KEY POINTS:
Hopes of reducing methane emissions any time soon are fast evaporating.
Agriculture is responsible for half the nation's greenhouse gases, with methane accounting for about 33 per cent of the total and nitrous oxide a further 17 per cent.
But while there is some promise that a product
on the market could limit the effect of the latter, progress on the methane front looks limited.
AgResearch's Dr Harry Clark, one of the country's top experts on livestock emissions, warns that there is practically no chance of reducing the clouds of methane belching out of either end of grazing stock anytime soon.
"There's nothing in terms of mitigations that can be used now and will have an impact in the next five years."
Clark's gloomy evaluation follows a workshop last week in Wellington to discuss the implications for New Zealand of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report.
Clark could not attend, but delivered his message through a fellow scientist that the agriculture sector effectively lacked mitigation technologies to tackle methane - the most destructive of greenhouse gases.
"On the methane side there's probably nothing ... you are going to see that's going to change that quantum of emissions.
"With the exception of nitrification inhibitors we can only manipulate at the margins at the moment and with low uptake they will have a low impact over the next five years.
"The only one that has any promise is one for reducing nitrous oxide emissions and that is being currently intensively researched."
Although nitrification inhibitors had experimentally been found to reduce N2O emissions by 70 per cent, Clark said they were costly, a fact that had led the Government to suggest it could subsidise that product by taxing general nitrogen fertiliser.
But it was too early to say what the most promising methane technology might be.
Modifying methane formation in the digestive process was an option, but that was difficult as digestion was highly evolved system. A chemical solution had its own hurdles in terms of delivery systems because, unlike in other countries, New Zealand livestock grazed and were not fed every day.
"In our situation with grazing animals it's somewhat harder. My conclusion is that at the present time New Zealand shouldn't be thinking it can really reduce its emissions over the next five years."
Going it alone
It's a proud moment for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, which is about to strike out on its own, leaving the relative comfort of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
But its graduation on July 1 doesn't come cheap, with the Crown expected to fork out $7.5 million in capital, $2.95 million a year maintenance and a one-off setup cost of $630,000.
The new entity will be saddled with costs of $5.9 million over five years payable to the ministry for contract management, financial services, procurement, payroll and information management.
Whereas the ministry was once New Zealand's only "credible brand in international trade", the Government now feels the food safety authority has grown up sufficiently to be booted out of home.
"NZFSA is operating as a highly reputable agency and no longer needs to be attached to MAF to ensure its credibility in international trade," said State Services Minister Annette King.
Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton said the new department, which would keep its old name, would continue to protect and promote public health and safety in relation to food and food-related products, and develop economic opportunities by "facilitating access to international markets for these products".
King said the separation would produce "more effective relationships for NZFSA and an agency with a clear focus on food safety issues for New Zealanders".
Four posts will be transferred from the ministry, and 11 new positions will be created.
The administration of the Food Act 1981, the Animal Products Act 1999 (except in relation to live animals and germ plasm), the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 and the Wine Act 2004 will be transferred from the ministry to the food safety authority.
National velvet
Things are looking just velvety for, well, velvet, with the all-grades average likely to be $40/kg up on last year's average range of $40/kg to $50/kg, says National Bank rural economist Kevin Wilson. "A drop in the annual volume of velvet produced from 520 tonnes to around 450 tonnes is considered to have made a significant contribution to the increase in price."
Wilson expects the volume to stabilise around the lower tonnage and demand to be steady. However, he says little change is expected on the improved returns for venison obtained by many producers in the 2006/2007 season. "The forecast peak season venison pricefor 2007/2008 is $4.80/kg net of freight and levies."
Venison has enjoyed a resurgence in price as a supply peak caused by a reduction in capital livestock passes and the indicative European price has now increased to its longer run average, with farm gate prices also estimated to be up $1.30/kg on last year.
