Debacle and confusion surround the extraordinary things that are happening in dairying research. I thought that changing Dexcel into DairyNZ was supposed to make it more efficient, so why are they looking for an extra $200 per year from every dairy farmer?

What worries me is that DairyNZ is giving a broad hint that they want even more of your money. I see they are sounding a dire warning that carbon trading is going to push up the cost of farming and I suppose that's an argument for needing more money for research.

Far from carbon trading being a cost to farmers, it should actually make them money. What is more, most of the research needed has already been done… we just have to start using it.

The Aussies certainly are. They are changing their management practices and are getting measurable increases in soil depth and carbon content. A bunch of them have got together and negotiated the first order for soil carbon credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The evidence is clear - when farmers consciously work at improving their management so that soils accumulate more organic matter and grow in depth and quality, the result is that they lock up large amounts of atmospheric carbon (CO2). That growth in soil carbon is visible and can also be measured both chemically and physically.

That is worth gold for both the farmer and the country. For farmers, it improves the quality and productivity of the soil. Organic matter holds moisture, and so pastures are more resilient in dry weather. Pasture quality improves too, and it becomes better fodder for stock.

Some of our members have found that as a result, profit per kilo of dry matter eaten by stock increases and the farm's overall profitability goes up as the soil carbon grows. Add to that the possibility of selling carbon credits, and you have a winning situation.

DairyNZ doesn't seem to know about this, and neither does the Business Roundtable which maintains that there is no way New Zealand can meet its carbon neutral target.

I believe they are both wrong. Soil is an absolutely huge carbon sink, and if we manage it correctly it will absorb more and more atmospheric carbon. Only a small increase over our farmlands would probably lock up enough carbon to meet our Kyoto obligations.

How is it done? It isn't rocket science and it isn't chemistry - it's biology. By stimulating the biological processes in the soil and not stifling them with highly soluble phosphate and nitrogen fertilisers, by maintaining pasture covers within sensible limits, by avoiding overgrazing and pugging, plus a few other common-sense measures, the enhancement of soils is rapid and creates value to the environment as well as the farmer.