The implications of the emission trading scheme on agriculture continues to confuse and baffle sector leaders.
Other than imposing extra cost on farmers and consumers, the reality is no-one knows what the Government's flagship policy to address climate change will mean in practice.
The Government proposes making processing companies the point of obligation, or responsible, for agriculture's carbon credits, but at this week's Meat Industry Association (MIA) conference there was little support.
Privately, meat company officials were questioning the administration cost and asking how they can influence the behaviour of their suppliers.
Meat and Wool New Zealand chairman Mike Petersen said faced with a choice of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), a carbon tax or a general tax, he favoured the ETS, but added that the point of obligation had to be with farmers so they could react to their emissions.
Mr Petersen said the cost of the ETS to sheep and beef farmers has been calculated at between half a billion dollars and $1 billion a year, and he was confident no government would threaten such a key export earner to that extent.
He was also reassured by comments from Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton that the sector would not be fully exposed if there was no new mitigating technology.
In 2013, agriculture would be given credits, or New Zealand Units, equal to 90% of its 2005 emissions in lieu of mitigating technology.
But by 2030, the sector was expected to account for all its emissions.
The ETS puts a price on carbon dioxide and limit on emissions.
Those sectors or companies which reduce emissions will be able to sell surplus New Zealand Units to those that exceed their allocation.
Meat and Wool New Zealand Economic Service executive director Rob Davison said at a carbon price of $25 a tonne, the cost of the ETS per farm from 20013-18 would be $4000 and from 2030 $40,000.
The price of carbon has traded much higher than $25 a tonne, he said.
Mr Petersen said Mr Anderton's assurances that he would review available technology before exposing the sector to the full might of the ETS, gave him some comfort.
But a consequence of the ETS could be further pressure on sheep and beef numbers.
Mr Petersen said to offset greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, 1% of a farm's area would need to be planted in trees between 2013-18 and 8.4% from 2030.
He said dairy farmers and other cash-rich downland farmers would buy hill country farms to plant offsetting plantations, replacing sheep and cattle with trees which could not be harvested without significant consequences.
Mr Petersen said the ETS and climate change debate was occurring at a time when the world was concerned with food security and soaring prices.
"We face a dichotomy. The next 10 years will be categorised by food inflation and global starvation rather than climate change. That debate will be a fascinating one to watch."
He said farmers had previously adapted to adverse events and would continue to do so.
In his home region of Hawkes Bay which had been hit by drought, farmers were making changes.
Mr Petersen delivered a broadside at critics of farmers who claimed they were getting a free ride by not having to immediately meet the full cost of the ETS.
"That is not the case. Farmers, like all other businesses will pay the full cost of ETS just like any other business."
The difference was that agriculture had no mitigating technology for methane.