Animadversion – criticism or censure; a critical and usually censorious or unfavorable remark; a comment or remark, especially a critical one.
Gore estimates cost of $300m to comply with freshwater rules – Rachael Kelly:
A small Southland council with less than 6000 ratepayers is potentially facing a $300m bill to comply with new freshwater regulations.
Gore District Council chief executive Steve Parry said meeting the cost of the Government’s compliance was “the perfect financial storm.’’
The government’s new rules aim to improve freshwater quality in a generation.
Councils countrywide were now realising the enormity of the costs involved in complying with the rules, Parry said. . .
UK warned to honour FTA commitments – Peter Burke:
Plans for the United Kingdom to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) have come with a warning from New Zealand dairy companies.
Dairy Companies of New Zealand (DCANZ) chairman Malcolm Bailey says while he welcomes the intent of the UK to join the group, he wants the NZ government to send a strong message to the UK about how it must honour its commitment to freeing up global trade. He says before being admitted to the CPTTP, as the first nation outside the trans-pacific region to benefit from it, the UK must fully embrace free trade. He wants actions, not just words.
Bailey says the UK’s application to join CPTPP is another great sign of its interest in advancing global trade liberalisation.
But he says the real test of UK trade leadership comes from how it honours its existing commitments and what it is prepared to put on the table in negotiations.
Impact of irrigation on the soil – Dr Jacqueline Rowarth:
Soil organic matter was a hot topic for environmentalists, ecologists and primary producers in 2020.
It is likely to remain at the centre of debate this year as well.
All parties agree it is an important factor of soil quality; the arguments are about how to look after it.
Soil organic matter is increased or decreased by management. Because farmers and growers rarely alter one factor of management in isolation, the drivers of an effect on soil organic matter after a change in management can be difficult to identify. . .
Holgate ready to tackle new role – Neal Wallace:
Long gone are the days of a bank’s sole function to take an investor’s money and lend it to borrowers. Today, banks are becoming intimately involved in the businesses in which they invest. Neal Wallace spoke to Rabobank’s new head of sustainable business development Blake Holgate.
Blake Holgate has some big questions for which he hopes to find some answers.
Rabobank’s newly appointed head of sustainable business development says near the top of the list is defining exactly what sustainability means in the context of New Zealand farming.
Defining the much maligned word is central to the future of NZ agriculture, and Holgate is confident that meeting such a standard, once it is defined, is achievable. . .
We’ll eat huhu grubs and pigs’ nipples, so why not possum? – Esther Taunton:
New Zealand is famous for its meat exports and love of a Sunday roast but there are some meats Kiwis have never taken to.
Although some like to dabble in the unusual – crowds flock to events like Hokitika’s famous Wildfoods Festival to down huhu grubs and pigs’ nipples – for many, a venison steak is about as adventurous as dinner is likely to get.
But, with a veritable feast of wild and surplus animals on our doorstep, that needn’t be the case.
So, what’s our beef with alternative meats? . .
The bogus burger blame – Frank Mitloehner:
One of the most popular meals in America is one of the most maligned.
Climate change is the biggest challenge of our lifetime, which we must address with urgency, but swapping out a hamburger once a month isn’t how we do it. While the burger does have an impact on our climate, which we’re working to reduce, it’s simply not the climate killer it’s made out to be.
Animal agriculture, including ruminant animals like the cows that belch methane as they digest food, has an environmental footprint. That’s a fact. According to the EPA, animal ag is responsible for 4 percent of the United States’ direct greenhouse gas emissions. Of that amount, beef cattle are in for 2.2 percent. If you want to use the more encompassing cradle-to-grave formula, beef cattle still only account for 3.3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The dairy sector is responsible for 1.9 percent. (Lifecycle assessments are the preferred method of measuring a sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s not always the most appropriate, which I’ll explain in a minute.)
The greenhouse gas emissions of our four-legged friends? Clearly, they’re not nothing. But they’re not everything, either. The elephant in the room (or rather, in the atmosphere) is fossil fuel. Its sectors combined account for nearly 80 percent of direct U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. There are no life-cycle assessments for these sectors, which is why direct emissions is most appropriate when making comparisons between sectors; between animal agriculture and transportation, for example. . . .
Those scooters are permitted on footpaths and riders don’t have to wear helmets.
There’s a lesson for New Zealand here:
Europe’s refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.
The opportunity cost of the EU’s refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.
This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.
Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU’s opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.
The findings result from from the fact that GE versions of major crops produce a higher yield because they can better resist damage from insects and competition from weeds.
With Europe’s farmers condemned to lower total agricultural yields because of GE crop non-adoption, more farmland globally has to be kept in production or plowed up which otherwise might be available for forests to sequester carbon in trees and soil. . .
Can our government learn from the EU’s mistake?
If they want us to accept the science on climate change it must base policy on countering it on science and allow us to use tools which science has proved are both safe and effective.