The dairy sector and emissions
Rod Oram has another good article on climate change in today’s Sunday Star Times, this time engaging in the argument over whether dairy can reduce its emissions and whether it will make money or cost money.
The basic argument is around the role of nitrification inhibitors. Nitrous oxide from fertilisier and urine is about a third of agricultural greenhouse emissions. Nitrification inhibitors such as eco-n being promoted by Ravensdown decrease the breakdown of the fertiliser into nitrous oxide (greenhouse gas) and nitrates (which pollute wateways). In the process they not only reduce greenhouse emissions and waterway pollution, but they also make more nitrogen available to the grass and you get better pasture growth. Nitrification inhibitors are already being used by a significant minority of farmers in some places.
The Sustainablity Council put out a report in June on the measures which agriculture can take to reduce emissions which focussed on nitrification inhibitors but covered other aspects such as stand-off pads in winter. They argued that we could reduce emissions by 3.7 Mt CO2e per year by the widespread use of nitrification inhibitors. That’s a significant reduction.
There are some outstanding questions. There remain questions over how well this works in wet soils, though Ravensdown and others claim the evidence is compelling. There are also questions as to the impact on soil bacteria and hence soil health - eco-n works by stopping bacteria processing the nitrogen. This will be an ongoing concern for the green movement and will need to be watched closely.
Federated Farmers is willfully ignoring this evidence in claiming that there’s nothing farmers can do to reduce emissions so they shouldn’t face a price - the taxpayer should subsidise the sector (I put out a report estimating the cost to the taxpayer at $1.2billion over the Kyoto period). However, other players such as Fonterra seem to be a bit more switched on to the issue.
The financial spin-offs are three-fold. Eventually dairy will face some kind of price on their emissions so finding a way to reduce emissions now is in their long term interest. Secondly, nitrificaiton inhibitors do seem to increase pasture growth. Thirdly, consumers are becomingly increasingly concerned about climate change and anything producers can do to reduce their emissions will have market advantages.
And then there’s the advantages of reduced greenhouse emissions….
September 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
This is interesting, and hopefully the new varieties of fertiliser are as good as they sound.
I have a question: From an environmental point of view is it better to drink cows milk, or soy milk? I suspect that soy milk production has less impact on the environment, but I don’t know how soy beans are grown.
The other question is: which is healthier? The soy milk I see in the supermarket advertises all the virtues of the product, but of course it would. Looking at the nutrition information on the side, I can’t see much difference between a low fat soy milk and skim milk. However, I read somewhere that some doctors are concerned that soy products could have negative health effects (on the thyroid gland, I think) … is this true, or not? I guess that moderation in everything is the answer. Then there is the issue about milk safety (A1 vs A2) … I suspect the problem with all these things is that there are so many vested interests, it is hard to get the real truth.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Why is the Amazon being cleared? For the mahogany timber and to create farmland for growing soy beans. In that respect soy milk is not healthy.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:43 am
bullsh*t kevyn..!
the soy is grown to feed animals for humans to eat..
..not for soymilk..
which brings us back to our main problem..
you..!
the carnivores..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 4th, 2007 at 5:54 am
yes samiuela..you could also mention the recent research/findings from auckland university..
(ignored by frogblog..(!)..why is that..?..cheese-sandwich ‘discomfort’..)
research showing clear links between the consumption of (only) four servings of dairy a day..
..causes diabetes/hypertension/strokes..and heart ‘problems’..
..the greens do/say nothing about this..
the cause of much death and disease and misery..
(not to mention over half of our ‘emmissions’..(but hey..!..)
yet the greens are ‘on the case’..to get those ‘dangerous’ pot-smokers..
in the words of metiria turei..’off the road’..
and the (stated) reason for this..?
blood tests on deceased drivers..
have shown that some 12% of them would have consumed cannabis..
..at some time in the previous three months..(!)
(go figure..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)