Summary
- Grass‑fed dairy has become a baseline expectation in premium markets, but definitions and verification frameworks vary by country.
- New Zealand stands out for its government‑defined grass‑fed standard, but Ireland’s industry‑led, nationally embedded scheme is widely adopted and underpinned by near‑universal farm participation.
- As scrutiny intensifies, credibility now depends on how grass‑fed claims are defined, audited and communicated, not just whether they are met.
Grass-fed dairy is widely associated with premium quality, superior nutritional benefits and sustainability credentials. But what qualifies as ‘grass-fed’ differs across markets, though the baseline is largely the same: most of the cow’s diet must come from fresh pasture, forage crops, and conserved grass (silage, hay, baleage), with supplementary feed making up no more than 10%.
Ireland’s grass-fed standard is industry-led, overseen by Bord Bia and enjoys near-universal adoption. It is built on the Sustainable Dairy Assurance Scheme (SDAS) as part of a broader national sustainability network, and it focuses on grass-fed thresholds by auditing farms and milk-pool averaging. New Zealand on the other hand operates a statutory national standard, complete with concrete rules on grazing access, diet composition and rolling averages applied at processor level.
Neither is materially better than the other: it’s a more case of what matters to the customer. Ireland’s standard isn’t fixed in law, making it theoretically more flexible to evolve based on new climate, science and market demands while being highly audited at the same time. New Zealand’s is more conservative to that end, but its statutory definition gives it stronger standing with trade partners and regulators that prioritise formal, government-defined assurance.
Grass-fed claims already carry weight on the market – but simply meeting the minimum threshold goes only so far in an increasingly competitive landscape.
That scrutiny has already played out in New Zealand, where Fonterra recently settled a legal dispute with Greenpeace over how grass‑fed claims were presented on consumer packaging. At the same time, the co-op is strategically focusing on reinforcing credibility through verifiable data that supports its above-standard achievements.
Why Fonterra strives for more
New Zealand’s national grass-fed standard mandates that cows are fed a minimum of 90% grass-based feed, verified through audited rolling averages at both farmer and processor level. But Fonterra reports an average grass-fed figure of 96%, supported by the co-op’s own supply chain requirements and reporting frameworks and backed by farm performance and animal welfare metrics as well as customer-specific assurance programmes.
This approach unlocks a level of market flexibility – customers have a window into how the grass-fed claim is supported relative to their home market – while also adhering to the statutory national definition.
“Very few countries globally have a government endorsed definition of grass-fed dairy, which gives New Zealand’s standard particular credibility, especially in international markets where consumers and regulators place strong trust in government assurance,” said Mitchel Williams, director, new business development, US, at Fonterra.
“Going beyond the minimum reinforces the credibility of our claims, not just for regulators, but for customers who want reassurance that these are long standing, system level practices rather than compliance exercises. It also future-proofs our position as scrutiny around production claims continues to increase globally.”
There’s a clear sustainability incentive, too. “Moving beyond the minimum thresholds is less about introducing entirely new practices and more about continuous improvement and resilience.” Williams added. “It involves ongoing investment in pasture management, animal health, farm data systems, and tools that help farmers make better decisions year to year.”
Fonterra’s reported average is on a rolling basis, to allow for seasonal variations. “The main challenges [to achieving above-minimum grass-fed average] relate to climate variability and seasonal conditions,” said Williams. “Droughts, excess rainfall, or regional weather events can all influence pasture growth and feed availability. In those situations, farmers may use supplementary feed to support cow health and maintain milk production.
“That variability is exactly why the standard and our reporting use rolling averages rather than rigid day to day rules. It reflects real farming conditions while ensuring the overall system remains predominantly pasture based.”
How grass-fed claims strengthen competitiveness
When it comes to competition, B2B is becoming an increasingly heated arena in dairy – with Fonterra, Tirlan, Ornua and Kerry among the grass-fed majors vying for the attention of global ingredient and foodservice customers.
“For many global ingredient buyers, grass-fed credentials have become a table-stakes expectation rather than a niche differentiator,” Williams said. “Buyers are increasingly evaluating suppliers not just on price and functionality, but on provenance, credibility of claims, and alignment with their own sustainability commitments. Clear grass-fed credentials help shorten qualification processes and build confidence, particularly with customers supplying premium, health focused, or transparency driven consumer brands.”
Grass-fed vs grazed: What's the difference?
Grazing refers to pasture access; while grass‑fed refers to diet composition.
Under Irish and New Zealand standards, cows must spend much of the year grazing outdoors and receive at least 90% of their diet from grass‑based feeds, assessed using audited rolling averages rather than day‑to‑day rules.
High-value, premium ingredients are particularly sought-after in sports and active nutrition formulations, he added. “Grass-fed dairy is increasingly important in premium sports and active nutrition applications because it aligns with consumer expectations around natural production systems, provenance, and transparency,” said Williams. “For many brands in this space, how ingredients are produced matters alongside performance and quality. Grass fed credentials help convey that products are rooted in natural farming systems rather than intensive or highly industrialised models.”
As such, going above and beyond the national standard is a way to reinforce trust, according to Williams.
“It gives customers confidence that grass-fed is not just a claim, but an embedded system supported by data, verification, and long-standing farming practices. For ingredient, sports nutrition, and foodservice customers operating globally, this matters because it reduces risk. They can point to a credible, government-defined benchmark and a supplier that exceeds it when making their own sourcing and sustainability claims.”
But when it comes to claims around functionality and nutrition, Williams stopped short to linking grass-fed dairy with explicit nutritional benefits. “Our focus in this conversation is on farming systems and ingredient quality, rather than making product-level nutrition claims,” he said. “What we consistently hear from customers is that New Zealand’s pasture-based system supports reliable ingredient quality, consistency, and performance across applications.
“Grass-fed credentials complement functional performance by adding a provenance and transparency story that brands can stand behind – without over promising on health or nutrition outcomes.”
For Fonterra, the main challenge remains managing climate volatility while maintaining its own grass-fed targets. New Zealand’s statutory standard is designed to factor this in.
“The grass-fed standard is assessed across the milk pool on an average basis, which allows flexibility at farm level during challenging periods without compromising the integrity of the overall system,” said Williams. “That balance between rigor and practicality is key to maintaining both reliability of supply and credibility of claims.”
