http://www.silja.se/admin2000/uploaded/pdfmgr/pdf/130.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 mins (2006-03-30 22:40:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

On page 8 you read:
Vi satsar på kvalitet!
I våra köttportioner använder vi endast Naturkött®, som fås från kvalitetscertifierade köttproducenter i Sydamerika och Nya Zeeland. Förhållandena för boskapsuppfödning är i dessa länder idealiska tack vare ett behagligt klimat och gröna betesmarker. Djuren lever ett liv specifikt för arten ute på betesmarkerna året runt i den flock de föds i. För ytterligare information, besök www.naturkott.com.

We place a high premium on quality!
For our dishes, we only use Naturkött® meat based on ecologically sound farming,supplied by certified South American and New Zealand quality meat producers. These places of origin provide an ideal environment for breeding livestock, due to their friendly climate and evergreen pastures, where the animals can follow their species-specific behaviour in their native herds in the open air, all year round.For more information: www.naturkott.com

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2006-03-30 22:44:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

My own country is mentioned here as a place where this kind of meat is produced (and myself I have seen this envelope being printed in a workshop in Montevideo):
http://www.northtrade.se/Exego.aspx?p_id=348

Kan det verkligen vara ett miljövänligt alternativ att frakta hit kött från andra sidan jordklotet?

Svar:

När man tittar på miljöbelastningen bör man beräkna den totala energiförbrukningen som åtgår för att producera och transportera nötkött till den plats där köttet ska konsumeras. I studier som gjorts av kött som producerats i olika ursprung och som konsumerats i Sverige kommer kött från Sydamerika väldigt väl ut. Det beror på att energimängden som åtgår för att producera kraftfoder och att värma upp stallar vida överstiger den energiförbrukning som uppkommer vid miljöeffektiv båttransport.

I den extensiva produktion som sker i Uruguay och Brasilien går djuren ute hela året och äter bara gräs, aldrig kraftfoder. (Bifogar härunder en studie som gjorts av prof. Friedrich Quiel vid KTH)

RESULTS
To compare energy consumption and environmental costs of beef production in Sweden with other countries it must be examined how differences in transport and cattle raising methods influence energy consumption and environmental costs. Energy consumption for slaughter, distribution etc do not differ significantly between production methods. Energy consumption for breeding on grazing lands is about 5000 kJ per kg meat. Energy consumption for breeding with ley is about 20000 kJ and breeding with concentrated feed, grain etc requires even more energy, about 100 000 kJ, that means about 20 times more than on grazing lands. Due to the climate in Sweden cattle can graze on pasture not more than 6 to 7 month per year. During the remaining periods cattle must be raised with ley, concentrated feed etc. In other countries, e.g. Uruguay, Australia cattle can graze year round or at least 9 month, e.g. in Ireland. Compared with these countries the energy consumption for breeding is much higher in Sweden. To show trends energy consumption and environmental cost for beef, based on a simplified calculation, in Stockholm coming from Linköping are compared with imported meat from Ireland, Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand. The total energy consumption per kilo beef (fig.1) for transport to Stockholm from Linköping is about 450 kJ, from Ireland 9850 kJ, from Uruguay 8700 kJ and from New Zealand 12000kJ. Beef produced around Linköping has a total energy consumption of 13000 kJ for breeding with 50 % grazing and 50 % ley and about 40000 kJ for breeding with 1/3 grazing, 1/3 ley and 1/3 concentrated feed. Even with long transport distances, e.g. from South America or New Zealand, the total energy consumption is still not higher than for typical production in Sweden. Similar relationships are valid for environmental costs. Even under an optimistic assumption that energy consumption for breeding is caused only to 50 % by diesel engines, e.g. tractors, the costs for imports from Ireland, Uruguay or New Zealand are often lower than for production in Sweden. Environmental costs (fig. 2) are estimated to be between 60 and 180 öre/kg for raising in Sweden with grazing combined with ley respectively grazing, lay and concentrated feed and between 49 and 110 for import from Ireland respectively Australia or New Zealand. Costs from New Zealand are lower than from Australia due to shorter land transport. The total energy consumption and environmental cost for beef production on grazing lands abroad are in general lower than for typical breeding conditions in Sweden.

CALCULATION METHOD
The calculation method for energy consumption and environmental costs for transport is similar to the method used in "Livsmedeltransporter och miljö (Food transport and environment)" by Miljöförvaltningen Stockholm, to facilitate comparison. Estimates for energy consumption for the different breeding methods are based on the relationship for energy consumption and energy content in the products. Comparison is based on following input data: Transport by ship: 0.018 kJ/kgkm, 0,0032 öre/kgkm + 20 % for freezer transport Transport by truck : 0.9 kJ/kgkm, 0,0079 öre/kgkm + 4 % for freezer transport Environmental cost for breeding: 0,0087 öre/kJ Relationship for energy consumption in production to energy content of meat are about 0.5 for grazing, about 2.0 for ley and about 10 for concentrated feed. With an energy content of beef of about 10 000 kJ/kg this implies an energy consumption of 5000 kJ/kg for grazing, about 20000 for ley and about 100000 for concentrated feed. Environmental costs for breeding are more difficult to assess and to compare. For an estimate one can assume that about 50 % of the energy is used for tractors etc and the remaining 50 % are provided by electrical power. Environmental costs for trucks and train are relevant. More realistically environmental costs per kJ are as high as for long distance truck transport. These calculations of environmental costs consider only environmental costs due to energy consumption. A comprehensive assessment must include environmental costs for manure and fertilizer, production of electricity (the long term environmental costs of nuclear energy), production of engines, construction of buildings, heating etc. Similarly a more accurate comparison of environmental costs of breeding requires a survey of relationships between grazing, ley and concentrated feed as well as their production and origin, with other words a complete live cycle analysis. The goal of this analysis is mainly to show trends and order of magnitude of components and the total energy consumption and environmental costs, and not an elaborate detailed study.
Prof. Dr. Friedrich Quiel