KEY POINTS:
New leaders, new ideas and an expectation of change will see the heat come on the National Government's agriculture policy in the coming months, - including from new partner Act and agricultural body Federated Farmers.
The Resource Management Act is up for reform, the $700 million Fast Forward fund will be dumped but replaced with an extra $70 million of funding a year, and the sanctity of private property rights will all be of interest and receive lobbying.
But probably the most contentious issue across the farmgate is the emissions trading scheme - a much hotter potato to hold.
National says it is committed to an emissions trading scheme, including agriculture, but not if it compromises agriculture's international competitiveness - a position which sounds not too dissimilar from the ousted Labour Government.
Act wants to repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme and withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, while Federated Farmers want a renegotiation of Kyoto to exempt all farm animal emissions.
New Zealand signed the Kyoto Protocol under which it must reduce net emissions to 1990 levels or purchase emission units internationally to cover any shortfall.
Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson last week met the executive committee of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers in Canberra and says New Zealand is seen as an emissions trading scheme guinea pig.
"Delegates have expressed incredulity that New Zealand, the world's most efficient agricultural producer, is including farm animals when Kyoto doesn't require it," Nicolson says.
"As Kiwis we seem to suffer from the going where angels fear to tread syndrome. "Our peers look to New Zealand as the benchmark. They ask us 'Why on earth are you doing this to yourselves?' and we don't know what to say in response."
The aim of Labour's trading scheme was to encourage emitters to make reductions by applying a cost.
The United Nations says our greenhouse gas emissions increased nearly 25 per cent between 1990 and 2005, while the Net Position Report 2008 says agriculture accounts for 48 per cent of total emissions.
Not many developed countries will have an economy so dominated by agriculture, or in fact by any one sector.
The exiting Labour Government tried to deal with the challenge by including agriculture from 2013 but with a free allocation phased out by 2030, but only after a review and with farmers not to be penalised if the tools to reduce emissions from livestock did not exist.
Labour's scheme looked pretty generous but became a huge concern in the sector.
National's election will bring a sigh of relief in many farming quarters with the party seen as more agriculture friendly, but how will the new Government tackle the same old challenge of reducing emissions without hurting exports?
Can we meet our Kyoto obligations and exclude such a significant sector?
And if we did give agriculture a free pass, the transport and tourism industries could line up for similar treatment arguing they too are hugely important to the economy.
The debate could wind its way back to signing the Kyoto Protocol in the first place, making Act's unambiguous position a possible fulcrum of debate.
In or out. Do it or don't do it.
OUT: What is the logic of putting costs on ourselves not applied by potentially less efficient countries and possibly cutting more efficient food production here at the expense of less efficient production overseas. Kyoto's aim is to cut global emissions, not boost them.
IN: Our emissions have increased and other countries with more diverse economies may be able to meet their national target without agriculture. Their good luck not ours.
OUT: We're only a small nation and in the global scheme of things our actions won't make any difference, so why hurt our international competitiveness?
IN: We may be small in population but we are big in agricultural exports, and is environmentally responsible action relative to the size of a nation, and who draws that line?
OUT: Can we really afford to put our biggest earning sector at a disadvantage, particularly during recessionary times, in its fight for billions of hard fought over foreign dollars?
Richer nations can point at more polluting industrial practices in developing countries, who in turn can point back to richer countries that can afford to take action and tend to be bigger polluters overall.
Everyone can point somewhere.
Kyoto countries were collectively able to point at the once notable absentees of the US and Australia.
Australia has since joined up and what price on the US having a change of heart with Barack Obama in charge?
Meanwhile, 'Clean and green' is how we sell New Zealand - implying we are cleaner and greener than others, that we set the standard.
Prime Minister-elect John Key is picking up the tourism portfolio, at first surprising but then logical considering he is the nation's most prominent representative.
But clean and green will be a harder image to sell overseas if we decide to back away from arguably the world's cleanest and greenest strategy.
If we stick with Kyoto, exclude agriculture and miss our national target then there will be a cost to pay - a bill taxpayers may have to foot, which doesn't sound much like National.
In or out, national image or economic necessity, bill the taxpayer or force unwanted costs on to businesses that maintain our standard of living. The emission trading debate is getting back into full swing and the new National Government is on an early political high wire.
Rabobank review
Rabobank's November Agribusiness Review says farm gate beef prices dropped 5-10 per cent in the previous month because of a decline of US lean manufacturing beef prices and the start of a seasonal increase in cattle supply, although the full impact was offset to a degree by a lower NZ dollar, with prices still 20-25 per cent higher than the same period last year.
Farm gate lamb prices were 25 to 30 per cent higher than last year, although prices eased slightly in the South Island and increased by about 7 per cent in the North Island because of procurement differences in the early part of new season processing.
Export sheep-meat prices held or firmed in October despite difficult international trading conditions and a falling exchange rate during October to below US60c provided some buffer to falling commodity prices in dairy, Rabobank says.
"While [skim milk powder] export prices eased slightly in [New Zealand dollar] terms, the price of other key commodities actually increased 2-9 per cent as the currency impact more than offset the commodity price falls."
Venison prices eased a little in the South Island and firmed marginally in the North Island, and overall were about $2.80 per kg higher than early November last year.
"Higher prices reflect the lower availability of New Zealand venison with export volume for the month of September down 47 per cent from September 2007 to just over 1000 tonnes, while export value fell 21 per cent."
Feeling fruity
The departure last week of MV Antwerp to Japan carrying kiwifruit exporter Zespri's 100 millionth tray marked the end of shipping for a record 2008/09 season.
Acting chief executive Lain Jager says it was the first time so many trays have been exported in one season.
"By all accounts this has been an outstanding year so far, starting with an excellent production season where growers delivered fruit to meet Zespri's premium quality requirements, Jager says.
"Our industry partners pulled together with Zespri employees to successfully manage the increased volume and we're confident of a positive finish to the season."
Zespri updated its forecast in October for green, gold and organic to $6.92, $9.56, and $9.14 per tray - up from $6.30, $8.81 and $8.15 per tray the previous season.
The total fruit and service payment was forecast to be $778.2 million, compared to $651.3 million last season.
Placed end to end, 100 million trays would circle the world five times, while every minute more than 5000 pieces of Zespri kiwifruit are being eaten. That's a lot of kiwifruit.
