AgResearch has genetically modified forage crops which scientists say can reduce methane emissions from livestock
Scientists have estimated the economy could benefit by $300 million from three traits they have isolated in laboratory tests of forage crops.
Dr Chris Jones, the section manager of forage biotechnology with Grasslanz Technology in Palmerston North, said in an interview genetic modification was the only way to develop these traits which reduced methane emissions, improved the nitrogen cycle and led to superior performing livestock.
The traits could only be created using genetic modification and the assumptions discovered in the laboratory were significant, he said.
"If you don't deliver a step change, there is no point in doing it, because of the cost of the science and the regulatory environment."
The intention was to deliver the technology through conventional ryegrass and clover pastures, but Dr Jones said scientists needed the support of farmers to take the technology to field trials.
"We are saying to farmers, 'Here it is. If you want to go to the next stage, you need to be behind us financially and morally'."
Trials so far showed producers and the environment would be the beneficiaries through more efficient and better performing farm systems.
Greenhouse gas emissions were becoming an issue and a potential cost to farmers, and Dr Jones said trials had shown the genetically modified crops would result in more efficient nitrogen cycling, meaning less nitrous oxide and ammonia being expelled, while modifying lipids resulted in lower methane emissions.
The crops needed to be tested in the field, through the performance of plants and animals and in various farming systems.
There was also the issue of whether farmers wanted to go down the GM route, something farmers in several other countries had decided they did.
The work so far has been funded by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) and farming bodies, but Dr Jones estimated an extra $5 million was needed to take it to the next stage.
That money could come from bodies such as Meat and Wool New Zealand or Dairy NZ.
Should the technology be accepted and it cleared all the regulatory hurdles, Dr Jones estimated it could be 2018 before the technology was commercially available.
He presented his findings to a group of leading sheep and beef farmers in Palmerston North last week and said there was little negative sentiment; rather a feeling of how to investigate further.
By getting farmers and the agriculture community behind it, Grasslanz, which is part of AgResearch, was taking a different path to get acceptance of specific GM technology.
AgResearch chief executive Andy West said because the pastoral sector had co-funded the work, it was a natural step to seek support from the sector.
In June, GE-Free New Zealand won a legal case against the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) that the authority had erred in receiving applications for determination under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regarding an AgResearch application.
AgResearch had made a suite of applications to obtain all possible approvals it might need for research and animal breeding to supply products to the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr West said the earlier transgenic work in animals was for human health and most of that was in conjunction with overseas companies.
However, the forage developments, while looking promising in the laboratory, needed to be tested in the field and receive Erma approval.
He said the feed could make meat and milk even more healthier for humans by altering the ratio of fatty acids.
It would reduce the environmental impact of farming and make farmers - and therefore the country - wealthier.
Dr West compared the GM issue and the potential benefits from reducing greenhouse gas with the energy debate between wind farms and hydro-electric energy generation, saying there were benefits for society but also trade-offs.