Third-generation Leon Black is currently at the helm of the property, with wife Wendy — the couple have four children — and he would like to see the family there for another century.
‘‘With the current settings, I would say I’m wasting my bloody time,’’ he said succinctly.
Years ago, Mr Black became interested in breeding animals that produced less methane but with higher production.
The Blacks were among the first breeders to invest in measuring methane emissions and generating methane emitting EBVs (estimated breeding values to predict performance) for their Blackdale stud, meaning a more efficient sheep that turned pasture into higher outputs, he said.
Describing himself as ‘‘a greenie by default’’, Mr Black had spent 30 years planting trees, shelter belts and doing riparian planting and there were still places on the property he wanted to plant trees.
Farmers — like him — were doing their best, trying to improve and reduce their carbon footprint, while continuing to make a major contribution to the economy. His own farming operation, which included employing staff, had downstream impacts on the local community, he said.
He was not a climate denier — there was always going to be change in the climate, and mankind had a big impact — but he found the ‘‘ideology’’ of the current Government and ‘‘reality and science’’ to be somewhat apart, he said.
Recent research, commissioned by Beef + Lamb New Zealand and the Meat Industry Association, undertaken by AgResearch, showed New Zealand sheepmeat and beef had one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.
Using the traditional GWP100 methodology, New Zealand sheepmeat had a cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of just under 15kg of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kilogram.
The cradle-to-grave approach accounted for all GHG emissions associated with all inputs and processes at all stages of the lifecycle, including wastes and emissions such as packaging and food waste, as well as shipping and transportation.
The cradle-to-grave footprint of New Zealand beef was just under 22kg of GHG emissions per kilogram; those figures were among the the lowest by international standards, B+LNZ said.
The research found that even if New Zealand beef or sheepmeat was exported, the total carbon footprint was lower or very similar to domestically-produced red meat in those nations.
‘‘This is because New Zealand is so efficient at the farm level, which represents about 90-95% of the total carbon footprint,’’
B+LNZ said.
New Zealand’s on-farm carbon footprint was around half the average of the other countries compared to in the study.
The AgResearch scientists also measured the carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and sheepmeat using the new science of GWP. Using that approach, and sequestration, New Zealand sheepmeat had arguably been ‘‘climate neutral’’ over the last 20 years and New Zealand beef’s carbon footprint was half the traditional GWP100 footprint.
While there were various ways to calculate the climate impact of food products, New Zealand red meat was world leading on any measure, B+LNZ said.
Mr Black said most sheep and beef properties were ‘‘pretty much carbon neutral’’ but that did not stop them improving. ‘‘A lot of peopled ... [are] pretty good, that doesn’t mean we can’t get better,’’ he said.
It was timely, he believed, for the Government to acknowledge the work that farmers were doing and and that there could be a compromise. Correct measuring also needed to be used.
There was a ‘‘fair bit of angst’’ in the farming community and Mr Black acknowledged it affected mentality in terms of investment in the future. Farmers did what they did because they loved it; ‘‘it’s not just their livelihood, it’s their home.’’
And it was not just one or two oncoming brick walls, rather it felt like a succession of brick walls being thrown at your head. ‘‘You get a headache,’’ he said.
There had been a real issue with a saturation of oncoming regulations in the rural sector over the last few years. Some led to improving results, others to frustration and anger.
The primary sector had kept the country ticking and yet the Government seemed intent on trying to smash it down. The unsettling thing was the revolving door of policy regulations — ‘‘never settling on one thing and always asking for more is having a toll’’.
Using the GWP100 footprint was ‘‘just so bloody wrong’’ and he feared what was going to happen to rural communities. ‘‘It’s like shooting yourself in the foot but actually taking a bullet in the head, it’s just insane. Science should lead the argument, not political whims,’’ he said.
There was no question that, given the world’s population, there was an ability for the farming sector to do well if it had the support of the Government.
Those responsible for the regulation and legislation coming from Government needed to be aware of the impact five, 10 and 20 years down the track, he said.
