No reason to demonise farming
OPINION: New Zealand has said it is going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by ‘a lot’ and ‘in a short time’. One of those gases is methane. Our biggest producer of methane is livestock farming.
To keep it short, New Zealand agriculture has been falsely accused of contributing to 50% of the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. I use the word ‘falsely’ because that is exactly what has occurred. An outdated metric has been used to model New Zealand’s GHG emissions contributions. Even the IPCC themselves have stated that the metric is unfit for purpose.
If New Zealand’s GHG emissions model had been updated to the newer metric and due to our falling stock numbers, our agricultural contributions would be minimum and no action would need to be taken by our industry.
We could keep producing the world’s lowest emission meat and dairy products exactly the way we always have done.
For reasons unknown, not one politician or industry leader has had the balls to call out this treasonous behaviour towards our country and our agricultural industry.
Instead, what has unfolded is the biggest example of ‘Group Think’ ever experienced by our industry. Instead of questioning the faulty models head on, which would have been the true and fair thing to do for our industry, agricultural representatives jumped on the emissions bus whilst saying, ‘We can still farm productively and profitably by simply incorporating some ruminant emissions tools into our businesses’.
What’s worse is they went to our industry for support when they didn’t even have any details themselves on what those mitigation tools might look like.
Fast forward the out-of-control emissions bus to now and our industry is facing some very bitter decisions.
It is openly quoted by AgriZero (public-private partnership) that farms will each require two to three tools to achieve a 30% reduction in methane and nitrous oxide, with the first of these potentially available from 2030. No one has ever bothered to explain where the outlandish suggestion that we need to decrease our emissions by a further 30% came from, or why.
Let’s look closely at the information on the mitigation tools to date
Methane bolus: needs reapplication every 100 days. Highly unsuitable for large animals due to the safety risks associated with application. Highly impractical for large herd/flock numbers. No details yet on price or supplier.
Methane bolus containing a daffodil compound: being researched and trialled at present. Highly impractical for large herd/flock numbers. No details yet on price or supplier.
Methane vaccine: tens of millions of dollars has been sunk into methane vaccine research to date. No details yet on price, supplier or frequency of application.
Low methane genetics (rams/ bulls): released research shows the low methane animals are leaner and woollier. All the coffee table conversations state that the low methane animals are smaller.
Has anyone tasted the leaner animals, given that fat is what gives lamb its flavour?
All those methane vaccines and boluses will be going straight in the bin, by the way, there is nil benefit to the farmer for trying to stuff them down their animals’ throats.
Winners: Biotech companies and their shareholders.
Losers: NZ Farmers and the environment.
put up and shut up though as these biotech tools will be an essential requirement for market and trade requirements and bank loans, regardless of the fact that none of this will make any measurable difference to the global temperature, as ruminant contribution to warming is so miniscule it is immeasurable.
Winners: Biotech companies and their shareholders.
Losers: NZ farmers, our free-range/low-input advantage, the New Zealand economy and New Zealand environment.
Helen Mandeno is a Waikato sheep and beef farmer.
