News Home Just In Australia World Business Sport Entertainment Weather | Opinion Blogs

Opinion Home Essays Emails Speeches Documents Contact

Eating kangaroos could reduce emissions

By George Wilson and Melanie Edwards

Posted October 3, 2008 14:30:00

Overseas examples show raising commercial wildlife on private lands can lead to increased wildlife populations and improved natural habitats. (Getty Images: Ian Waldie)

Hard-hoofed sheep and cattle have caused, and are still causing, a great deal of damage to Australia's land.

But now we also recognise that they cause damage in other harmful ways. They produce large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane and in turn contribute to global warming. In fact, 11 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gases come from cattle and sheep.

Kangaroos are animals that don't burp methane because they have different micro-organisms to help them digest food. If we were to replace some of the cattle and sheep in Australia with kangaroos we could reduce the number of animals producing methane and at the same time promote natural habitats instead of hoof-damaged pastures.

The existing industry

Kangaroos are abundant in the Australian rangelands which covers about two-thirds of Australia. Here they compete with domestic cattle and sheep and are labelled by many farmers as pests as they are not fenced in and roam from property to property seeking the best food. There is a kangaroo industry in Australia which harvests some of these kangaroos for their meat and skins. They are humanely shot in the field and therefore, unlike cattle and sheep are not trucked off to abattoirs.

Kangaroo harvesting is regulated in a specific kangaroo harvesting area and quotas ensure that only a small proportion (15 per cent) of the population is taken. There are millions of kangaroos in the commercially harvested area. To be precise, in 2006 there were 8 million red kangaroos, 10.5 million eastern grey kangaroos, 2.5 million western grey kangaroos and 2.5 million euros/wallaroos. The true national population is likely to be higher because these figures do not include estimates for areas outside the commercial kangaroo areas.

Population model

So what sort of change are we looking at and how many kangaroos do we need to produce the same amount of meat cattle and sheep would produce?

To analyse these questions, we developed a mathematical model or simulation. The model covers the period 2007 to 2020 and enables us to use cattle, sheep and kangaroo populations on the rangelands. If cattle numbers were to slowly decrease from 7.5 million to 0.5 million and sheep from 38.7 million to 2.7 million there would be more pasture available to increase kangaroo populations. Using calculations that indicate how much pasture can sustain a certain number of animals, we established that 200 million kangaroos could be sustained in the area. This is quite a large number of kangaroos, and more than we would need to provide the same amount of meat as the cattle and sheep that were removed - remembering that we only harvest a certain per cent.

The model removed 7 million cattle and 36 million sheep and we permitted the kangaroo population to increase by 141 to 175 million - not to the full 200 million. Net carbon savings by 2020 would be 16 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents (CO2 equivalents are used to compare other greenhouse gases like methane to CO2). These savings over 13 years are 3 per cent of Australia's annual carbon accountability of 559 megatonnes, or 28 per cent of agricultural emissions.

Making a living

Current prices for kangaroo products are lower than they are for cattle, sheep and wool. However, the cost of producing a kilogram of kangaroo meat from a free-ranging animal that needs minimal management would be lower than those for cattle or sheep. For example, there are no costs for fences or yards, internal or external parasite control, shearing, crutching, purchasing new genetic material (e.g., stud rams and bulls), branding, dehorning or castrating.

Also, when Australia starts its climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gases, farmers could be rewarded for swapping their cattle and sheep with kangaroos. Using the rewards system that Britain uses, farmers could receive $655 million over 13 years. While, this sounds like a lot of money, if it is spread between farmers over the 13 years, it would not be enough to encourage farmers to replace cattle and sheep with kangaroos. However, if farmers have to buy permits to be allowed to keep their methane producing cattle and sheep, they will probably be more inclined to swap their cattle and sheep for kangaroos.

Ethical questions

Some people are opposed to the commercial use of wildlife for ethical reasons and because they believe it will threaten species. However, overseas examples have shown that raising commercial wildlife on private lands can lead to increased wildlife populations and improved natural habitats. For example, wildlife industries are replacing cattle production in southern Africa and game species thrive on private lands integrated with conventional agricultural production in Britain and North America. In all three examples, iconic species and national symbols - springbok in South Africa, red deer in Scotland, and bison in the USA - are increasing.

Other issues also need to be resolved to manage kangaroos. Local migration is an important element of kangaroos' adaptation strategy to Australia's erratic rainfall. This means they move from property to property and claiming ownership or managing them is difficult. There is also the issue of landholders regarding them as pests. Regional collaboration in management has addressed ownership and local movement issues in other countries, and establishment of landholder cooperatives is one solution being trialled in Australia that brings together independent livestock producers and kangaroo harvesters and assists in marketing products.

Livestock grazing damage to native ecosystems has contributed to the extinction of at least 20 species of mammals and continues to threaten around one quarter of the plant species listed as endangered. Fewer livestock and more kangaroos could include a reduction in hard-hoofed livestock damage to river environments, improved soil conservation, fewer weeds, increased capacity of vegetation to respond after drought, and improved water quality. These changes can improve native environments leading to an increase in habitat quality for other species such as emus, wombats, lizards and bilbies.

With further testing of the management of kangaroo harvesting and landholder involvement, we believe that landholders could have the option of replacing some cattle and sheep in Australia with kangaroos and that a series of benefits would follow. First, we could reduce the number of animals producing methane and reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and secondly, we could help Australia's native animals through the improvement and protection of natural habitats.

Dr George Wilson and Melanie Edwards work at wildlife management consultancy, Australian Wildlife Services.

This is an edited version of an essay originally published in Australasian Science magazine.

For more information please view the original scientific paper: George R. Wilson & Melanie J. Edwards (2008). Native wildlife on rangelands to minimize methane and produce lower-emission meat: kangaroos versus livestock. Conservation Letters, 1, DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00023.x. (Accessible via this online database.)

Tags: environment, climate-change, rural, greenhouse-gas, livestock, beef-cattle, sheep-production, sustainable-and-alternative-farming, australia

Search for news

Comments (79)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

Action:

03 Oct 2008 2:54:55pm

I have tried skippy in a variety of ways, in restuarants, at home and I'm sorry but for taste it doesn't cut it as a replacement for beef. I'd eat it if I was desperate, but not by choice.

Croc though is very tasty.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
boris:

03 Oct 2008 2:56:33pm

Do the calculations take into account the increase in human methane production from eating roo meat? :)

Agree (0) Alert moderator
John O:

03 Oct 2008 2:56:38pm

I was expousing this very idea to some friends the other day and the main issue seemed to be " You can't eat skippy".

Kangaroo is low in cholesterol as well and extremely high in iron. We should all be eating more kangaroo and less beef/lamb.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Brad:

03 Oct 2008 2:57:01pm

This is quite sensible. There are more kangaroos in Australia then there was in 1788. Eating kangaroo meat is healthier than beef too.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
dmc:

03 Oct 2008 2:58:55pm

And Skippy taste so good !!!

YUM!!!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
martini:

03 Oct 2008 2:59:02pm

Kangaroo meat is certainly healthy and delicious. I find it makes great stir fry.
Putting aside the general ethical issue of meat-eating my concern is over the impact of culling on the social structure of kangaroo 'society'. As we saw from that great documentary on kangaroos Faces in the Mob (1997) they are surprisingly intelligent animals with complex social structures. Indiscriminate culling can be damaging to the social group. A similar problem arises with African elephants, where culling has led to extreme social problems in herds, including, bizarrely, young male elephants raping rhinos in South Africa -because all the adults of the herd were killed they had no social models and became elephant delinquents! It would not surprise me if whale hunting has similar effects. I am not suggesting that we are at risk from marauding gangs of juvie roos but we should consider the impact of even 'humane' killing on the species.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Sara:

03 Oct 2008 3:05:10pm

This would be a fantastic idea for so many reasons, on so many levels. So long as the farmers are still reaping benefits, and the population can get used to kangaroo meat.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Kye:

03 Oct 2008 3:06:39pm

Roo schnitzel is nice. Go for it, just do it right.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
whitelephant:

03 Oct 2008 3:07:35pm

Yes! yes! and yes! In kangaroos we have a resource going begging that we should be using. Sure, some people may take time to get used to the taste (I like it) but after a generation people will once again be quite used to it. It is lower in fat and therefore better for us.
As far as objections on "ethical" grounds -there are no ethical grounds.
It's on our coat of arms?-well bad luck-take it off and put a chook in its place. I would rather the planet survived than drowned in methane.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
angela:

03 Oct 2008 3:09:04pm

If people must eat meat, this is surely a better option for the environment. But as always, people will look away from the reality of animal suffering. If you can't kill it yourself, don't eat it.
Hunting is far more ethical, at least the animal is free, living autonomously with the ability to move within its chosen habitat, food and mate, and with a chance of survival. If kangaroo harvesting could replicate much of this, I would give it the thumbs up.

Agree (2) Alert moderator
Paul Neri:

03 Oct 2008 3:11:20pm

Presumably the kangaroos consent?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Vaughan:

03 Oct 2008 3:13:50pm

I'm all for kangaroo meat. In fact, I look forward to the day when I can go into Maccers and order a SkippyBurger.

Seriously though, food availability is going to be a *big* issue in the coming years, as the abundance of cheap oil allowed the world's population to grow to a level that can't be sustained as the availability of that oil begins to wane.

Kangaroo "farming" is something I'd be interested in if I ever wanted a change of career.

Of course, there is the understandable reluctance to eat a national icon, but if it wasn't for kangaroo meat the first colony wouldn't have survived. And anyway, we tend not to think of fluffy little lambs when tucking into a roast, and kangaroo would be no different.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
2b:

03 Oct 2008 3:33:14pm

What is this "rangelands" nonsense? We have mountain ranges; home on the "range" is an Americanism.
Never mind protecting Skippy, protect our language.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
ram:

03 Oct 2008 3:34:34pm

Roo tastes pretty aweful, similar to dog. If that was the only meat available I would be a vegetarian for sure.

I agree with comments that Crocs taste alright. Alligators taste good also, perhaps we could introduce them to Australia to cut down on feral cats!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
zibethicus:

03 Oct 2008 3:36:31pm

Vegetarianism?

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Pat OBrien:

03 Oct 2008 3:37:06pm

Very disappointing that the ABC would run a silly story like this without presenting the real facts about the kangaroo Industry.

According to government data, kangaroo populations are at an alltime low, because of shooting juveniles, drought, and overshooting. In many areas of NSW, SA, and Qld kangaroo populations are now below sustainable levels.

But why would the ABC let real facts get in the way of good controversial story.

Pat OBrien, http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com

Agree (0) Alert moderator
renn:

03 Oct 2008 3:38:23pm

We wont have far to go for a feed. Just head up to the highway and collect the road kill. Kangaroos wont be safe. People will be chasing them to run them down.
Emu has already been tried on the market and it didnt take.
Kangaroo is a muscular animal and the meat will need a lot of pounding or cooking to make it tender.
Have you ever seen a full grown kangaroo up close. They can be very dangerous. Rip you open down the front with their back legs. Domesticated animals are the worst because they arent afraid.
I wouldnt eat kangaroo but Im sure there are people who would.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
thelonenut:

03 Oct 2008 3:40:19pm

Cows are dumb - I would rather eat an intelligent animal like the kangaroo-

Agree (0) Alert moderator
NT boy:

03 Oct 2008 3:55:53pm

the damage done by hoofed animals (Sheep & cattle) to the environment alone make this idea a no brainer..

Roo meat is higher in the good protiens and lower in the bad fats.
I grew up on it and if you start .25% roo and .75% beef to your patties (rissols) you will get used to the stronger gamier taste.
once you are used to it remove the beef..

Sheep eat the ground cover - roots and all - roos graze on the stems and stalks - bonus is it would save farmers replanting each year..

Agree (0) Alert moderator
helen:

03 Oct 2008 4:06:14pm

skip the moo
eat the roo

a leading supermarket does an amazing roo roast with herbs, $5.90 and feeds a family.

Kanga-banger-sangers (kangaroo sausage sandwiches) are awesome on a BBQ

The kababs come pre marinated and are tender and easy to cook

try some roo tonight - you'll be pleasantly surprised

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Paul Neri:

03 Oct 2008 4:06:36pm

Why do you want to snuff out a life when it's not necessary? Non-human animals don't want to die any more than you.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Billy Bob Hall:

03 Oct 2008 4:13:14pm

We cannot eat kangaroo every day, and so I propose a bit of variety. Dolfin farming around our large coastline would be easy enough to set up I think. Someone once told me a while back that Dolfin is quite good roasted and is quite respectable seasoned with rosemary.. ie like lamb.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
muzz:

03 Oct 2008 4:16:07pm

Hard hooved animals...cows, pigs, sheep and buffalo are seriously damaging our country. Their feet dig up the earth, some of them overgraze the land and eat it all out and then they need poisons, fly protection and grooming to keep them well
If we must eat meat then kangaroos make a lot more sense.
And the meat is lower fat too

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jim:

03 Oct 2008 4:21:59pm

Why don't we just stop eating meat. We don't have to eat it. We can nourish ourselves adequately and live long healthy lives if we don't eat it. It's win win, really, for both animals and people.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
David:

03 Oct 2008 4:24:06pm

Another silly idea generated out of climate change hysteria.

Nothing wrong with roo meat. The ethics of domesticating a wild animal may be overcome (if we console ourselves that the planet will be better off because a handfull (only 20 mil of us) of people eat roo, not cow. we may even be healthier (assuming the numerous issues with farming these roos and the h&s issues around this can be accomplished). We may even convince people that roo tastes ok (it is an acquired taste... bit like Minke I imagine).

Just don't see the economics of this adding up for farmers... roos need a lot of space... Or perhaps we could shove them into cages and reduce our national emblem to battery roo status.

Come on Australia... a bit more thought behind ideas please.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Vegetable:

03 Oct 2008 4:38:20pm

How about turning vegetarian? We are artificially growing number of animals like cows, chicken, pigs, lambs only for meat production. These animals not only eat grass and grains and in producing meat, they have to be killed cruelly and again the entire process so much of waste producing additional burden on the environment. It is not easy to advocate these when people are used to eat steaks and so many gravy laden meat products but we have to reduce our meat eating habits over period of years. Eating meat does not make us any brave or smart. It may give strength but how many really need that strength needed by hard working removalists like weight lifting jobs. Most do sedentary jobs now a days, they can happily live on veg diet and become less prone to health problems like bowel cancer and other ailments that may be remotely related to eating meat from unknown source. You do not know what animals are fed to make them grow fat.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Richard:

03 Oct 2008 4:48:18pm

Another pearl of wisdom from the climate change movement. I really am struggling to take this article seriously. Permits for methane? What ever will be next? A tax rort of this magnitude would make Al Capone roll in his grave.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Beijing Vegan:

03 Oct 2008 4:48:58pm

The meat industry as it stands is cruel, inefficient and a disaster for the environment. We should be eating far less meat/dairy/eggs/fish.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
DeepFritz:

03 Oct 2008 4:50:09pm

Obviously you people have never had skippy with red wine sauce - absolutely superb!

After reading this, I am hopping off to my butcher ;)

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Peter:

03 Oct 2008 5:03:01pm

Here is a creature that has significantly less impact in the ground than hoofed creatures that is designed to survive in this environment.

While I do not believe for a moment that roo would replace other red meat, it could supplement quite easily. Those cuts of meat that are not desirable for human tastes can be processed as pet food and kangaroo skin is lighter but tougher than cow leather.

There could be a huge industry borne out of leather goods, everything from boots, dress jackets, to motorcycles leathers and gloves (already done on a small scale). Problem is that you have export restrictions to places likeCalifornia where the numpties ban kangaroo products.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
ravensclaw:

03 Oct 2008 5:09:31pm

As another alternative

We could produce a feed (or liquid to add to small farm dams) for animals that results in the animal having less gas. That surely couldn't be too hard to research, nor would it be a high cost.

Now I have nothing against the roo meat industry (in fact Roo meat can taste very nice). However I don't see the value in destroying our well established dairy, beef, lamb and pork industries out of fear of CO2.

This is also a healthier meat than roo meat, and that is tasty Emu meat.

For those of you outraged at the quite natural and globally occuring human consumption of meat, I won't think of you as I salivate over a nice juicy steak.

Cheers

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Flea:

03 Oct 2008 5:10:06pm

I eat kangaroo semi regularly and have never found it to be tough (as several people have complained). Maybe people just need to learn how to cook it.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Johan:

03 Oct 2008 5:11:45pm

Wildlife should NOT be eaten by humans. End of story. Their is a plentiful supply of specially raised animals for this purpose.

Otherwise why complain about the Japanese eating whales?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
shanu:

03 Oct 2008 5:45:20pm

Interesting idea, won't work.

Quote from report - "For example, there are no costs for fences or yards, internal or external parasite control"
That alone makes me think those who did the study don't seem to have a clue....

Quote - "According to government data, kangaroo populations are at an alltime low, because of shooting juveniles, drought, and overshooting. In many areas of NSW, SA, and Qld kangaroo populations are now below sustainable levels."

Good to see Pat O'Brien here sprouting more false information as usual -_-

Can't speak for NSW or SA but in relation to Queensland that statement is wrong.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
quinny:

03 Oct 2008 5:48:43pm

With kangaroos already being culled in their thousands every few months by farmers who regard them as pests, why not let those who choose to contribute to a healthier environment do so? If you don't like it, that's fine, but it should be made more readily available, rather than just in restaurants (at least where I live that is the case).

The authors are right - grazing orthodox needs a paradigm shift in order to keep up with the future. My young children of 9 and 7 are being educated (at school, at home, and by the community at large) to question anything that is damaging to the environment. In short, a generation is coming to the fore who WILL demand changes. The sooner we begin to adjust to the future, the less painful it will be for all.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
CC:

03 Oct 2008 6:03:03pm

For those (non-vegetarians) who believe Kangaroo meat is too tough or not tasty enough to eat:

1) Try cooking it medium rare, just sealing both sides for about a minute and a half each and then putting it into a preheated oven for about five minutes to help it cook inside. Take it out and let it sit for another two or three minutes to settle. Kangaroo meat becomes tough if you overcook it. Overcooking is also what gives kangaroo meat that peculiar flavour people complain about. This means that kangaroo meat is not suitable for dishes such as casseroles and wherever meat is cooked for a long time.

2) Use thin fillets rather than thick lumps of meat. If not overcooked it will be as juicy, soft and sweet as any well prepared beef steak. Salt the meat before you cook it and baste it generously with olive oil. Also try experimenting with a variety of sauces and vegetables. A charcoaled aniseed sauce is my particular favourite. Kangaroo is a good meat to experiment with in this way, it is unique and with some effort we can devise recipes to bring out its best flavours as our ancestors did with beef. pork and lamb etc. It is only a matter of what you are used to eating and if we learn to cook it properly with delicious recipes I don't think people would think twice about eating it.

Bon Appetit!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
newcastle greenie:

03 Oct 2008 6:29:09pm

If people have to eat meat (which of course they don't!), eating kangeroo is a much better idea -- not just for the greenhouse benefit, but as an overall far more environmentally friendly meat... to all those talking about "skippy" as if s/he were any more precious and valuabl a creature than daisy the cow and babe the pig -- which Australians scoff in their thousands, just have a think about the hyocrisy -- go vego if you think it is unethical. Funding the transition to lower consumption of meat overall and to native meats should be part of the Governments spending from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Brewey:

03 Oct 2008 7:13:04pm

Roo,s do cook up ok, but I sure wouldn't want to be the poor bloke who had to shear the buggers!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Den:

03 Oct 2008 7:34:29pm

Skippy is OK if you get them young enough. Say like lamb variety of Kangaroo. Skippy! or JOEY!. Back straps, yum yum. If they get any older they are full of sinew and are quite tough. Harvest the young and start a fantastic export market.
With the taking of the young there is no need to handle the cranky older ones. We just need to take the young and keep breeding the older ones..

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Ricki:

03 Oct 2008 8:29:30pm

Great article...I think Roo is a good suggestion. The problems of ownership and fencing need to be worked out but with some vision and inovative ideas it would be good for Australia.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Brindi:

03 Oct 2008 8:34:49pm

Kangaroo's are actually harder on the environment than sheep and cattle.Kangaroo's will dig up the roots of the grasses after they have grazed it to the ground.Sheep and cattle don't do that.
Farming is harder on the soil than grazing sheep and cattle.Should we give up bread,pasta,fruit and vegetables too?Live on roo entirely?
Fencing in roo's will be cost prohibitive. The vehicles used for harvesting compact the soil more than sheep and cattle, and burn more fossil fuel per kilo of meat harvested than beef or mutton.I know. I'm a grazier,and I'm a kangaroo shooter.
The chemical composition of wool is 50% carbon.Garnaut and his mates forgot to mention that,didn't they.

Agree (0) Alert moderator

Watch

'Freaking out'

Frayed Aussies recount their ordeal after finally making it home from Bangkok.

Watch

Woody Allen

Filmmaker Woody Allen spoke with the 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien

Feature

New home

The National Portrait Gallery finally has its own, permanent home in Canberra.

Just In

Site Map

Sections

Media

Contribute

Feedback

This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEDT = Australian Eastern Daylight Time which is 11 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)

Opinion

Eating kangaroos could reduce emissions

The existing industry

Population model

Making a living

Ethical questions

Search for news

Comments (79)

Action:

mike says skippy eats 7 sheep :

NT boy:

Brad:

JayR:

Id:

Trust_me_I'm_a_Rat:

mike says skippy eats 7 sheep :

boris:

Pen Pal:

John O:

mcfarm:

Karlis:

Brad:

sinekal:

dmc:

martini:

waryofitall:

Shaz:

Sara:

Kye:

whitelephant:

NT boy:

angela:

Paul Neri:

Dan:

whitelephant:

Shaz:

Vaughan:

Cam:

mike says skippy eats 7 sheep :

Brad:

mike says skippy eats 7 sheep :

quinny:

waderoy:

2b:

Yabbie:

ram:

NT boy:

Evan:

zibethicus:

Billy Bob Hall:

Pat OBrien:

Green:

thelonennut:

martini:

NT boy:

Brad:

Flea:

quinny:

Karlis:

renn:

Peter:

thelonenut:

rfnk:

NT boy:

helen:

Paul Neri:

Billy Bob Hall:

muzz:

Jim:

David:

Vegetable:

Richard:

Beijing Vegan:

DeepFritz:

Peter:

ravensclaw:

Flea:

Johan:

shanu:

quinny: