,
whereas the energy involved in vessel construction is
generally less than 10% of the total energy used when spread
over the lifetime of a vessel (Tyedmers 2004). Refrigerant
use and loss for factory vessels is an output. On the whole,
large vessels make their own freshwater using surplus heat
from the engines, but smaller vessels do carry freshwater.
Only one LCA considered the volume of anti-fouling paint
used (Hospido and Tyedmers 2005) which is analogous to
pesticides.
Reduction of biodiversity is another big impact of
food production, be it through harvesting fish or modifying
habitat by farming or fishing gear. Our literature review
suggests that biodiversity impacts are quite difficult to
quantify, but we provide a summary of what is known in
Section 5.
3
wild fisheries: biophysical demands
and environmental impacts
The three major inputs associated with
wild fisheries are (1) fuel consumption, (2)
vessel construction and maintenance, and
(3) area impacted by fishing gear.
The production and burning of fuels generate a wide range of
pollutants. Roxburgh Plume Ltd (2010) calculated the amount
of fuel used for the big New Zealand fisheries. Table 4 shows
fuel used for the nine fisheries that used the most fuel from
Table 10 of that report. For each species we averaged the
landings in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fishing years
from the Ministry of Fisheries statistics. We can see that
fuel efficiency differs greatly across fisheries (Table 4) with
rock lobster using over 4,000 litres/tonne. The high volume
fisheries that constitute most of New Zealand fisheries
food production, including hoki, arrow squid, jack mackerel,
southern blue whiting and barracouta are much more fuel
efficient, with an average of 300-400 litres per tonne.
FUEL USED
(Litres)
Catch
(tonnes)
Litres/ tonNE
Squid
42, 268, 000
79, 247
533
Hoki
36, 938, 000
104, 500
353
Jack Mackerel
15, 807, 000
44, 674
354
Rock Lobster
11, 704, 000
2, 474
4, 731
Orange
Roughy
9, 055, 000
15, 435
587
Barracouta
7, 603, 000
27, 400
277
Southern
Blue Whiting
7, 005, 000
25, 914
270
Ling
5, 697, 000
15, 687
363
Snapper
4, 461, 000
6, 704
665
Table 4. Litres of fuel used in 2005,
average of 2004/05 and 2005/06 catch
and litres/tonne for major New Zealand
fisheries.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 9
Table 5. The inputs required to produce one 40 g portion of
protein from major New Zealand fisheries
(litres of
diesel or
equivalent)
Energy
(MEGA JOULES)
Fresh
Water
(litres)
Fertiliser
(g)
Pesticides
(mg)
Antibiotics
(mg)
Surface
Area
impacted
(m 2 )
Squid
0.20
7.11
0
0
n/a
0
17
Hoki
0.20
7.31
0
0
n/a
0
100
Jack Mackerel
0.21
7.69
0
0
n/a
0
57
Rock Lobster
2.78
99.53
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
Orange Roughy
0.40
14.40
0
0
n/a
0
104
Barracouta
0.15
5.55
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
Southern
Blue Whiting
0.16
5.88
0
0
n/a
0
24
Ling
0.20
7.26
0
0
n/a
0
36
Snapper
0.35
12.60
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
Energy
Compared to fuel, the amount of energy used and
associated impacts in vessel construction is small. Tyedmers
(2004) estimated that 75-90% of energy used in wild fisheries
was direct fuel consumption. Adding vessel construction and
maintenance, and refrigerant loss, to calculate the output
measures of GHG, AP and EP we assumed that the actual fuel
equivalent was 1.2 times the measured fuel consumption
which immediately raises greenhouse gas emission as well as
acidification and eutrophication potentials.
Wild fisheries do not use appreciable amounts of
freshwater, fertiliser, or antibiotics. The use of antifouling
paints is analogous to pesticides, but we have no data for
New Zealand on the use of antifouling paints and there is
considerable discussion in the literature (e.g. Hospido and
Tyedmers, 2005) of whether antifouling paints should be
considered a pollutant since the active ingredients (copper
based) are naturally found in sea water and in some cases
may be limiting nutrients.
10 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
The use of trawls and dredges impacts on benthic
flora and fauna. Black and Wood (2010) calculated the total
area contacted by bottom fishing gear in fishing years
1989-1990 to 2008-2009 for each of the major species caught
by such gear in New Zealand. Over that period, a total area
of 293,334 km2, being 7% of New Zealand’s EEZ, was contacted
by fishing gear. Fishing obviously impacts a wider area than
bottom contact, but no reliable numbers are available on the
range of each species, therefore we will use area of bottom
contact as an index of area impacted.
Table 6. Output measures of environmental impact for
production of one 40 g portion of protein from New Zealand
fisheries.
Greenhouse Gases (kg)
Eutrophication
Potential (g)
Acidification Potential (g)
Squid
0.62
1.68
3.94
Hoki
0.64
1.73
4.05
Jack Mackerel
0.68
1.82
4.26
Rock Lobster
8.75
23.58
55.12
Orange Roughy
1.27
3.41
7.97
Barracouta
0.49
1.31
3.07
Southern
Blue Whiting
0.52
1.39
3.25
Ling
0.64
1.72
4.02
Snapper
1.11
2.99
6.98
We could use the total area of the New Zealand EEZ, or the
total area of the continental shelf, but a further complication
is that many of these species are caught in the same area.
No matter what metric we would use, it is clear that
fisheries yield per unit area is much lower than agriculture.
Another perspective is the proportion of the potential area
used. In this case agriculture uses quite a large percentage
of the New Zealand land area, while fisheries, at least in
terms of bottom contact or area fished, uses a small portion
of the New Zealand EEZ.
We present results for the major New Zealand fisheries.
The inputs per 40 g protein portion for each of these
New Zealand fisheries are shown in Table 5.
Table 6 shows the outputs from the production of one
40 g protein portion.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 11
4
dairy, sheep and beef: biophysical
demands and environmental impacts
Environmentally sensitive inputs and outputs of dairy,
beef and sheep production are much more complex than
those for wild fisheries. We will summarise key issues and
results; for details on calculations and data sources, please
see the online appendix.
Energy is used in many ways from fuel for farm
machinery to the electricity to operate dairy sheds and the
energy needed to produce fertiliser.
Water is needed for livestock drinking, cleaning
and other service needs, but most of the water goes into
irrigation albeit on a limited area of New Zealand.
With the arrival of aerial top dressing, the systemic use
of fertiliser spread to almost all of New Zealand’s agricultural
regions. On dairy farms about 214 kg/ha are applied annually
as opposed to 103.9 kg/ha in meat production.
12 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
Pesticides are used as herbicides and insecticides
and for the prevention of external parasites. The dairy
industry used 392 tonnes and the meat industry 682 tonnes
of pesticides per year. Antibiotics are widely used in the
production of both dairy and meat with a total of 25 tonnes
of active ingredients used per year.In 2007, 2,016,000 ha of
New Zealand’s land area were used for dairy production and
9,574,000 ha for sheep and beef.
The calculations of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions are described in detail in the online appendix.
Fortunately, the New Zealand Government compiled a report
as part of its treaty obligations under the Kyoto Protocol
(Ministry for the Environment 2010) that serves as the basis
for our calculation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy
and meat sectors. Because dairy, beef and lamb are all
ruminants, GHG production is dominated by the release of
gases during enteric fermentation.
The calculation of acidification and eutrophication
potential for dairy are available from Basset-Mens et al.
(2009). We found no specific estimates of AP and EP for the
meat industry. Our own calculation of AP and EP for the
meat industry was based on the assumption that it was
proportional to the dairy industry based on the weight of the
animals for each year. The standing stock of beef and lamb
was 1.42 times the standing stock (in kg) of dairy, so the total
AP and EP for the meat industry was assumed to be 1.42 times
the AP and EP of the dairy industry. This yields a roughly 5
fold higher estimated AP and EP per 40 g protein portion for
the meat industry compared to the dairy industry (Table 8).
If we look worldwide (Table 9) we see that where AP
and EP have been estimated for LCA, the meat industry
has 10 times higher AP and EP per 40 g protein portion
than the dairy industry. The main reason for the difference
between dairy and meat is the difference in efficiency
between milking animals and killing and eating them.
Even though the standing stock of dairy animals is slightly
less than the standing stock of beef and lamb, the dairy
industry produces eight times more protein.
Table 7. Environmentally related inputs for a 40 g protein
portion of milk and meat
Energy
New Zealand
Milk
New Zealand
Meat
Energy
Fresh
Water
Fertiliser
(g)
Pesticides Antibiotics
(mg)
(mg)
Surface
Area
impacted
(m 2 )
(litres of
diesel or
equivalent)
(MEGA JOULES)
0.04
1.56
171
26
24
1.17
1.24
0.14
4.90
262
188
129
1.17
18.14
(litres)
Table 7 shows the inputs for each sector per 40 g of protein
produced. In general, milk production is much more
environmentally efficient than meat production, with the
inputs per 40 g portion as low as 1/10th those for meat
(fertiliser and surface area required).
Table 8. Outputs of greenhouse gases, eutrophication potential
and acidification potential
Greenhouse Gases
(kg)
Eutrophication
Potential (g)
Acidification
P0tential (g)
0.86
3.03
8.39
3.70
13.27
36.77
New Zealand Milk
New Zealand Meat
Table 8 shows the outputs for each sector per 40 g of protein
produced. Here again milk production is much more efficient
than meat production for the reasons discussed earlier.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 13
5
biodiversity
There are no systematic studies of how food production
influences biodiversity in New Zealand. Common measures
of biodiversity include the number of species classified
at different levels of threat of extinction using the IUCN
criteria, measures of species diversity or richness, and total
abundance of individuals. An ideal study would evaluate
the impact by dairy, meat and fisheries on these different
measures by comparing them with large areas of native
habitat unaffected by food production activity. The question
of other exogenous impacts on biodiversity, such as the
impact of exotic predators on native bird populations would
need to be addressed appropriately.
For instance, Norris et al. (2010) compared various
studies of West African forest that examine diversity
and abundance of a range of taxa across different kinds
of land use. They found major reductions in species richness,
particularly for perennial and annual crops that have the
lowest richness of native species. This is an unusual study
because a further distinction is made between native and
exotic species. Unsurprisingly, many species found in
farmed areas are associated with agriculture rather than
native habitat.
Fisheries affect biodiversity primarily by exploiting
populations and only secondarily through modification
of habitat by fishing gear, especially bottom contact gear.
Halpern and Warner (2002) showed that on average, areas
closed to fishing had 2-3 times higher species abundance and
a 30% increase in diversity indices. Bottom contact fishing
gear (trawls and dredges) can transform epibenthic flora and
fauna. Collie et al. (2000) in a meta-analysis comparing all
kinds of habitats, reported on average a 46% reduction in the
number of individuals and a 27% reduction in the number of
species in trawled habitat. This is an average for all kinds of
trawled habitats, with the largest impacts found in habitats
that have corals, sea fans etc on the surface while there are
very small impacts in naturally disturbed habitats such as
many mud and sand seabeds.
The estimates of change in biodiversity from these
studies are broadly consistent with ecosystem models of the
impact of fishing. Worm et al. (2009) used ecosystem models
to evaluate the reduction in abundance of fish, and the
proportion of species that would be severely depleted, as a
function of fishing pressure (Figure 3), and found that current
exploitation rates in New Zealand were predicted to achieve
a conservation target of less than 10% of stocks collapsed.
For fish stocks targeted in New Zealand, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry (Fisheries) statistics show that
69% of stocks are above the abundance that produces
maximum sustainable yield, and 79% of stocks are fished
with a lower exploitation rate than would produce maximum
sustainable yield.
Figure 2. Species richness of plant taxa across a range of west African habitats.
Dark area represents native forest species, light area non-native species.
From Norris et al. (2010).
3PECIESSHAREDWITHFOREST
SPECIESRICHNESS
.OTSHARED
.ATIVE
FOREST
14 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
0LANTATION
&OREST
0ERENNIAL
SHRUB
CROPS
!NNUAL
CROPS
Figure 3. The relationship between long term fishing
exploitation rate and the total catch, mean biomass, and
number of collapsed species from simple models of fished
ecosystems.
From Worm et al. (2009).
2EBUILDING
--39
Total Catch
/VERFISHING
Total Biomass
Collapsed Species
-ULTISPECIESMAXIMUMSUSTAINABLEYIELD
PERCENTOFMAXIMUM
1.0
EXPLOITATIONRATE
Any agricultural area that is subject to ploughing
suffers, in essence, at first a 100% loss of native vegetation
abundance and diversity and very high losses of dependent
fauna. Where agriculture is mixed in a mosaic of farmed and
more natural habitat, the change is less than 100%, but for
each hectare that is farmed, it is safe to assume there is very
high loss of most native abundance and biodiversity. Most
New Zealand dairy and meat production uses pasture rearing
with almost all non-native forage species. Thus we would
expect that the reduction in plant biodiversity is almost total
in land converted to pasture, whereas the loss of animal
species richness would be less.
In general, almost all dairy and meat producers use
pasture, but in the last decade increasing amounts of
nitrogen fertiliser and palm oil products for feed have been
utilised. Determining their biodiversity impact is contentious
and difficult, but it is another aspect that must be considered.
There is a fundamental difference in how fisheries
affect biodiversity as opposed to dairy and meat production
that lies in the approach to the environment. Fisheries
rely on maintaining a naturally functioning ecosystem and
seek to harvest surplus biomass in a sustainable fashion.
Dairy and meat production replaces natural with exotic
ecosystems. We see this clearly in the productivity per unit
area. Fisheries require much more area to produce 40 grams
of protein than do dairy and meat because the underlying
ecosystem is being maintained rather than transformed
for maximum productivity.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 15
6
comparing new zealand fisheries, dairy
and meat to each other and to similar
industries around the world
We can compare the New Zealand fisheries
and New Zealand dairy and meat industries
using the results presented in the earlier
sections. But how do these New Zealand
industries compare to other meat and
dairy industries?
Table 9 summarises the results per 40 g protein portion
across all studies.
De Vries and de Boer (2010) summarised the energy use,
land use, greenhouse gas production, acidification and
eutrophication potential of over 40 different studies of
European livestock production. We then take the average
across all those studies in the meta-analysis to compare with
the New Zealand industries. The individual studies are shown
in the online appendix where the variability within different
commodities can be seen.
The raw data, converted to units of 40 g protein, are
in the online appendix. There are no data for inputs such as
freshwater, fertiliser, pesticides or antibiotics in the de Vries
and de Boer review.
Surface
Greenhouse
Fresh
Eutrophication Acidification
Fertiliser Pesticides Antibiotics
Area
gases
Water
impacted
potential (g) potential (g)
(Megajoules)
(g)
(kg)
(mg)
(kg)
(litres)
(m 2 )
Energy
new zeal and
dairy
new zeal and
meat
international
dairy
international
beef
1.56
171
26
24
1.17
1.24
0.86
3.0
8.4
4.90
262
188
129
1.17
18.14
3.70
13.3
36.8
3.62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.63
1.26
6.0
15.6
10.86
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.35
5.97
67.6
196.4
7.11
0
0
n/a
0
17
0.62
1.7
3.9
7.11
0
0
n/a
0
100
0.64
1.7
4.0
7.69
0
0
n/a
0
57
0.68
1.8
4.3
99.53
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
8.75
23.6
55.1
14.40
0
0
n/a
0
104
1.27
3.4
8.0
5.55
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
0.49
1.3
3.1
5.88
0
0
n/a
0
24
0.52
1.4
3.3
7.26
0
0
n/a
0
36
0.64
1.7
4.0
12.6
0
0
n/a
0
n/a
1.11
3.0
7.0
squid
hoki
jack m ackerel
rock lobster
or ange roughy
barr acouta
southern
blue whiting
ling
snapper
16 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
Figure 4. The energy inputs and greenhouse gas production for different food production sectors, with lines illustrating the range
of individual LCA studies (for international dairy and beef) or individual species (for New Zealand fisheries).
.EW:EALAND$AIRY¯THISSTUDY
.EW:EALAND-EAT¯THISSTUDY
)NTERNATIONAL$AIRY¯AVERAGEFROMDE6RIESDE"OER
)NTERNATIONAL"EEF¯AVERAGEFROMDE6RIESDE"OER
.EW:EALAND&ISHERIES¯THISSTUDYCATCHWEIGHTEDAVERAGE
%NERGYINPUT-EGA*OULESPORTION
COKGPORTION
Figure 4 shows the results of these studies plotted with
New Zealand data for the greenhouse gas production and
energy intensity.
Clearly, the New Zealand meat and dairy industries
have lower environmental impacts than the comparative
industries in other countries. This is not too surprising
because of the low energy and fertiliser inputs of pastureraised livestock.
The energy used by New Zealand vessels, measured
in litres per tonne of greenweight catch are at the lower
end of comparisons with other fisheries. Tyedmers (2001)
presents data for a wide range of fisheries with an average
of slightly over 1000 litres/tonne. The southern blue whiting
and barracouta fisheries use less than 300 litres/tonne , the
hoki and jack mackerel fisheries less than 400 litres/tonne,
and the average across all New Zealand fisheries considered,
weighted by catch is 502 litres/tonne.
Energy use for a standard 40 g portion of protein in
New Zealand fisheries is much higher than in the meat or
dairy industries. The energy efficiency of the New Zealand
dairy and meat industries is due to pasture raising of the
animals and relatively little energy used for raising forage
crops. The 1.56 MJ portion for the New Zealand dairy industry
compares well with an average of 3.62 MJ/portion for other
dairy industries. The 4.9 MJ portion for the meat industry
compares favourably with 10.9 MJ for other beef industries.
and is also better than the average of 6.7 MJ for pork.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 17
Figure 5. Energy inputs (MJ per 40 g protein portion).
2OCK,OBSTER
3NAPPER
,ING
3OUTHERN"LUE7HITING
"ARRACOUTA
/RANGE2OUGHY
*ACK-ACKEREL
(OKI
3QUID
)NTERNATIONAL"EEF
)NTERNATIONAL$AIRY
.EW:EALAND-EAT
.EW:EALAND$AIRY
-EGAJOULES
The average energy consumption for beef industries
reported in de Vries and de Boer (2010) is much lower than
earlier summaries from Tyedmers (2004). In those earlier
papers the energy consumption was reported as energy
return on investment, taking the ratio of the energy in the
food to the energy used in all inputs. Tyedmers reports
values for beef of 0.019, lamb 0.02 and milk of 0.071. In
comparison, the de Vries numbers are 0.07 for beef and 0.23
for milk -- roughly 3 times more efficient. We don’t have
any explanation for this difference, but in general recent
estimates of energy consumption in LCAs have been lower
than those in Tyedmers (2004).
Greenhouse gas production in fisheries is due almost
exclusively to fuel consumption, whereas for both dairy,
beef and lamb enteric fermentation is the major source.
Thus, although the New Zealand meat industry is less fuel
intensive than fisheries, their greenhouse gas production
is considerably higher than the high volume fisheries,
particularly hoki and southern blue whiting, see Figure 6.
The dairy industry has higher greenhouse gas production
per protein portion than most fisheries. The much more fuel
intense rock lobster fisheries rank above the meat industry.
On the whole, New Zealand dairy and meat industries
produce fewer greenhouse gases than most comparable
industries in other countries that have been documented.
18 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
Tyedmers (2004) presented fuel consumption for a
range of fisheries (Table 10). New Zealand fisheries use 502
litres/tonne average, compared to 1085 litres/tonne shown
in Table 10. This is likely due to a lack of overfishing of major
New Zealand fish stocks which keeps biomass relatively high
and catch rates higher. The New Zealand quota management
system also effectively discourages excessive fishing vessel
capacity and largely eliminates the competitive nature of
open access fishing.
Table 10. Fuel consumption used in a range of fisheries.
From Tyedmers (2004).
Fishery
method
period
area
Litres/ TonNE
Demersal fisheries
Redfish spp.
Trawl
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
420
Cod/flatfish spp.
Danish seine
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
440
Cod/haddock
Longline
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
490
Cod/saithe
Trawl
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
530
Alaskan pollock
Trawl
Early 1980s
North Pacific
600
Flatfish spp.
Trawl
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
750
Croakers
Trawl
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,500
Flatfish spp.
Trawl
Late 1990s
NE Atlantic
2,300
Average
879
Pelagic fisheries
Herring/mackerel
Purse seine
Late 1990s
NE Atlantic
100
Herring
Purse seine
Early 1990s
NE Pacific
140
Herring/saithe
Danish Seine
Late 1990s
NE Atlantic
140
Salmon spp.
Purse seine
1990s
NE Pacific
360
Salmon spp.
Trap
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
780
Salmon spp.
Gillnet
1990s
NE Pacific
810
Salmon spp.
Troll
1990s
NE Pacific
830
Herring
Purse seine
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,000
Skipjack/tuna
Pole and line
Early 1980s
Pacific
1,400
Skipjack/tuna
Purse seine
Early 1980s
Pacific
1,500
Swordfish/tuna
Longline
Late 1990s
NW Atlantic
1,740
Salmon spp.
Gillnet
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,800
Swordfish/tuna
Longline
Early 1990s
Central Pacific
2,200
Tuna/billfish
Longline
Early 1980s
Pacific
3,400
Average
1,157
Shellfish fisheries
Abalone/clams
Hand gathering
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
300
Crab
Trap
Late 1990s
NW Atlantic
330
Scallop
Dredge
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
350
Shrimp
Trawl
Late 1990s
North Atlantic
920
Shrimp
Trawl
Early 1980s
North Pacific
960
Norway lobster
Trawl
Late 1990s
NE Atlantic
1,030
Crab
Trap
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,300
Spiny lobster
Trawl
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,600
Squid
Jig
Early 1980s
NW Pacific
1,700
Shrimp
Trawl
Late 1990s
SW Pacific
3,000
Average
1,149
Overall Average
1,085
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 19
20 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
,ING
/RANGE2OUGHY
*ACK-ACKEREL
(OKI
3"7
3QUID
)NTERNATIONAL"EEF
)NTERNATIONAL$AIRY
3NAPPER
,ING
3"7
"ARRACOUTA
/RANGE2OUGHY
*ACK-ACKEREL
(OKI
3QUID
2OCK,OBSTER
)NTERNATIONAL"EEF
.EW:EALAND-EAT
)NTERNATIONAL$AIRY
KG
.:-EAT
.EW:EALAND$AIRY
.:$AIRY
M
Figure 6. Greenhouse gas (kg co2 per 40 g protein portion).
Figure 7. Surface area (m2 per 40 g protein portion).
Overall, the New Zealand dairy and meat industries
use comparable amounts of water. However, since the dairy
industry produces many more portions of protein, water cost
per portion is lower.
The tonnage of fertiliser used for the livestock industry
is roughly the same as the total production of carcasses - on
the order of 1 million tonnes/yr. Thus, for each 40 g portion
of meat protein 188 g of fertiliser were used in production.
Again the higher productivity of the dairy industry per animal
means that only 26 g of fertiliser were used to produce 40 g
of dairy protein.
The comparison of eutrophication and acidification
potential shown in Table 9 can be a bit misleading with
respect to environmental impact. For instance, the
eutrophication potential of a 40 g protein serving of dairy
is roughly comparable to a 40 g protein serving of hoki
or southern blue whiting, and less than that for most
of the other fishes. However, to understand the actual
environmental impact one must look at where these
nutrients and chemicals end up, and the total amounts.
The total output of nutrients (EP) from the dairy and meat
industries is 119,000 tonnes. The total output of nutrients
from the fisheries considered is 1200 tonnes, about a
hundred times less. Yet the nutrients from the dairy and
meat industries go into the New Zealand freshwater and soil,
while the nutrients from fisheries go into the ocean.
1200 tonnes of nutrients from fisheries into the New Zealand
marine EEZ is insignificant and can have no environmental
effect, whereas 119,000 tonnes into the New Zealand
freshwater system is likely to have measurable effects. If we
ask if the nutrients from the New Zealand meat and dairy
industries impact the New Zealand environment the
answer is a definite yes, but nutrient output from the
New Zealand fishing industry will have no impact on the
New Zealand environment.
We have no data for fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides or
antibiotics for dairy and meat production from other places,
therefore cannot compare New Zealand with the rest of
the world on these metrics. Wild fisheries do not use these
materials.
Surface area used is lower for dairy than beef and
New Zealand is slightly lower than other places on both
measures. Wild fisheries use far more area per unit of food
production than does agriculture. This reflects the essential
difference between transformation of land to maximize
productivity and harvesting a natural ecosystem.
We have not attempted to quantitatively evaluate
impacts on biodiversity, soil erosion and waste disposal.
These have not been considered in any of the LCAs we found.
Environmental impacts of aquaculture
The most extensive analysis of the impacts of aquaculture is
a report produced by the WorldFish Center (Hall et al. 2011)
They found that the environmental costs depended greatly
upon the species and production technology. Species that
need to be fed agricultural products or fish meal generally
looked similar to more efficient livestock such as chickens
and pigs. However bivalves and seaweeds place low demands
on the environment and may have the lowest environmental
impact of any form of food production.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 21
7
policy implications
and moving forward
Overview
When we compare New Zealand fisheries to New Zealand
dairy and meat production, fisheries have a lower impact in
terms of water use, fertiliser use, eutrophication potential
and antibiotics. Most fisheries have lower greenhouse gas
production than the meat industry, and some are lower
than dairy. The dairy industry and meat industries are more
efficient in energy inputs and in production per unit area.
Tyedmers (2004) presented fuel consumption for a
range of fisheries (Table 10). New Zealand fisheries use 502
litres/tonne average, compared to 1085 litres/tonne shown
in Table 10. This is likely due to a lack of overfishing of major
New Zealand fish stocks which keeps biomass relatively high
and catch per days fished higher. The New Zealand quota
management system also effectively discourages excessive
fishing vessel capacity and largely eliminates the competitive
nature of open access fishing.
The New Zealand dairy industry and meat industries
are more efficient in energy use and greenhouse gas
production than comparable industries around the world.
The primary reason for this would appear to be the high yearround productivity of New Zealand land and the ability to
raise both dairy and livestock on pasture for most of the
year. Thus, relatively few feed crops need to be raised.
Overall, both New Zealand fisheries and New Zealand
dairy and meat have less environmental impact than their
competitors in other parts of the world, and New Zealand
can be proud of its industries that produce food for export.
At the same time, the environmental impacts of these
industries could be better understood and almost certainly
reduced.
Policy implications
New Zealand has a range of national policies that affect
the environmental impacts of the industries covered in
this report. If there is a political desire to further reduce
environmental impacts, this could obviously be achieved
by simply reducing production of fish, dairy and meat. But,
given the need for food production, the alternative would
be by encouraging forms of production that have lower
environmental impact.
The key to minimising environmental impacts of
fishing appears to be keeping fuel consumption as low as
possible which can be achieved when there are abundant
stocks and efficient fishing vessels. The quota management
system appears to generally work well in this respect.
Excess fishing capacity has been eliminated and stocks are
maintained at levels of abundance that enable efficient
capture.
22 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
There are obvious environmental costs to livestock
production, the largest of which is almost certainly the land
transformation from native habitat to agriculture.
Secondly, we must rank the impact of dairy and meat
production on water quality as high. The million
tonnes of fertiliser used in dairy and livestock production
must necessarily impact the country’s freshwater quality.
Basset-Mens et al. (2009) explored different
aspects of dairy practice that could be modified to reduce
overall environmental impact. There is certainly room
for improvement.
What needs to be done
If there existed full LCAs of New Zealand meat production
and fisheries, making informed comparisons would
be so much easier. In several places we had to make rather
broad assumptions for our calculations. In particular, the
acidification and eutrophication potential of meat production
and the non-fuel inputs to fisheries would greatly benefit
from systematic LCAs.
All aspects of the New Zealand fisheries and agriculture
industry appear to have lower environmental impacts than
their world competitors, and the better documented these
impacts are, the more New Zealand can use environmental
concerns to facilitate its exports of these products.
Should an environmentalist eat fish?
Within the range of foods we have examined, New Zealand
fisheries generally have lower environmental impacts than
other forms of protein production. So the simple answer
is that if the alternative to eating fish is to eat meat or dairy,
someone concerned about the environment should eat fish
that are captured with low fuel use -- hoki and southern
blue whiting. While we have not looked at vegetarian diets,
we must remember that vegetable production requires
water, fertilizer and pesticides, and causes soil erosion. Even
totally organic agriculture still requires the transformation
of native habitat into fields of crops, with the associated loss
of biodiversity. Thus there are almost certainly trade-offs
and fisheries may have less environmental impacts than a
vegetarian diet.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 23
24 | the environmental cost of new zealand food production
references
Basset-Mens, C., Ledgard, S., and Boyes, M. 2009. Eco-efficiency
of intensification scenarios for milk production in New
Zealand. Ecological Economics. 68: 1615-1625.
Ministry for the Environment. 2010. New Zealand’s
Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2008. New Zealand
Ministry for the Environment. No. ME 1009.
Beef and Lamb New Zealand. 2012. Beef and Lamb New
Zealand Compendium of New Zealand Farm
Facts http://www.beeflambnz.com/Documents/
Information/Compendium%20of%20New%20
Zealand%20farm%20facts.pd
New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2010-11. 2011. Dairy NZ Hamilton
New Zealand. www.dairynz.co.nz
Black, J., and Wood, R. 2010. Analysis of New Zealand’s Trawl
Grounds for Tier 1 Species. GNS Science Consultancy
Report 2010/167. Institute of Geological and Nuclear
Sciences Limited, Lower Hutt New Zealand.
Clement and Associates Limited. 2008. New Zealand
Commercial Fisheries: The Atlas of Area Codes and
TACCs 2008/2009. Clement and Associates Limited,
Nelson New Zealand.
Collie, J. S., Hall, S. J., Kaiser, M. J., and Poiner, I. R. 2000. A
quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea
benthos. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 785-798.
de Vries, M., and de Boer, I. J. M. 2010. Comparing
environmental impacts for livestock products: A review
of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science. 128: 1-11.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.
M., and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food Security: The challenge
of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science. 327: 812-818.
Hall, S. J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M. J., Beveridge, M., and
O’Keefe, M. 2011. Blue frontiers: managing the
environmental cost of aquaculture. World Fish Center.
Halpern, B. S., and Warner, R. R. 2002. Marine reserves have
rapid and lasting effects. Ecol. Lett. 5: 361-366.
Hospido, A., and Tyedmers, P. 2005. Life cycle environmental
impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fish Res. 76: 174-186.
Ledgard, S. F., Lieffering, M., McDevitt, J., Boyes, M., and Kemp,
R. 2010. A Greenhouse Gas Footprint Study for Exported
New Zealand Lamb. AgResearch.
Lesperance, L. 2009. The Concise New Zealand Food
Composition Tables. New Zealand Institute for Plant &
Food Research.
Manktelow, D., Stevens, P., Walter, J., Gurnsey, S., Park, N.,
Zabkiewicz, J., Teulon, D., and Rahman, A. 2005. Trends
in Pesticide Use in New Zealand: 2004. The Horticulture
and Food Research Institute of New Zealand.
Norris, K., Asase, A., Collen, B., Gockowksi, J., Mason, J., Phalan,
B., and Wade, A. Biodiversity in a forest-agriculture
mosaic - The changing face of West African rainforests.
2010. Biol. Conserv. 143: 2341-2350.
Rajanayaka, C., Donaggio, J., and McEwan, H. 2010. Update of
Water Allocation Data and Estimate of Actual Water
Use of Consented Takes 2009–10. Aqualinc Ltd.
Roxburgh Plume Ltd. 2010. Fuel Consumption in the New
Zealand Fishing Industry for Calendar Year 2005.
Schau, E. M., Ellingsen, H., Endal, A., and Aanondsen, S. A.
2009. Energy consumption in the Norwegian fisheries.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 17: 325-334.
Sullivan, K. J., Mace, P. M., Smith, N. W. M., Griffiths, M. H., Todd,
P. R., Livingston, M. E., Harley, S. J., Key, J. M., and Connell,
A. M. 2005. Report from the fishery assessment plenary,
May 2005: stock assessments and yield estimates. New
Zealand Ministry of fisheries.
Tyedmers, P. 2001. Energy consumed by North Atlantic
Fisheries. In Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic
Ecosystems: Models and Analyses. Edited by S.
Guénette, V. Christensen and D. Pauly. Fisheries Center,
Vancouver Canada. 9 (4). pp. 12-34.
Tyedmers, P. 2004. Fisheries and Energy Use. Encyclopedia of
Energy. 2: 683-693.
Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S.,
Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J.
A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O. P., Lotze, H. K., Mace, P. M.,
McClanahan, T. R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S. R., Parma, A.,
Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A. A., Watson, R., and Zeller, D.
2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Science. 325: 578-585.
Ziegler, F., and Valentinsson, D. 2008. Environmental life cycle
assessment of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)
caught along the Swedish west coast by creels and
conventional trawls - LCA methodology with case
study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
13: 487-497.
the environmental cost of new zealand food production | 25