“Power and food inflation, actually food inflation. If you're thinking you're paying enough the butter at the moment and it's very expensive, well fasten your seat belt, because once we add the true cost of Paris, and their technology, initiatives, additives, boluses, pills, potions, plus land use change; just to tick the Paris box, wait and see! … I was thinking about this morning on the farm. As a country, we seem to be terrified of the wrong things. We seem to be terrified of what highly subsidised, heavily populated industrial countries think of us more so than protecting and promoting our natural competitive advantage, which actually is using our resources, our water, our highly productive soils, our hill country to our advantage, our grass feed protein. Actually, if we carry on this pathway, we're going to end up like the UK and the EU. I mean you look at the EU. They're currently paying land owners NOT to produce food!

The Country:McDonald's, a wealthy global junk food company, saying that New Zealand farmers should actually be thanking them, because instead of paying as a premium for our naturally pasture raised, free range red meat, they're going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars “to fund projects to help New Zealand farmers with their on farm management”. Well, bugger me. I'm not sure that we need McDonald's to be telling us, how to improve our farm productivity!
We're spending far too much time listening to sermons from desk sitters & junk food companies, not enough promoting our unique, biodiverse productivity to the world.

Peter Foster of the Methane Science Accord joins Jaspreet Boparai and Don Nicolson to critique the Government's methane science review panel, accusing it of sidelining key experts and ignoring crucial data. Foster argues the panel was predisposed toward maintaining the status quo, dismissing international findings that question methane's climate impact. With claims that global warming potential metrics are flawed and New Zealand livestock emissions are near-negligible, they call out what they see as decades of scientific groupthink and political inaction. A passionate discussion that challenges the mainstream narrative and calls for an open, evidence-based debate.

Scientist Peter Foster sits down with Don Nicolson and Jaspreet Boparai to discuss a letter to PM Christopher Luxon from 26 climate scientists opposing New Zealand’s proposed shift to a “no additional warming” biogenic methane target. Critically examining the scientific claims the letter makes, arguing that methane’s role in warming is overstated without global concentration increases. Peter is worried that New Zealand’s agricultural sector is being pressured by unfounded science, misguided corporate responses, and international expectations, while claiming many solutions pushed on farmers are unworkable and profit-driven.

Don Nicolson + Jaspreet Boparai + Owen Jennings, dissect findings of landmark farmer-led survey that throws a spanner in the works of New Zealand's methane and nitrous oxide tax narrative. Over 1,400 responses, the results reveal overwhelming opposition to enforced mitigation tools, scepticism of the science behind agricultural methane emissions, and growing frustration with taxpayer-funded initiatives seen as out of touch with on-farm reality. Questions whether New Zealand's rural voice is truly being heard—or quietly sidelined.

We've wasted time, money, focus and resources that we don't actually have. We’re potentially up for 24 billion dollars in the next five years for net zero. That's twelve thousand household and a country that can't afford its own healthcare… We've got a real leadership role to play here. And actually we shouldn't be apologising for the fact that our admission's profile have a high proportion of natural biogenic emissions. We should be really proud of that. We should be saying; mate, this is really great news. We can forge ahead and forge a different pathway and because … I called it a fiscal folly before, but it's actually economic espionage if we carry on the same pathway.

Professor Jack Heinemann ‘You can package gene editors as pesticides and spray them from airplanes onto fields, and they won’t distinguish between a plant, a cow, a microbe, or a fungus or a human being. Those chemistries don’t know the difference. They are able to carry these gene editing tools into the cells of anything ’..
It’s not that [your cows] may have had a history of eating a GMO, they may be in real time an actual GMO or contaminated with actual GMO’s. that are inseparable from them because of this unregulated use of the gene editors outside of the containment facility.