A recent plan to factory farm dairy cattle in the South Island of New Zealand has been met with widespread debate over the relative pros and cons of such an activity. The concept would mean that cows are kept indoors for most of the year, much in the same way many farms now operate in Europe. According to the data submitted in the applications, up to 18,000 cows would be housed in “cubicle stables” 24 hours a day for eight months a year and 12 hours per day for the remaining four months. Whilst New Zealand’s Greens political party strongly oppose the idea, it is a concept worth further investigation.
Firstly, the potential to successfully capture the methane gases from cows could have huge ramifications for the agricultural sectors in New Zealand and Australia. As the sector is far and away the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it could be argued that capturing these emissions from the source to then easily convert to energy could prove an enormous financial windfall to both countries, as well as dramatically reduce emissions from grazing.
Scientists at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, conducted a wide scale research project in 2007 that took into account all aspects of beef production, including calf raising, animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed. Their discovery: 1kg of beef releases greenhouse gases with a global warming potential equivalent to an astonishing 36.4kg of carbon dioxide. So reducing this figure has clear benefits.
Another unexplored potential benefit is that cows would use less energy either keeping themselves warm/cold due to controlled temperatures. This in turn may create a healthier animal that requires less feedstock to bring to maturity.
In addition, effluent could be contained in a controlled manner, thus reducing the risk of ongoing pollutants entering natural aquifers. As the concept frees up considerable arable land, the opportunity is there to create more sustainable forestry or crop assets – enhancing asset value for the farmer and again contributing to CO2 reductions.
However, amongst all this is the big question of animal welfare and whether or not suitable bylaws can be implemented to inflict severe penalties to anyone who infringes. One could certainly argue the negatives and the upfront costs in building such farms may create too much investment uncertainty, particularly with the state of Australian politics. Another argument is that what works in one region (particularly the cold terrain of New Zealand) may not be entirely suitable to the hot outback of Australia.
Given the importance of agriculture to our two countries, surely a concept such as this has merit to at least be investigated further. In combination with sustainable land management practices and the ability for farmers to offset upfront costs with trading soil carbon credits, the potential upside is immense.
Food for thought. Literally.
