Our methane emissions are among the lowest in the world per kilogram of food—and falling year by year. They’re even smaller when accounting for our vast tracts of native vegetation and trees. We’ve made incredible genetic progress with our livestock. This has led to many improvements, including animals that release less methane per unit of product due to our efficient pastoral systems that we have finely tuned to fit the land in a sustainable manner: low-input, GE-free and free-range.

The collective spend by agricultural organisations and taxpayers over the past two decades on the great methane gravy train to design the emperor’s new clothes, has now surpassed $930 Million.
While both of those previous pathways were indeed unpalatable, our supposed saviour is now vast swathes of mitigation expenditure until we create a livestock sector that we no longer recognise. One that forces farmers off the hills and into intensive feedlot production … productive traits. The irony is that they are chasing a “solution” to a “problem” that has never been tangibly identified, let alone accurately quantified or qualified.

Imagine arguing over the difference between 4 millionths of one degree of warmth and 5 millionths. Something that can’t be measured even with sophisticated technical equipment. Pretty stupid?
But now imagine if the outcome of that argument adversely affected 25% of all our dairy production and a big chunk of our meat and wool sector. Get the argument wrong and it cripples farming and devastates the economy …

Too many scientists and commentators want us to focus on the relative strength of each individual molecule and what harm an extra molecule can do. They don’t want to go on in their calculations and face the reality of what happens in the atmosphere on the spectrum every minute of the day. If they did the arguments about each molecule’s potency and what happens when extra molecules of gas are added to the atmosphere become redundant and have no credibility in science ..

Our motto is ‘optimising not maximising production’ and despite some pretty tough challenges and hard work, we are really happy with the decision we took and the outcomes. It is a matter of doing the homework, studying the options and figuring what is best for us and our farm.
Now we are researching a different problem. We face being taxed for our ruminant methane emissions. Hamish and I have studied the issue very thoroughly and the more we dug into it, the more deeply disturbed we became.

Climate change is big business in New Zealand. Government and local authorities now have a small army of people employed in the climate change industry paid by our taxes and rates. An even bigger army work as consultants where the pay is better. Its an industry with massive ‘oil tanker’ impetus. Most of their work is predicated on the claim that things are getting worse .. But is this assumption true?

Methane’s warming ability is heavily overstated. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its latest AR6 report that the way we measure methane emissions in New Zealand overstates their warming ability by a massive 300% to 400%. Secondly, New Zealand’s ruminant methane emissions are falling. New Zealand Statistics say ruminant emissions are down 6.5% since 2005. That is an important achievement when all our other emissions are rising. The “nearly 50%” is just not factual.

Research has shown that selecting for a low methane emitting sheep will breed a smaller animal, with a smaller rumen, that will need to eat more high-quality feed to maintain productivity (Waghorn 2020). Low methane emissions from sheep also has correlations with higher wool weight and lower ewe body condition scores. This not only adds cost via more work but may even lower efficiency and profit from a smaller, potentially skinnier sheep. My question to the “low methane” proponent is: Which productive and low input traits should we compromise?

Regardless of farm type, this method will penalise any system that has slower or lower overall production. This is the case even if it uses less 'undesirable' inputs and naturally matches the land's capability. It is hard to marry up the hypocrisy and inequality in this considering the Government's much politicised and haloed talk around regenerative agriculture (RA). One of the key concepts of RA is to follow the natural grass growth curve, using more solar energy and less fossil fuel to produce food.
So, on one hand the Government recently committed $26 million to research regenerative agriculture in NZ, and on the other they seek to penalise those farms ..

… CO2 that these plants need, originates with that very same grass. When the grass gets eaten the fermentation process in the ruminant’s stomach produces Methane which burps out into the atmosphere. This Methane oxidises into CO2 and water vapour ready to be sucked back into the leaves of the grass to sustain that all important cycle that underpins the all-important industries we are relying on right now to save our economy. It is a part of natural cycle. It has been forever. CO2 in, Methane out, Methane oxides into CO2 and water, CO2 back in again. On and on. No new Methane, no new CO2.