English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ISSN 2463-2872 (Print) ISSN 2463-2880 (Online) Blue Cliffs Station in South Canterbury was taken up by Henry Poingdestre in 1856, 5 years after my great-grandfather, George Rhodes and his brother Robert drove a flock of sheep from Banks Peninsula to The Levels Station to establish the first run in South Canterbury. It was from George that McKenzie famously stole 1000 sheep in 1855 and was caught in the now named Mackenzie Pass, only to escape again into the mist the same night. The Levels was sold following George’s death in 1864, but in 1879 his son, Robert, bought Blue Cliffs Station, situated just to the south of the old Levels property, to become its fourth owner. It has been in our family ever since, subsequently run by my grandparents, Dr Randal and Airini Woodhouse and now by me and my brother John. Blue Cliffs Station was 36 500 acres (14 771 ha) when my great-grandfather bought and leased it. Over the last 137 years the leasehold land was given up and freehold land sold in the face of land tax and other policies designed to break up the large estates. Our family has purchased a number of neighbouring properties in the last decade and so the station now stands at just over 5000 ha. It consists of a mixture of rolling downs (55%) and hill country (45%) ranging in elevation from 131 m to 1180 m a.s.l. at the highest point on the Hunters Hills. The property is managed as a sheep and beef breeding and finishing operation, running 26 000 stock units (SU) with a sheep:cattle SU ratio of around 50:50. Table 1 provides a summary of the grass and crop mix under cultivation on the downs. The hill country is predominantly native tussock over-sown with clover and ryegrass. Over the last 500 years the native bush has retreated to the hill gullies in the face of a drying climate, natural and man-made fires. In 2015, I visited AgResearch’s Grasslands facility with other farmers from South Canterbury to see the genetically modified (GM) ryegrass that had been developed. The GM ryegrass plants contain a high metabolisable energy (HME) system enabling them to produce 16 and 18 carbon chain lipids and store them in a protein sphere, protecting the lipids from internal catabolism. According to in-lab testing and observation, the GM ryegrass has a 20% increase in photosynthesis giving a 40-50% increase in production, a 10% increase in metabolisable energy and, potentially, a 30% reduction in water demand. In vitro rumen assays have measured a 15-23% decrease in methane production. A supplementary feeding trial suggested animals could eat 16% less of the GM ryegrass for the same liveweight gain. A potential benefit of this is a lower total N load on pasture and reduced nitrous oxide emissions, making this forage a valuable tool for reducing nitrate leaching and greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Of most interest was the enthusiasm for this development of the other farmers in the group and I was surprised by their agitated response to the fact that this grass was trapped in the laboratory. The regulatory process and likely practical restrictions in New Zealand have meant the HME system is currently being trialled in the USA in soyabean; eventually extending to ryegrass and alfalfa. American farming interests are closely following these trials. GM has been a contentious issue in New Zealand since the early 2000s when the then Labour government set up the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The major conclusions of the Commission were that a 100% organic or a GM-free future was not realistic or to New Zealand’s benefit, nor was total deregulation of GM. The Commission said New Zealand should proceed with caution on a case by a case basis, preserving opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to consider the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the context of our pastoral farming system and to stimulate

Conditions for co-existence of genetic modification in a pasture based system - a farmer perspective