So it’s timely that the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre has just released a brochure, Reducing emissions: how we are getting there. It gives a summary of trends in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a four page fold out which features New Zealand prominently placed on a world map, which is shown as a balloon floating over a rather desolate, well-fenced but not particularly well-planted landscape.
The figures detailed in the brochure are pretty desolate too, on first glance.
GHG per unit or meat or milk produced on NZ farms has dropped by an average of just 1% per year since the baseline of 1990. This is due to more efficient farming practices, including improved animal genetics and management, as well as better pasture management and feeding practices. Using resources more efficiently to increase outputs means that in dairying a greater proportion of feed is going into milk production rather than maintenance.
Increased milk yields mean that actual yields are closer to the genetic potential of the national herd. While two of the onfarm practices which have changed raise no issues, the third does, especially during an election campaign where dairying is mentioned in a derogatory way, often by the minor parties, in connection with its effect on water quality or for being too dominant as the country’s major export earner.
Improved pasture management with more targeted use of fertilisers and irrigation, and continued improvement in genetic merit of animals through breeding and herd testing, are entirely laudable. But what about consistent supply of high quality feed and increased use of supplements like maize silage, palm kernel and brassicas?
NZ dairy farmers have been urged for years to feed their herds better and this is certainly reaping rewards as well as pleasing those with an eye on animal welfare. But while much is made of the positive environmental impact of maize growing with less nitrate leaching, and increased use of improved brassica varieties brings no argument, palm kernel’s use does.
It’s become a quick and cheap solution for many farmers, especially when drought has meant a shortfall of homegrown feed. With no need for expensive harvesting or feeding equipment it’s been a reliable route. Some farmers move on to other feeds as part of moving up the rankings in DairyNZ farm system types. Others order it to fill a feed pinch.
But environmental questions remain, both because of where palm kernel is sourced, and because it’s use is often seen an unwelcome step away from clean, green pasture-based dairying.
Is the industry replacing one environmental problem, GHG build up, with another, a move towards a more industrialised farming system?
The Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre’s brochure delivers the message that NZ’s total GHG emissions have risen by 15% since 1990 due to agriculture’s increased production. Without efficiency gains, emissions would have grown by more than 30%, it says.
Reducing agricultural production or forgoing growth targets are not in the country’s best interests so there has to be another way. New solutions need to be practical and cost effective, with farmers recognised for their current efforts so they can build on them.
From the beginning of the debate about the emissions trading scheme, farmers were told there would be no silver bullet to enable reduction of GHG emission levels to 5% below those in 1990 by 2020 as a first step. The next is the 2050 goal of halving those levels or taking responsibility for any excess emissions. It’s always been envisaged that science would provide a range of different strategies which farmers could pick and choose from.
New technology might be the answer. But no one can afford to lose sight of the big picture which is that reputation is everything and the most sophisticated and value-added dairy product in the world is only as good as the robustness and sustainability of its production system.
In his introduction to the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre’s 2013 highlights, chairman of its steering group, Professor Warren McNabb, says just that.
“Unless effective technical solutions are found to reduce agricultural emissions, NZ’s economic growth could be constrained and our image as a producer of high quality produce with high environmental integrity tarnished.”
That image issue has already been sullied for both local and international consumers. Political point scoring means the issue is getting a wider airing during the election campaign than it normally would. With even a slight change in the balance of power after September 20 there could be more unwelcome emphasis placed on this side of dairying for the next three years.
That takes us through to 2017, just another election and term of government away from 2020 – when the balloon really does go up.
*Editor at large, Glenys Christian, also writes a weekly column which appears on www.dairyexporter.co.nz.
