Professor Ross Garnaut's report concludes that the cost of producing beef would rise by 96 cents per kilogram, lamb would rise 67c/kg, pork by 16c/kg, and poultry by just 3c/kg.

"In response to a carbon price on the agricultural sector, households move away from meat and meat products because of the higher price of these commodities under an emissions trading scheme," Professor Garnaut forecasts.

"Households also move away from beef and lamb towards less emissions-intensive meat, such as chicken and pork."

A similar pattern would occur in Australia's meat exports, the report suggests—but it adds that production in the beef and lamb sectors is still capable of increasing 150pc by 2100 under a moderate emissions reduction scheme.

Earlier this month the Australian Farm Institute released some preliminary modelling that shared Professor Garnaut's conclusion that the beef and sheep sectors, the source of ruminant methane, would be particularly hard-hit by an ETS.

According to the AFI modelling, a generic small beef-sheep enterprise ($100-$200,000 annual gross revenue) could lose 191pc of its current cash margin (set at $41,600) by 2016 if it has to comply with an ETS scheme and carbon permit prices starting at $30/tonne in 2010.

Bigger beef-sheep enterprises grossing $200-$400,000 a year would drop 112pc off their cash margins under the same scenario.

A small broadacre enterprise (mixed cropping and stock, with gross revenue of $100-$200,000 a year) could lose 95pc of its cash margin, and larger broadacre enterprises 75pc.

Pure cropping and dairy enterprises would be less drastically affected, but under the model could still see close to 40pc of their margin disappear.

The report says that if other industries submit to an ETS but agriculture is left outside the system, the sector will be responsible for 41pc of Australia’s emissions by 2100.

Yet Garnaut also comments that mitigation options for agriculture are scarce, as has been the research in this area.