Submission To The Methane Review Panel, HC
My name is Hamish Carswell. I reside in East Otago with my family on a sheep and beef property. I am a founding member of the Methane Science Accord.
Firstly; Exactly why is New Zealand looking for answers to a problem that current science shows doesn’t exist??? Methane is swamped by atmospheric water vapour therefore any effect is negated. Thus, not an issue.
This is a political issue not a scientific one and has become contentious because of those that either derive income directly or are trying to derive income based on GHG emissions being an issue and are subsequently creating an industry around this.
Quite simply if the effect of Methane is shown scientifically to be negated then the logical and honest course is to acknowledge this, move on and search for an actual problem where research and action can achieve a result. Methane is not an actual problem.
It is important for consideration to note that numerous corporations / companies across the globe are backing away from emissions reduction obligations because they are simply unattainable. Many of these entities claim the cost to their business is too great and cannot be justified at the expense of remaining profitable and even solvent.
Examples: Air NZ, Shell, SBTi axes net zero commitments of 200+ companies, Banks; Societe Generale, HSBC, Standard Chartered and ABN Amro.
New Zealand is unique as a protein producer. New Zealand agriculture is already incredibly efficient in comparison to other countries emissions ruminant methane profile and therefore we should be lauding our point of difference and continuing with our already efficient farming practice which will improve as we develop more efficiency over time.
Just to say we need to be seen to be doing something is not an argument, but rather a deflection. If NZ farmers are required to adopt mitigation techniques to limit ruminant methane emissions, then increased feed lotting animals as one of the main mitigation options is likely. Feed lotting just as many other countries do would see NZ lumped into a me-too protein supplier with no point of healthy protein differentiation.
Surely common sense would suggest that for NZ feed lotting is not a viable option for the following reasons:
NZ sheep, beef and venison protein has to date been grass fed, has been successfully marketed as such over a long period of time and is internationally recognized as a safe and quality product that is only fed grass. What a fantastic natural story!!!
To feed grains to sheep, cattle or deer alters the composition of the meat. This is well documented. Meat proteins such as Riboflavin’s and Omega 3 concentrations are altered after only 2 weeks of feeding grain.
In the 2023 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report a Nebraska University study (Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Two Beef Systems from Birth to Slaughter in Eastern Nebraska) showed that; Conclusion: The partial-confinement system resulted in less over all emissions of CO2 and CH4 . Calves from this system were smaller at weaning and required more days on feed to achieve market weight. The pasture-based production system produced more emissions of CO2 and CH4 but more carbon was sequestered from the annual forages grazed in that system. Cows from this system were either carbon neutral or a carbon sink depending on the GHG accounting metrics used. Traditional research in beef production considers only emissions. The data for these grazing situations indicate that soil carbon uptake is greater than all emissions from beef production. Additional research is needed to measure carbon sequestration over multiple years, varying types of forages and stocking densities to determine how much carbon can be sequestered within the beef production system.
The conclusion highlights what any critical thinker would look at; to look at the whole picture rather than just one component of it. Common sense unless of course there is a vested interest to skew a result a particular way.
It is totally conflicting to claim that methane is an issue yet have the Government through catchment groups and regional councils spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to facilitate increased areas of wetlands with fencing and retiring of grazable land in all regions of NZ. Come on!!! Really, this only increases methane concentrations. So is Methane a problem or not!!!! The Government seems to want more Methane
Our local catchment group is receiving $330,000 from MPI (Government) over 3 years and that is only one catchment group.
There is a serious societal issue to consider here as well.
Through the combination of multiple factors; (on farm emissions taxing, regulation and bureaucratic cost increases resulting in a decrease in family farms that offsets to an increase in corporate operations, large scale forestry plantings in all regions) there is likely to be serious negative effects on rural NZ towns and indeed the very fabric of New Zealand societal structure. Rural areas and service towns are the very heart of NZ’s societal structure.
These negative effects being a decrease in local area population resulting in business closures, loss of schools and declining school roles;
Subsidised forestry has already encroached too far onto land better suited to agriculture, along with diminished population, less and poorer quality services and more pressure on the remaining farmers at a time when they have significant financial stress.
Individual farms the world over, always have and always will perform with greater efficiency than corporate farms because there is personal financial incentive to do so.
No Government or indeed any individual should want their names associated with playing a part in facilitating the demise of heartland NZ through poor decision making.
I trust that as a panel you will recognise the correct and right path to follow and recommend to the government that all methane targets be dropped.