ANZCO Foods posts $8m profit amid 'another challenging year' for red meat
123rf
Tight margins in a challenging second half of 2024 have hit the pockets of major red meat processor and exporter ANZCO Foods, but it made a profit nonetheless.
The Christchurch-headquartered company with seven processing and three manufacturing sites across Aotearoa recorded a net profit of $8.4 million in the year to December, down from the $44.4m after-tax profit last year.
Chief executive Peter Conley said it was
another challenging year
for farmers and the red meat sector.
"Lower market returns, especially during the main processing season squeezed margins and impacted business performance," he said.
"Global market pricing for beef and lamb improved in the second half of the year with increased consumer demand in key markets including North Asia, USA, Canada, UK and Europe."
He said China was the most challenging market last year.
"China has seen slower economic activity, and this reduced demand impacted beef and sheep meat returns," he said.
Conley said its sites were fully staffed through the year, which helped drive higher revenue "through additional product recoveries".
Looking to 2025, he said there were continued strengths in key markets like North America
particularly for beef
, and the United Kingdom and European Union for sheepmeat, but China remained sluggish.
"The 2025 year has started positively but with new uncertainty as geopolitical tensions and tariff implications are yet to be fully understood," he said.
"However, the underlying outlook for beef and lamb is positive with improving economic conditions driving increased demand amid global supply constraints."
In relation to its
United States business
, Conley said it had been able to maintain pricing and pass on the costs to the American end of the chain, as it continued to benefit from the region's insatiable hunger for beef.
ANZCO Foods was one of the country's largest exports with an annual turnover of $1.85 billion and nearly 3000 employees globally.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Political commentators Gareth and Liam
Gareth Hughes is the Director of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa is a former Green MP and is no longer a member of any political party. Liam Hehir is a Palmerston North lawyer, political commentator and a National Party member. Gareth and Liam discuss the latest politics, including recent CPI data. Photo: 123rf
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Sounds Air cut flying routes as costs surge
Sounds Air managing director Andrew Crawford says aviation has been severely hit by escalating costs, supply chain challenges and a weak New Zealand dollar. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King Sounds Air is cutting two regional services, saying it's facing 'out of control' costs. The airline will no longer fly Blenheim to Christchurch or Christchurch to Wānaka from the end of September. Last December, it stopped flying Wellington to Taupō and Wellington to Westport. Sounds Air managing director Andrew Crawford told Nine to Noon aviation has been severely hit by escalating costs, supply chain challenges and a weak New Zealand dollar that's threatened the viability of all regional airlines. He said the irony is that bookings have never been better, but they've exhausted all other options and need to reduce regional services. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
