Friday, March 29, 2024

Farmers held back on green changes

Neal Wallace
A lack of knowledge is hindering farmers from reducing biological emissions from livestock despite a study showing they can be cut by 10% if every farmer adopts known best practice management.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

The report by the Biological Emissions Reference Group (Berg), consisting of agricultural sector organisations and Government agencies, reveals 64% of farmers believe agriculture should reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help combat climate change.

But 98% do not know the greenhouse gas emission rate from their farms and when asked to estimate their emissions 97% underestimated them.

More than half are aware of emission mitigation measures other than trees.

Modelling shows while existing measures can cut emissions by 10%, further increases need a combination of land use change and new technology.

An assessment by the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre of existing and new mitigating technology under development found biological emissions can potentially be cut 10% to 21% by 2030 and by 22% to 48% by 2050.

However, there is low confidence among farmers a methane vaccine will be available by 2030 but medium to high confidence it will be by 2050.

There is medium-high confidence a methane inhibitor for grazing will be available by 2030 and reduce emissions by 30% to 50% by 2050.

Changes introduced by some regional councils to improve freshwater quality could reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4%.

It has been estimated 800,000ha of trees could also be planted to meet freshwater quality goals with the associated carbon sequestering the equivalent of 14% of agricultural emissions.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the report offers hope to farmers and agribusinesses that emissions can be reduced while maintaining productivity and profitability.

“It also offers real hope to a world that needs to expand food production for a growing global population but also needs to bring down climate pollution at the same time,” he said.

Farmers need to understand the issues and how they relate to and fit their farm systems and profitability before they will act.

“Two things are important to changing behaviour: demonstrating clear links between environmental and economic benefits and ensuring practical options are available.”

Success is dependent on management skills, the farm system and ensuring profitability mirrors the lower inputs. 

Improving cow productivity could reduce dairy emissions by 10%, once-a-day milking by up to 7% and using low protein supplementary feed, reduced nitrogen fertiliser and removing summer crops by 5%.

Because sheep, beef and deer management are less intensive there is less opportunity to lower emissions.

Reducing stock rates while improving animal productivity could reduce emissions by up to 5% but improve profitability by 4% on North Island hill country and 26% on an intensive South Island system.

Replacing breeding cows on hill country with dairy bulls and steers could reduce emissions by up to 10% and lift profitability by 50%.

Integrating forestry into farms is also viewed as a profitable option.

The authors found pricing agricultural emissions would encourage farmers to adopt known mitigation options.

But farmers lack information and support to make changes.

New methods are often not compatible with existing practice, changes are complex and there is difficulty accessing finance. Issues with land tenure and age or lack on confidence are also barriers.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading