New Motu Working Paper Shows Significant Potential for Better Farm Management Practices to Improve Environmental Outcomes

Post written by H. Griffin.

This new working paper looks at differences in management practices of New Zealand dairy farms and the mitigation of nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. Research on this topic in New Zealand to date has relied on simulation modelling and has been limited by the fact that different farms have generally been treated as homogenous. In reality, farms vary greatly – looking at this heterogeneity gives a better idea of the potential for better environmental outcomes through more efficient farm management practices.

Using data on 264 New Zealand dairy farms, the paper estimates the extent to which farm management and farmer skill could potentially reduce farms’ greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching per unit of production. It suggests that significant feasible, relatively low-cost mitigation could be effected by less efficient farmers moving towards existing best practice, potentially reducing nitrogen leaching by more than 30 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent. The potential for such mitigation varies considerably across farms.

Check out the new paper here.

New OECD Report: Policy Instruments for Green Growth in Agriculture

Post written by H. Griffin.

An OECD Green Growth report on agricultural policy instruments was released on Monday. The report synthesises the experience of OECD countries in developing and implementing green growth policies in the agricultural sector. In addition to looking at experience in the areas of improved resource-use efficiency and decreased local environmental impact, the report explores policy potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A key conclusion of the report is that whilst a wide range of policies are being used throughout the OECD, the degree of ambition is extremely variable between countries.

Check out the full report here.

Special Event - Feeding the World without Consuming the Planet

Make sure to catch this event via livestream on the 6th November 8am NZDT.

Effluent to Biofuel

Effluent processing plants that turn dairy cow effluent into biofuel could be the way of the future for New Zealand dairying.

Agribusiness manager Natasha King, winner of the Nuffield Farming Scholarship, has done research into whether gas and electricity can be generated from effluent. Whilst unable to reveal details about the proposed solution just yet, plans are underway to trial effluent processing on a 1000-cow farm in Canterbury.

Reframing the Policy Approach: Lessons from Niki Harré

Post written by H. Griffin.

Niki Harré’s Psychology for a Better World explores how we can create a society in which governments, organisations and individuals take pride in their efforts to protect the planet and each other. In the video below, Harré summarises the key messages of her book.

In a previous post, we looked at how individual environmental action can be motivated. Harré’s work is not only relevant to individuals, but also to policy-makers. The design and implementation of policy can have a huge impact on its effectiveness. Harré highlights the importance of positivity in encouraging creativity and cooperation. Positive emotions also play a vital role in facilitating behavioural change.

Framing the way agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in a more positive manner could be very beneficial. Approximately half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions relate to agriculture. The mitigation of these emissions is particularly challenging because current mitigation options are mostly associated with farm management practices and must be implemented by tens of thousands of farmers. There are currently no ‘silver bullet’ technologies that can be imposed or implemented by agricultural processing/distribution companies on behalf of farmers. Furthermore, incorporating agriculture into the ETS – which has been the focus of public debate – risks generating large wealth transfers. Because of this, it is crucial that communication of the issue is productive in facilitating positive action.
 

Political debate on the issue so far has been polarised, negative and unproductive. Harré shows us that reframing the policy conversation could potentially better equip New Zealand’s agricultural sector to face the challenges ahead.

As explored in this Motu note, New Zealand can play an important role in global climate change mitigation efforts as a policy leader. Positively reframing our policy debate domestically is an important step in enabling New Zealand to play this role.

 Instead of tales of terror, we need to be telling tales of joy. We also need to be designing policy that facilitates the acknowledgement of positive behaviour of farmers. Harré suggests that making positive behaviour more visible to other farmers could have multiplying effects as people tend to copy each other.

100% Perception: DCDs and our International Image

Post written by Hannah Griffin


The recent food safety controversies involving Fonterra have highlighted the critically important interdependence between NZ’s exporters and our international brand. Further controversy surrounding DCD traces followed by a botulism scare were linked with river water quality in a wide ranging attack by the UK’s Daily Mail, alleging our ‘100% Pure’ slogan was “pure manure”. Whilst some have claimed the 100% Pure line should be taken with a grain of salt, export bans put in place by unaffected countries demonstrates the serious consequences of mishandled communications.

In the past month, bans and suspensions of Fonterra’s products have variously occurred in Russia, Sri Lanka and most recently Bangladesh. Particularly unsettling is Sri Lanka’s focus on DCD residues and Bangladesh’s related “nitrate in the milk powder” concerns.

Regardless of the (disputed) extent to which DCD residues have been detected, it is absolutely essential that we effectively communicate with our trading partners to avoid our brand being unnecessarily tarnished. Although DCD is non-toxic and presents no food-safety risk, many international markets have little to no tolerance of any level of chemical residue in their food - there is no international standard prescribing an acceptable level of DCD.

But why are we using DCD in the first place? DCD (technically ‘Dicyandiamide’) is one of the most promising technologies available for reducing the environmental impact of agriculture - it is the only product recognised under New Zealand’s National Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Inventory as a mitigation tool. This, and its additional effect of reducing the level of Nitrate leaching into our waterways, makes its usage very compelling, from an environmental perspective.

Approximately half of NZ’s emissions relate to agriculture and of these, 20% are related to livestock emissions from nitrous oxide and a further 6% from Nitrogen-heavy fertilisers. Motu and Landcare Research studies have shown that regulating nutrient run-off in water catchments or GHG emissions will generally lead to improvements in both; this is largely driven by changes in land use but also on-farm management decisions. Other, pre-experimental modelling under the Pastoral 21 programme has suggested it may be technically feasible to enact a 30% reduction in N leaching using current technologies even with a 20% increase in production. This suggests that significant nitrous oxide reductions may also be possible.

But do the economics stack up? Since agriculture is not included in the emissions trading scheme, farmers cannot use DCD to directly benefit from the reduction in CO2-e emissions. Positively though, DCD usage can in some circumstances boost pasture production by 5-10% but most studies suggest that its use will still come at a cost to profitability. DairyNZ work suggests that 20% reductions in leaching may be possible on dairy farms in Canterbury, while maintaining farm profitability.

Technological advances in agriculture represent a huge opportunity to increase the sustainability of our farming systems, without compromising food safety. It is essential that we pre-emptively address the potential concerns of our trade partners so as to enhance, rather than jeopardise our clean, green reputation.

Retracing the Footprints of our Livestock

Post written by H. Griffin

Carbon footprinting has become commonplace these days. Go online and you’ll find articles about the footprint of just about anything – your diet, your travel and even your pets. There are also various calculators available that can figure out the totality of your own personal footprint, if that’s what you so desire.

Footprinting is done for many agricultural products. It enables us to compare and contrast across different countries as well as among products.

AgResearch has put together various footprint studies on New Zealand produce, such as lamb and beef. These studies are important in strengthening our understanding of where emissions could be decreased along the supply chain.

But what actually goes into putting the numbers together?

AgResearch uses a “Life Cycle Assessment” approach, examining greenhouse gas emissions from production to consumption. At each stage of this chain, they assess each component that contributes to emissions. For example, in terms of on-farm beef emissions this means looking at natural processes of cattle consuming pasture as well as fertiliser, electricity and fuel use.

For beef, the total GHG footprint AgResearch calculated was 2.2kg CO2-equivalents for a 100g portion. Broken into segments, this equated to 90.3% for the on-farm stage, 2.1% for meat processing, 4.2% for transportation, and 3.3% for the consumption phase.

Their beef footprint study also outlines next steps for emissions improvements for the industry. Recommendations range from increasing productivity and tree-planting at the farm level to reducing the speed of shipping vessels.

On-farm emissions contribute by far the largest portion of the pie. Natural processes are the main source of these emissions and are the most challenging to mitigate. With the first petri dish grown beef burger eaten just over a week ago, there is a possibility that someday in the distant future we’ll be able to cut on-farm emissions altogether!

In the meantime we can work on minimising emissions where possible. This means taking the opportunities available in every phase from production to consumption. As consumption accounts for 3.3% of beef’s footprint, our behaviour can also play a role in minimising the footprint of what we consume. As consumers we can do things such as reducing food wastage in our homes.

We can also take responsibility for the footprint of our diet. As explored in a previous blog, a shift towards less red meat intensive diets could play a role in this.