He said it was early work and further trials were needed on the methane inhibitors to confirm there were no adverse effects, but NZ farmers should be excited by the news. A commercial product might be available in five years.
“It could be the silver bullet we’ve been looking for.”
The announcement of the discovery was made at the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Mitigation conference in Palmerston North this week.
A number of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives are under way in NZ funded by taxpayers and private enterprise. Scientists are also looking at a vaccine, breeding and forages which reduced methane emissions.
Earlier in the conference chief science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman said changing the ruminant’s methane profile was not simple. Whole farm systems including land use might need to be changed.
“Chances are a system-wide approach will be needed.”
Gluckman said synthetic or genetically modified bacteria might be needed and New Zealanders might not accept this or indoor housing for methane capture.
“We will also need to consider how global customers will react – will they accept such technologies?”
He said there was uncertainty about whether the necessary political consensus among major emitters at a global level could be developed to achieve effective mitigation.
NZ climate change ambassador Jo Tyndall was optimistic a new global agreement would be reached by the end of 2015.
About 40,000 delegates were expected to meet in France at the end of this year to try to finalise a new global agreement.
Tyndall said that the political will to reach an agreement was stronger than it had ever been, despite slow formal negotiations. After four years of debate about the form of the agreement, the final version was expected to be basic.
She said an agriculture section in the agreement was unlikely. It was not a prominent issue for developed countries and was a sensitive issue for many developing countries. However, agriculture might be referenced for future inclusion.
Tyndall said a number of reporting obligations were expected but with few harsh penalties. Rather, a more “name and shame” approach would be adopted.
Tyndall said countries’ reduction targets or intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) need to be tabled well before the Paris meeting.
It would be up to individual countries to set their targets before the legal document was finalised but they needed to demonstrate that the new INDCs moved beyond countries’ previous commitments.
