sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Angus Kebbell talks to a South Canterbury farmer about the current state of farming and what ails the sector

Rural News / opinion
Angus Kebbell talks to a South Canterbury farmer about the current state of farming and what ails the sector
Orari Gorge Station
Orari Gorge Station

Robert Peacock farms at Orari Gorge Station, which is in the South Canterbury foothills just near Geraldine. It’s mostly Hill Country about 10% flat 15% rolling and 75% tussock country. It has a pretty steep rise from 700 feet up to about 3,500 feet. They are farming 50% sheep 25% cattle and 25% deer. I was keen to get Robert’s thoughts on some of the challenges facing farmers currently, one of which is emissions. What does he as a farmer think of on farm emissions and mitigation tools being developed.

 

“In a word farming at the moment is tough, it’s very difficult we're all in the same boat, rising costs, soft commodity prices. You could argue how much of that's the market’s fault or the marketer’s fault. But it is what it is.  And on top of that obviously the last few years we've had rising regulations either being forced upon us or at least talked about and threatened, and then obviously the emissions on top of that, I think it's a really tricky area.”

“Whether you believe in global warming or manmade climate change or not, the science behind the emissions is quite different depending on which sort of school of thought you want to listen to. And if farmers do need to calculate their own emissions, it's just going to be very generic calculations. I mean it really comes down to number of sheep equals kilos of carbon, we're not feeding our sheep and our cows in a pastoral farming system, so we can't feed them the additives that people are touting as being game changers for carbon reduction. Dairy farmers do have that option, potentially, but again not cheap and not necessarily for everyone and not all year round. Obviously there is the genetic option, we are involved with sheep breeding and cattle breeding, so we have been measuring our sheep for methane emissions and there is a definite difference there genetically.”

“But it's not a free lunch it is it is still strongly linked to intake, and some sheep can emit less carbon and still be good producers. But there are some general trends where that's not the case. And on a general scale if you're going to select for less carbon, without really digging into the breeding values properly, you're going to lower the intake and therefore lower the production. And you've got to be careful that you're not just selecting for a slower growing animal. If they eat less they grow slower, and therefore they're around longer. And therefore, they end up emitting the same amount of carbon or methane.”

“Genetics is definitely an option, AgResearch has done a great job with developing their methane measuring. It's a real thing when you see the results, the difference between individual animals is quite large. And when you put it into different sire lines, there's definite differences. But it's really difficult. We're already breeding for 10 or 15 different traits and you're just adding another trait on, hard to be going forwards in everything.”

Another challenge this country faces in terms of preserving food production and export revenue, is the continuation of sheep and beef farms being converted into pine trees by international corporations to offset 100% of their emissions, what does Peacock make of this?

“I think that the sale of wholesale farms into pine trees by New Zealanders is marginal enough, by overseas buyers I think is just outright criminal that they've been allowed to do that. If they want to buy a farm to farm it, it’s very hard for them to get through the Overseas Investment Office. But if they want to put it in trees, they just get green flagged and away they go, you see farms, beautiful farms, well farmed, well maintained, good food producers and their advert in the sales brochure is 40 minutes from Napier port or something like that, just because that's where the logs are going to go. It's just ridiculous. No other country allows the percentage of offsets as we do. In most countries if you're emitting carbon through your industry, you can plant trees to offset maybe five or 10% of your emissions, if you want to do better than that you actually have to reduce emissions. Whereas in New Zealand you can plant trees to offset 100% of your emissions.”

“So there's no incentive for them to actually reduce their emissions, they're just going to plant their way out of it. In the Paris accord it was quite firmly stated that countries needed to do what they could do but not at the expense of food production, and not at the expense of local economy. So to take whole farms out of food production into trees goes dead against the Paris accord. There are some communities where you just take one farm out of farming and put it into trees, and that can completely wreck the whole community. You might have had a farm with an owner and two shepherds, which might have meant there was three kids at the local school, possibly a teacher, one or two people working off farm in the local town. You take that farm out of the equation it changes everything, it can send a school under they can drop from a two teacher school down to a one teacher school, things like that.”

“So I'm all in favour of farmers being allowed to plant trees, but it comes down to right tree right place. We've got trees in our place but they're all in areas that weren't very productive at all, our  least productive land went into pine trees. That blanket planting should just be made criminal in my opinion. And the other thing is that it's all based on 1991. If you had trees in 1990 they don't count, and then when you harvest and replant them you still can't claim on them, which is ridiculous. So if you raped and pillaged your land and did everything wrong, and then all of a sudden you had a cheque book waved in front of you and say, Oh that looks good I'll plant some trees you get rewarded. But if you've been looking after your native bush and planting a few trees in the right place, before 1990, you're struggling to get anything out of it.”

Have a listen to the podcast to hear the full story.


Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

19 Comments

Zero comments on farming but dozens of comments on housing shows where kiwis interests lie now.

Up
2

Maybe not kiwis as a whole, it just shows the motivations of most interest commentators. Are they representative of the whole country?

At least our agriculture sector is more competitive than Europe's.

But the future is worsening conditions, consolidation into large players, increased prices and/or more importing of foreign food items.

Thus make us just that little more dependent on someone else for our own existence.

What could go wrong.

Up
4

Driven by tax incentives and I guess ability for one person to own one house. Not so for a farm.

I just checked - My Farm still going. I wonder what their perspective is? Would be interesting….

Oh, and the role banks play in financing farm investments.

Up
0

 

No other country allows the percentage of offsets as we do. In most countries if you're emitting carbon through your industry, you can plant trees to offset maybe five or 10% of your emissions, if you want to do better than that you actually have to reduce emissions. Whereas in New Zealand you can plant trees to offset 100% of your emissions.”

The Paris accord firmly stated that countries needed to do what they could do but not at the expense of food production, and not at the expense of local economy. 

There is a quote about "NZ ruined itself by trying to save the world", A tiny fraction of the world at that.

Up
5

I don't know where this perception that NZ is the only country doing something comes from.

Up
2

Well spoken Robert Peacock.

Those community changes are real and very concerning.

At the Port Hills fire I would expect that 90% of the fire fighters are volunteers. 90+% of the NZ land area is protected by volunteer brigades.

Wholesale removal of farms from pastoral farming not only radically increases the fire risk profile (pines are a fire climax species), it reduces the volunteer fire fighter pool through depopulation.

I reckon city based policy wonks in their ivory towers think that when fire breaks out (built or vegetation) they just call 111 and a stabnding army of  paid fire fighters rock up and deal to it. And that is how it works in the bigger urban centres. But those urban centres a a small fraction of NZ land area.

650 hectares of fire ground in the Port Hills - how many tonnes of sequestered carbon has just been returned to the atmosphere? How many small businesses or self employed have (still are) taking a financial hit as they or some of their staff dropped tools and responded?

 

Up
1

Most rural fire brigades spend most of their time dealing with car crashes.house fires are quite rare now, obviously in dry areas in summer, bush fires are a major concern. Fire nz have had good advice about planting low flammability plants as green firebreaks for years, the uptake is pretty small.

Up
0

Forest fires have wiped out all of the carbon offset boondogles in California and Australia. Chest high, dry, cocksfoot in on carbon farms is an accident waiting to happen. "Fires that blazed across southeastern Australia in late 2019 and early 2020 released 715 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02509-3

Up
1

"California’s Climate Policy Gets Burned

Wildfires in one year erased a decade and a half of greenhouse gas declines."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-policy-gets-burned-stu…

Up
1

Reading the above, this farmer makes a lot of sense. 

Up
1

He does, but there are lots more issues for farmers. Personally I think the science behind emission is so complicated and the numbers are very vague and change as different people measure them. I'm definitely not panic about it, what they make us believe.

Up
1

I agree with Mr Peacock about on farm emissions and what can we do about that, probably not a lot.

As far as farming vs forestry I don't agree at all. For starters NZ has a closed ETS as within our own country. Overseas companies can't off set using NZ units. Only on the voluntary market. Most are more interested in Global wood supply.

Also it is very over stated as to how much " good" land is being planted. Mostly it is marginal land . And that includes being financially viable, which is why many farmers are getting out. The figures for many farms are pretty grim.

I guess if people are not happy about many farmers plight then subsidies would help, like USA and Europe. As if NZ could afford that!

Up
1

You'd know better than me , Hans, but i would say there a few farms that are 100% steep hill country. Most have flats near the road , or river valley .

It would seem that planting the worst southfacing steep country in carbon forest , and use the money to improve  the better land would be a win win situation for many farmers? I don't get this all or nothing attitude.  

Up
0

Yes solardb, that is the answer for many hill farms and there is a lot of planting going on. Forest isn't encroaching on good land that is stable and profitable.

Up
0

That's a fallacy Hans, whole farm planting of LUC classes 3, 4, 5 and 6 - good, productive pasture country - is being planted in Tararua and Central Hawkes Bay council areas. Those are the areas I know. I'm sure, if you look closely, the same will have occurred in other Ares over the last 5 or so years.

Up
1

These are the same farmers I refer to below, who are ringing trying to get out from around NZ. Please send lists of other buyers wanting to buy them out. The emperor is still on his horse riding down the road.

Keep on shearing sheep etc etc and pretend all is ok. Would you rebuild your woolshed if it burnt down?

Never fear forest buyers are virtually gone so farmers can trade amongst themselves now. Good luck.

Up
0

Dead right Hans. All these howls and screams about trees. I should pass on all the farmers banging in our door to sell as its hell - can someone please let me know who to send them to in the farming world.

It's easy to whinge but how do these people escape - the banks won't lend in fact they want money back. This whole thing is like the emperors new clothes - no one will talk about it, admit it or offer any options. The kids don't want to take it on or if one does how do they pay out the others when you just make a wage?

The trend will continue as it has for the last 30 years.

Up
1

Yeah Jack, that is where I'm coming from. Where are all these farmers who would like to "save" the so called good land.

Seems the successful farming families are holding on to prime land and only buying quality soils. No interest in harder hills except occasional wealthy buyers looking for recreation blocks.

Up
2

Who is forcing hill farmers to sell? No one they are just raking the best price to be had on sales day. If you dont like it sell to a cattle farmer not Ikea.

Up
1