MLA MD Michael Crowley.

The barriers standing in the way of plans to shift Australia’s red meat industry to a Value Based Marketing payment model, what’s next after CN30 was abandoned last week, and MLA’s plans to elevate industry communication efforts with consumers and the community are among the big ticket items Beef Central discussed with the MLA MD following the release of the new five-year strategic plan yesterday.

Hi Michael, just to start off, tell us about the new MLA five-year strategic plan and what you see as the key messages out of it?

I’m really excited to launch the new strategic plan for MLA out to 2030. The big opportunities are driving demand, connecting marketing, market access and insights to really shape the demand landscape, and also to make sure that we’re capitalising on market opportunities both domestically and internationally.

The big ticket item for us is delivering value based marketing, that to me brings together MSA, objective measurement, feedback systems, all the way back through genetics, to look at where we can create and capture value along the supply chain.

And to support that, delivering a multi-breed genetic evaluation, really focused on commercial producers across cattle and sheep, because when we get the market signals right through value based marketing, we can put more selection pressure on the right traits to drive productivity harder.

A big change for us in the sustainability space. Productivity-driven sustainability outcomes is absolutely the focus.

We also build on the legacy of where we’ve got to on our journey to Carbon Neutral.

Certainly carbon neutral by 2030 was a really big aspirational vision for the industry.

It was always contingent on the right level of investment and the right policy settings.

We’re in a position now where we can get significant leverage through the Zero Net Emissions for Agriculture CRC.

Also on-farm safety, investing in people, is a big theme.

Biosecurity, traceability, animal welfare and underpinning integrity systems really shape how we deliver value for cattle, sheep and goat producers, looking at all markets, including live export where we can really look at securing those key live export markets, and also looking at what are the new market opportunities for diversification in our live export supply chains.

Value Based Marketing is a really key pillar of this and it’s something that you’ve certainly personally championed as well. There’s a compelling argument in favour of it in terms of creating incentives for producers across Australia to improve the eating quality of their beef and receive more value for their product. What have been the main barriers to its wider uptake commercially do you think?

It’s certainly not a new concept, but I think when we look at where we are in 2025, we have the feedback systems in place and the data capability, we have the objective measurement technologies that are commercially ready.

We’ve seen the value proposition that MSA has delivered by eating quality underpinning brands.

And I think where we sit today, there’s also a willingness from the industry to look at where does the next value creation come from.

When we look at the data around objectively measuring for quality and yield we look at building in brand equity, so brand specifications are a significant component of value. Then you start looking at how does that incentivise the right type of production response. How do we start with the with the right genetics and breeding, feeding and finishing animals with a market destination in mind.

I think there’s a willingness to unlock the value along the supply chain. Traditionally we’ve invested in each component of the supply chain, and we’ve done that incredibly well. When we start looking at each participant in the supply chain and where can we create more value, then it becomes much more engaging from the culture change that is needed to implement something as ambitious as value based marketing.

I think the need and willingness is there. I have been very encouraged through the consultation we have undertaken over the last 12 months.

So what do you think really needs to happen for VBM to take the next step forward?

The starting point is designing a program of work that has producers, processers, brand owners, service providers and researchers working together to design a program of work.

Because that allows us to take everyone along for the journey. I think it also de-risks the adoption of Value Based Marketing because we can really tailor solutions based on the individual supply chain needs, and to me that in itself will go a long way to addressing the barriers in the past, where you know the first mover risk is very real.

Understanding the commercial drivers that need to be addressed in our programs is also an important piece and that is quite unique to each supply chain.

But I think there is a big enough coalition of the willing to really get that program of work off the ground in the coming months, to design that program and then to get the investment flowing in behind it.

So just turning to Carbon Neutral 2030, can you tell us why that decision was made to no longer pursue that target?

Look I think CN30 was an aspirational goal. In 2017 the language was very specific around ‘the industry can be carbon neutral by 2030’ and the industry adopted CN30 as part of the meat industry strategic plan when Red Meat 2030 was developed, and that kicked off in 2020.

Where we sit today, and off the back of 12 months of consultation with industry, where we have consulted very broadly, there’s very mixed views about about CN30.

We also recognise that achieving CN30 was always contingent on the right level of investment and the right policy settings.

Where we sit today in 2025 we aren’t on track to achieve carbon neutrality, but we’ve made a lot of progress and we will continue to make progress on our net position.

We also have the Zero Net Emissions for Agriculture CRC getting off the ground and that’s going to give us tremendous leverage going forward.

It was certainly a hotly debated topic and I respect the policy decision to change Red Meat 2030 and the industry representatives decided to align with Australia’s national zero ambitions, which is a 2050 timeline.

That allows us to do two things.

It allows us to continue to drive innovation on the investments that we’ve made. We’ve done a lot of the heavy lifting on R&D.

We get to move into adoption and commercialisation through the CRC.

We also, through our understanding of the science, and also following our consultation with industry, really focus on the biogenic methane cycle, look at the role of methane is part of the whole system.

We also can balance our portfolio with productivity-driven environmental investments that really look at driving fertility, selecting for lower emitting animals, improving the efficiency in our extensive production system, getting animals to market at younger ages.

And that in itself lends to a lot more of a profitability discussion in why management practices in adoption of new technology would also be beneficial from a cost of production perspective.

So I think that there’s still a way to go around the recognition of emissions, sequestration, adoption of feed supplements and other management practices under the national greenhouse gas inventory.

We have some work to do under proponent-led methodologies to create new revenue opportunities for producers adopting feed supplements and also getting recognition for those efficiency changes in their production system under a carbon credit scheme.

So there’s quite a lot of moving parts and the language itself has changed a lot over time.

We’ve now got 2050 goals nationally, and a lot of the conversations we’ve had with the Department of Agriculture have been around low emissions agriculture.

And the expectation of achieving net zero by 2030 is the pressure that we put on ourselves, and we’re just giving ourselves now I think more time to achieve those net goals, recognising the amount of investment that isstill needed to get to a net zero position.

There obviously would’ve been a lot of research programs specifically based around 2030 in MLA’s suite of research, what happens to those specific programs now?

We are continuing those programs. I think there’s general and has been widespread support for the investments that we’ve been making.

It’s been more at the top level narrative around Carbon Neutral as the top line. From the investment side we’ve had full agreement in the investments that we make, so we continue to invest in methane as a trait in our beef and sheep genetic evaluations and will be commercialising that methane as a trait as soon as we’re able to.

Feed supplements that reduce methane in feedlots and in extensive systems will continue. We’ve got a lot more products coming through the pipeline. There’s a lot of promising probiotics, in addition to asparagopsis and Bovaer, there’s gonna be a lot more products available.

Pastures that improve production store more soil carbon. The technology to reduce the cost of measuring carbon and measuring rates of sequestration, the carbon calculators and environmental credentials platforms are all there, and we get to move from R&D to adoption and commercialisation over the next five years in partnering with the CRC to get additional leverage.

So those innovations are not only not lost but we get to build on the CN30 legacy as we move forward over the next five years.

We need to be realistic about the rate of science readiness for adoptionand commercialisation. There’s still a lot of research questions that we need to address as we as we progress.

In terms of reaction, has MLA had any direct reaction from customers – say here or overseas – to the news that Australia’s is dropping CN30?

I think that the strength of the progress that we have made, measured under the national greenhouse gas inventory, holds us in very good stead for those conversations going forward.

This is all very new and very real time discussions around these changes.

So we saw Red Meat 2030 mid point review released last week, and our strategy being launched this week, so we will continue those conversations, but our commitment to sustainability continues.

The industry’s commitment continues under the beef and sheep sustainability frameworks.

And we will continue to report red meat and livestock’s contribution to the national greenhouse gas inventory annually.

That’s our strategic plan KPI, in addition to emissions intensity KPI, but we’ve reduced emissions against 2005 baseline by 78 percent, our net position, and we will continue to make meaningful progress, particularly as these technologies and management practices come online and we work and push hard on adoption and commercialisation.

We’ve discussed VBM, CN30. Any other big ticket items from the new five-year strategic plan you’d like to draw attention to?

I think the other part is our communications program and how we tell our story becomes really important.

And I think the sustainability story, animal welfare, the role of red meat as part of the balanced and nutritious diet are big ticket items that we’re working on, and how we tell our story and get that messaging and get better cut through to connect with customers and consumers and the community around those big ticket items is certainly an area that we’re looking to elevate.

Our communications program under the Australian Good Meat site, I think we’ve got a great basis there to really elevate how we tell our story.

The ambassador programs are a really important one and there is no more authentic voice than the producer to tell the story about how they look after the land and their livestock.

Last question – Cattle Australia is pushing head with a review of the $5/head cattle transaction levy. Depending on where that review leads it could have implications for future levy funding for MLA as a key recipient of current funding for marketing and research. Is MLA able to provide a comment on that process and the fact that review is now getting underway?

Any review of the levy needs to be done by the representative organisations, and we’re certainly aware and had conversations with Cattle Australia around that they’re wanting to lead a levy review.

And we’re more than ready to support appropriately that review. We will be in a position to provide some services as part of the levy review, but it will need to be driven by the peak bodies and Cattle Australia taking the lead on that. So we’re more than ready and prepared to support that process when it gets going.