In this section
Rural Columnists
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 26266
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 369
- ››
Rural news stream
Latest news
- MIE makes first key appointment
- NZ GDP weaker than forecast in Q1 11
- Farmers respond to an animal part found in PKE 3
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Bernanke speaks 8
- Farms well prepped for winter blast
- Greens drop money printing plan 19
- Up, up and away with the internet 4
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Dairy prices up
- The Weekly Livestock Report
- Season ends with very strong farm sales 1
Most commented
- 90 seconds at 9 am: American QE 66
- RBNZ lifts rate track 10-20 bps 31
- Wheeler’s calculated gamble 29
- Opposition eyes new monetary policy 28
- NZIER sees 2.5% growth; rate hikes in 2014 26
- Economic outlook positive, both short and long-term 20
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Australia falters 20
- New Zealand sheepmeat's 'perfect storm' 20
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Desperation 20
- Greens drop money printing plan 19
Most viewed
- NZ GDP weaker than forecast in Q1 11
- MIE makes first key appointment
- Farmers respond to an animal part found in PKE 3
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Bernanke speaks 8
- NZ to be 'a fruit bowl for Asia'
- Greens drop money printing plan 19
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Record harvests 8
- Farms well prepped for winter blast
- Up, up and away with the internet 4
- Opposition eyes new monetary policy 28
Mike Joy details the scientific evidence against intensive dairying and how it is affecting our freshwater systems. How do you see it?
By Mike Joy*
In the last century the ecological health of New Zealand’s lakes, rivers and streams have undergone significant deterioration.
These declines in water quality have accelerated over the last twenty years and there is little indication of any action to halt the deterioration.
Over the last few decades while many European countries halted declines and some even achieved improvements in water quality, New Zealand went the other way with unconstrained intensification of farming along with associated exponential increases in fertiliser use and increased urban wastewater discharges to rivers
The response from central and local government has been almost totally ‘hands-off’ apart from some attempt to control dairy shed waste.
This non-interventionist approach has led to the declines across all our ecosystems now becoming obvious by New Zealand’s slide toward the bottom of global environmental performance comparisons1.
We are now much much closer to the bottom than the top of global comparisons on environmental performance; this is contrary to the belief expressed by Prime Minister Key2.
While New Zealand embraced a free market approach over this time with the slogan ‘user pays’ applied almost universally it unfortunately did not extend to the requisite ‘polluter pays’ approach, thus distorting the market.
Related Topics
Over the last twenty years New Zealand’s analysis of the national water quality monitoring network has revealed significant declines in almost all measured water quality parameters3.
A 2004 study of more than 300 lowland waterways revealed that ninety six percent of them in pastoral catchments and all in urban catchments failed the pathogen standard for contact recreation. More than eighty percent of the sites in pasture catchments exceeded guideline levels for phosphorous and nitrogen4.
Now forty three percent of monitored lakes in New Zealand are classed as polluted5 (almost all lowland lakes) and groundwater nitrate levels are rising as well with thirty nine percent of monitored sites nationally showing increases6. Human health is also directly impacted with now an estimated 18 – 34,000 people annually contracting waterborne diseases7.
These declines in the health of freshwaters are for the most part related to agricultural impacts; excess of sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen as well as faecal pathogens8. The deterioration is matched by dramatic declines in freshwater biodiversity: now more than sixty percent of New Zealand’s native freshwater fish as well as the only freshwater crayfish and mussel species are now listed as threatened with extinction9.
The major driver of the deterioration in the health of New Zealand’s lakes, groundwater, rivers and streams is the uncontrolled farming intensification, mainly in dairy production. This escalation in intensity is driven by a farming system based on a strategy of low-cost production which in the absence of any central government leadership has inevitably led to many unsustainable practices10.
The main issue for freshwater from this intensification is diffuse-source nutrient and pathogen pollution of waterways from the intensified but “free-range” pasture based livestock farming model. This diffuse pollution is the run-off or seepage through soils of nutrient laden water due to high stocking rates. These extreme stocking rates are achieved only by increasing use of ‘off-farm’ feed supplements like palm kernel and fossil fuel derived nitrogenous fertiliser and imported phosphate.
Examples of the magnitude of intensification of dairy farming in New Zealand, between 1990 and 2002, the number of dairy cows in the South Island increased six fold, with an obvious massive impact on the quality of lowland streams. During the same period the number of cows in the Waikato River catchment increased by 37% and over that period Nitrogen levels in the Waikato River increased by 40% and Phosphorus by 25%11.
The response from the regulators to these obvious impacts has been virtually nonexistent during this time, not a single South Island council successfully introduced rules to control livestock access to such streams or to limit the intensification.
Despite being clearly in breach of the legislation (the Resource Management Act), the primary impact on water quality - dairy intensification was unrestricted.
The only exceptions to this has been in the Lake Taupo catchment where Waikato Regional Council limited farm intensity through a cap on nitrogen use to protect Lake Taupo and the Horizons Regional Council attempts to implement their ‘one-plan’ designed to protect the Manawatu River from further degradation.. In both these cases attempts have been made to limit intensification to protect freshwater quality and both met considerable opposition from the dairy industry.
Freshwater crisis
New Zealand now faces an unprecedented freshwater crisis.
The only solution is a dramatic reduction in dairy stocking rates in combination with technological improvements, but this to date, apart from the Taupo example, has been politically unpalatable and the only response from the government to the crisis has been a belated by 20 years and weak National Policy Statement on freshwater that will not address the problem12.
To date there has not been a charge or even any attempt to internalise the costs of the pollution of freshwaters in New Zealand.
The only cost for ‘out of pipe’ (point source) polluters is a one-off ‘consent fee’ which is essentially an administration charge required by Regional Councils.
The problem though is that for freshwaters the biggest pollution source in New Zealand does not come out of a pipe, it is diffuse and this pollution is not controlled at all.
Diffuse pollution is sediment, nutrient and faecal contamination that makes its way into lakes and rivers through the soil via cow urine and washing overland land in rain.
The resulting excess levels of nutrient in lakes, rivers and streams has led to many ecological and human health impacts but these are not paid for by the polluters. In New Zealand diffuse pollution is only restricted except in the Lake Taupo catchment, where a cap and trade system was set up to protect this iconic lake from nutrient pollution.
Apart from the Taupo example (and possibly Manawatu if it survives litigation) local authorities failed to use the ability they had under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to control the obvious impacts of farming intensification on freshwaters.
Instead they choose only to control the much less significant impact of dairy shed wastewater.
The reason for council’s failure to address the main impact on freshwater quality in New Zealand undoubtedly lies with the failure of central government to implement a National Policy Statement (NPS). This was despite a legislative requirement to do so decades ago, this would have given guidance to Regional Councils and confidence that they wouldn’t be picked off individually by the well resourced dairy industry. The NPS was finally put in place in 2011 but it has widely slated as too little and too late and unlikely to produce any improvement in water quality13.
Other than the NPS the only significant response from central government to the many freshwater issues was the negotiation of a voluntary code with the largest dairy company in New Zealand, Fonterra in 2003. This agreement, the Clean Streams Accord, was an agreement between Fonterra, Regional Councils and the Ministry for the Environment and required that farmers undertake a number of measures to lessen their impacts on freshwater.
The agreement at first appeared impressive but closer investigation showed many failings.
The failings include that the accord lacks any ability to enforce requirements, and the stream fencing requirements ignore the smaller streams where the most gain could be had. A further flaw is that all the monitoring requirements are for assessing whether the accord requirements are being implemented and no assessment of whether these are in fact improving water quality.
The result was that while the accord progressed stream fencing, it did not include riparian buffer zones and only happened on larger waterways, it did however serve to focus publicity on the continuing problems of dairy effluent management; and it did see the uptake of farm nutrient budgeting.
The down side however, was that it gave regional councils an excuse to continue to defer introducing rules to address the diffuse impacts of farm intensification.
So the result was that while the accord was a great public relations tool for the industry to suppress criticism there is no evidence that it has done anything to halt the decline of water quality.
In the last twenty years there has been no evidence of any protection of freshwater ecosystems outside of the conservation estate. This failure to protect freshwater ecosystem integrity has been clearly demonstrated by the declines in water quality and by the impacts on freshwater biodiversity. This loss of biodiversity is most clearly shown by the increasing number of threatened freshwater fish species shown in figure 1. These native fish communities are effectively the ‘miners canaries’ of freshwater ecosystems and their decline reveals failures to protect freshwater ecosystems over the last 20 years.
A recent analysis of data on the distribution of native fish in New Zealand14 showed declines in native fish populations accelerating in the last twenty years.
A robust and internationally used measure of the health of freshwater ecosystems is the fish the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)15 and it has been applied to a large database of freshwater fish distribution collected throughout New Zealand over the last forty years.
A trend analysis of these IBI scores clearly shows the decline in fish communities at all landuse types in New Zealand over the last 40 years. Figure 2 shows this decline especially in the last decade.
Figure 2. Average fish IBI scores for the last 4 decades over all land-cover types in New Zealand. Number in bars is the number of sites from the New Zealand freshwater fish database.
The declines in fish communities reflecting ecosystem health are even more obvious at freshwater sites in pasture catchments shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Average fish IBI scores at pasture catchment sites for the last 4 decades.
When the IBI scores for different land-cover types are compared the impact of different types of landuse on fish communities become obvious. The impacts of pastoral farming and urban effects on fish communities and ecosystem health are shown clearly when the IBI scores for all years at different land cover types are compared in figure 4.
Conclusion
The Resource Management Act (RMA) had noble ideals for the protection of the environment and sustainability in New Zealand.
Sadly over the following two decades those ideals were systematically diluted by a lack of enforcement and later weakening of the Act through the Resource Management Simplifying and Streamlining Act (2009). This legislation put emphasis on speeding up of the consent process and thus, less emphasis on the quality of decisions.
This weakening of the law combined with a failure to address the most pervasive impact on water quality - the intensification and industrialisation of dairy farming has resulted in New Zealand slide to the lowest levels of environmental performance globally.
The only indication of a future move to improve water quality in New Zealand is the involvement of Maori in freshwater management (the Waikato co-management example) and the economic value of tourism leading to moves to protect Lake Taupo by reducing dairy farming intensity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010440
3. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/water-quality-trends-1989-2007/index.html
4. Larned, S. T., M. R. Scarsbrook, et al. (2004). "Water Quality on Low-elevation streams and rivers of New Zealand recent state and trends in contrasting land cover classes. ." New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 347-366.
5. Verburg, P., K. Hamill, et al. (2010). Lake Water Quality in New Zealand 2010: Status and Trends. NIWA, Ministry for the Environment.
6. Daughney, C.J. & Wall, M. (2007). Groundwater quality in New Zealand: State and trends 1995-2006. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2007/23.
8. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/water-quality-trends-1989-2007/index.html
9. Allibone, R., David, B., Hitchmough, R., Jellyman, D., Ling, N., Ravenscroft, P. & Waters, J. (2010). Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009 in New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44:4, pp.271-287, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00288330.2010.514346.
10. Baskaran, R, Cullen, R, Colombo, (2009). Estimating Values of Environmental Impacts of Dairy Farming in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 52, 377–389.
11. http://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/wa/water-atmosphere-1-july-2010/how-clean-are-our-rivers
12. Sinner, J. (2011, June 29). Implications of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, Prepared for Fish & Game New Zealand. Cawthron Report No. 1965, available at http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/.
13. Sinner, J. (2011, June 29). Implications of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, Prepared for Fish & Game New Zealand. Cawthron Report No. 1965, available at http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/.
14. Joy, M. K. (2009). Temporal and land-cover trends in freshwater fish communities in New Zealand's rivers: an analysis of data from the New Zealand freshwater fish database -1970-2007.
15. Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2004). Application of the index of biotic integrity methodology to New Zealand freshwater fish communities. Environmental Management, 34(3), 415-428.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mike Joy is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Science at the Ecology group in the Institute of Natural Resources Massey University Palmerston North. He researches and teaches freshwater ecology, especially freshwater fish ecology and distribution, ecological modelling bioassessment and environmental science. He is an outspoken advocate for environmental protection in New Zealand and has received a number of awards including “ecologist of the year” from the NZ ecological Society, and an “Old Blue” award from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. You can contact him here »
40 Comments
Thanks for that Mike. I will
Thanks for that Mike. I will be examining the references to make sure they support your claim and also have focused their study on dairying effects, rather than jsut assumed them. Murray from Horizons, when I asked him a couple of years ago (after the "Manawatu is dirtiest river in world" claims) said they had no studies that analysed the dairy impact, and no tests for actual dairying nutrients/runoff. The only work done was on hydrophyte related studies on the headwaters and estuaries. (c.f. lake deposits). Also no baseline or velocity affects had been considered so they don't know how long or from where any nutrients might have come from - ie they might have been there 50 yrs or 5 months, also no daily tests were used to give flow vs nutrient information, so they couldn't tell if it was a peaking effect (or even a trough).
I believe the initial studies were related to Didymo and risks to other possible new invaders, and from materials taken out from studies into trout and other fishery records (that had no reason to test dairying factors)
While I am all for water
While I am all for water quality as per my support in the previous article, dodgy science can do more harm than good. I am posting here in the hope to receive a report of your deeper analysis. There is certainly an effect and on the face of it dairy is the cause, but there could be some embarassment if it turns out it isn't.
I haven't looked but one
I haven't looked but one thing I will be looking for is effects from councils' attempts at reducing flooding. It increases the velocity of stream waters, lowers average flows, increases peak flows, destroys habitats and cooling. The higher velocity shifts gravel beds, suspends particulate longer, and significantly increases bank erosions.
We should find that the old flood waters would pick up animal waste and hugely increase the nutrient levels and the hydrophytes should react to those events, as well as been older and more dense from the slower waters (and more vibrant, due the extra biological function).
We should also see peaks from the old tributary creeks with heavy foliage which would see a flushing effect at the start of the flooding/raising waters, to the point where the weight and lamina effect pin the nutrients to the slower moving edge of the water body. (of course, cleaning the drains and freeing the flow would see those nutrients spike faster and higher, and disappear faster post event. as the plants and other edge conditions create protective turbulence).
Also we should be able to see nutrient chances in modern fenced off water ways. as bacteria have become established in the humus of the hydrophytes, and a corresponding lift in ecoli from macro-organisms (insect larvae, worms, and other water life). Thats why I want some reliable tests to use - check the fenced off areas for the increases, and the flood cleared areas for changes.
Considering the flood clearing work, we should actually see less nutrients in the streams from dairying - but more in the deltas (eg lake taupo, where some of the locals were pouring on the urea > 100kg an application as opposed to the 20 - 40 kg elsewhere in NZ)
This is the sort of denial
This is the sort of denial crap logic we see so often over climate change.
And Andrew R, that is the
And Andrew R, that is the typical type of ignorant statement that we see and reject from climate change supporters (as opposed to climate change science).
The stuff I listed has targets, limits and testables. There's no denial, only in testable alternatives which do cover the observed behaviours. And what's more - my ideas actually fall into line with the timeframes involved. Where the nutrient overuse flies in the face of the fact that the majority of farmers are reducing and 'using much less more often' in the timeframe of the experiments <- a fact which we would expect to see reflected in the experiments done... unless there's a lagging factor somewhere.
mist42nz: Mike gives the
mist42nz: Mike gives the results of his biological index system in the article, with the reference to the peer reviewed paper. I don't see what the science is in what you are saying, as you don't explain it, or point to any papers on why it is relevant at all.
Diffuse sediment is another water quality contaminant. NIWA has developed a way of analysing fatty acids in sediment to determine its origin. If you look at page 21 of chapter 5 of a sediment report for the Bay of Islands downloadable from this web page http://www.os2020.org.nz/browse-data-boi/dogetrecordbyid/da0292e5-89aa-4... you can see the per cent sediment origins by pasture (cattle), pasture (sheep), pasture (sub-soil), native (broadleaf), pine (clear-fell), kanuka (scrub).
Since that report the technique has been refined further to be able to distinguish between more different types of farming and different stages of forestry. I can't access the 2011 conference paper on it here at home, but will try to find it when back at work on Monday.
Cheers
Strangely AndrewR, I'm not
Strangely AndrewR, I'm not paid to sit at the computer all day reading the reports and articles. I have farms to run, business to oversee, and houses to repair - I will be reading through the reports when I get a moment, and I have bookmarked the article so I can come back to it. Unlike yourself some of us have productive work we have to do, and don't just get a paycheck served to us fortnightly.
If you read up further on this thread, I was replying to certain areas in which I said I have concerns about, and these appeared to line up better with the figures (that I had previously seen).
And BTW, I personally know some of the people from universities who were involved in doing climate change research. And got told some of the backyard shennanigans that dont make it into the review papers - including one case where a researcher having found the data completely disproved her theory (and fame as a CC promoter) that she discarded the entire! collected data, and built a theoretical project based on one of her earlier publications - and it passed the peer review, because she'd kept the true process information, and all the data fell with in predicted ranges (of course, because it was projected from that data).
And having seen the same thing from the inside of the Electrical Industry I'm not surprised to hear about it.
And no, I haven't tested my ideas...which is why I'm pointing out that these are what I suspect, and listing it as an alternative. Why haven't I tested it? Because I have real work to do, and can't sit about in a lab all day - after all someone has to do all the stuff the Councils and DairyNZ and Fonterra want, and I'm betting that you're not volunteering to do it for free (as I have to). And anyway we usually find the scientists are about 3-10yrs behind the on-farm stuff anyway, so why drive looking backwards. But I would like to be able to test the water, fore and aft, several times a year in different rainfalls, to see if there are immediate effects.
And yeah, I'm not in the Bay of Islands. Any reason to think their data is at all relevant to my area??
Pardon me for living.
Pardon me for living.
If most of the climate and
If most of the climate and pure water guys have their way, we'd all be saying that.
As you might agree though, localised testing would help isolate the controllable effects.
If my nutrients are being wasted, I want to know about it!!
Help me solve it and we can all be happy. And if it's not from here, then (a) don't blame me and make me lose money on it, and (b) lets find out Where TF it's actually coming from.
Thinking for the near-stream erosion, digital video of the riverbanks might help identify high risk areas - testing could be done up and downstream, and compared against predictions.
For leaching I can only think of Time based samples, perhaps in a bi-section search to see which tributaries and properties are highest risk/exposure.
I also must say I find "The
I also must say I find "The only cost for ‘out of pipe’ (point source) polluters is a one-off ‘consent fee’ which is essentially an administration charge required by Regional Councils." is very true and simply shocked that it occurs.
An "official bribe" and you can dump anything into a NZ waterway, and the council _aren't_allowed_ to say no, if you've filled out the correct paperwork.
The only people that can do
The only people that can do that are town and city councils. No dairyfarmer is allowed to. Certainly not to my knowledge. And yes it is wrong. And I'm sure if they were made to correct their shortcomings, my rates would go up. And I'm a dairy farmer. No council has contributed to my $100,000 effluent system.
Yep no council contributed to
Yep no council contributed to mine either. And when things quieten down after Xmas, I hope to do some serious looks at separation technology, try to get the P and K separated in the waste stream, and bring the K down to something I can transport and spray on the suppliments block (as opposed to the springer paddocks!)
The key is treated vs untreated wastes. If you cooked or fermented your effluent, then you could, provided the numbers were met, discharge to water. (like factories do).
However, as stated previously discharge of untreated effluent and animal remains to water is one of the oldest restrictions in our legal codes (reaching right back to common and high law pre-Winchester).
But "treat" the waste, and you're no longer in that legal category, so then you have to met the standards the councils have rules for, and if you do meet the standards, then you get your quota for poisoning the waterways, just like towns, councils and big business. But that's legal, so it's all ok.
Sorry for the multiple posts
Sorry for the multiple posts people.
Mike: "The main issue for freshwater from this intensification is diffuse-source nutrient and pathogen pollution of waterways from the intensified but “free-range” pasture based livestock farming model. This diffuse pollution is the run-off or seepage through soils of nutrient laden water due to high stocking rates. These extreme stocking rates are achieved only by increasing use of ‘off-farm’ feed supplements like palm kernel and fossil fuel derived nitrogenous fertiliser and imported phosphate."
Do you have a specific report for this claim. Or any particular test process (a net link to such) by which we can check that information.
Phosphate use has been reduced significantly over the last 40 years in my area. Only a few idiot diehards insist on "double the dose, double the growth" mindset (and we'd love a way to control them!!)
But from what I've seen there is higher pathogen rates from ungroomed lands (eg bush and stagnate waterways) than from grazed ones - with the exceptions of farmers using waterways as normal watering holes or dumping spots (which are practices which need to be stopped, and which the existing laws already cover should the police and courts ever do their jobs properly).
Dr Joy makes the mistake of
Dr Joy makes the mistake of focusing on selected elements of water quality issues. He avoids presenting his solutions as a balanced system plan for a total catchment. and his focus is on only one element of many that contribute to the alleged polution disaster unfolding in his analysis.
N leaching from pastoral intensification is not a function of animal numbers but is directly related to the amount of pasture crude protein produced for and consumed by grazing animals. The N flow contained in the excreta and urine is partitioned by the farming process as a portion to product. a portion to animal maintenance, a portion volatilised to air, a portion to soil utilised for plant growth and a portion leached below the root line or carried off with surface water providing the focus for Dr Joy's abhorrence. De-intensification by slaughtering a percentage animals from a catchment will not give the outcome he is indicating.
Society would be better rewarded by him putting his academic endevour into defining mangement practises that better manage and direct that N partitioning rather than claiming that destroying one element (livestock) by leglislation gives an ideal solution.
His selectiveness and failure to quantify nutrients discharged from licenced "consents to discharge" points carefully removes the intensification of the human component of water pollution from his equation leaving the weight of change he is demanding totally on livestock producers.
Seemingly the inability to accurately continuously measure the polluting elements in rivers and streams to provide guidence on if, where and when excesses are occuring is being replaced by computer modelling of derived data to support Dr Joy's emotive arm waving and dire warnings. That the economic welfare of producers and the country can be attacked by such an indirect, incomplete and error prone modelling system enforced by legislation is a monumental folly.
"his focus is on only one
"his focus is on only one element of many that contribute to the alleged polution disaster unfolding in his analysis."
To be fair to Dr Joy, thats how scientific evidence works and how university-level studies are conducted. They have to nominate a hypothesis, give reasons and then test for data that would confirm or deny the likelihood of that reasoning; with extreme care given to note any and all incidents involved in the process (ie what and why certain tests were decided on, what state the samples were choosen and how). The idea is to produce a result, that if anyone else duplicated in the same place, will result in similar repeated results. It also means that if the tests used were not really appropriate, or some bias or outside affect from sample choice has occurred, then it can be noted and re-tested, and cross-checked against the results and conclusions.
If the focus is expanded too much, or assumptions made outside of that narrow focus, then too many factors influence the results.
It's one of the problems of strict science when compared with real world comparative decisions.
It's also why he should be very careful when taking a study of fishlife and blaming dairy for nutrient issues.
De-intensification by
De-intensification by slaughtering a percentage animals from a catchment will not give the outcome he is indicating.
Why not? I'd have thought that fewer animals grazing the same amount of land would mean that pastures were able to be rested for longer periods and this would mean less erosion, improved growth, better cover/filtering, etc? And then there is the issue of irrigation (which enables intensification) without which much marginal land would likely not be grazed especially by the larger beasts. Seems to me irrigiation which allows for dairy conversion is perhaps more a contributing factor to the rapidly worsening problems.
Kate, dairy farming grazing
Kate, dairy farming grazing rotation is all about maintaining pasture quality. So which is the lesser of the two evils - lower stocking rate that cause more supplement to b grown, which requires more fertiliser to b used, or slightly higher stocking rates, grass fully utilized by stock and only maintenance fertiliser required.
I don't believe it is coincidental that fertiliser use has fallen ( and it has to such an extent feet companies are resorting to selling stockfood& animal health remedies) at the same time stocking rates have increased.
Water quality measures have to be done on a catchment basis. Not a one size fits all.
Yeah I agree Cas Ob, to a
Yeah I agree Cas Ob, to a point. But it use to be 100 cows to a paddock.... say a ha, now its 1000 cows on a bigger plot, with palm kernal to get there gums around as well. Its the same but different...and 1000 cows definately have a bigger impact on runoff. Small waterways get annihilated. You have to admit 10 cows out of the 100 walking into the water arent so bad. 100 well thats different. And all waterways are not fenced, never will be, cant be. Its the nature of the land that is now dairy farming. We went from dairy farming the flats to dairy farming anywhere and everywhere.
Up the road from me its all kinda swamp and wetlands all mixed in with a few flats and humps and hollows. Impossible to fence off the water. Yet it all drains into the mighty Waikato. Which is now a mass of weed. Hell one of the close Waikato lakes is a stinking hell hole with dead weed in summer. Surrounded by dairying. It never used to be like that, but with the conversions from sheep and beef it has all changed.
Yes, it has always seemed to
Yes, it has always seemed to me to be mainly about land use conversion from S&B or in many cases idle peat wasteland - to urban and/or dairy. As CO says - you have to look at it on a catchment basis .. and so many catchments are plain ecologically unsuited to these latter uses. Poor to no land use planning as envisaged by the do anything anywhere idealistically permissive RMA regime.
100 cows to a paddock?? It
100 cows to a paddock?? It would depend on your growth rate, soil type, feed levels and paddock size.
When I was a kid it was anything from 40 - 250 per paddock. Later we were 550 to a paddock...... same square meterage, because we were still feeding 5 -10 kgDM per half day break.
But in paddock suppliment does allow for a little intensification, as does pasture growth promotion products.... which happened about 40 years ago. Experts were telling farmers to pour on the phosphates to pump the grass out - but only a portion got utilised, the rest got washed off. So they put a limit on the phosphate rates, and then started going hard on the Urea - some folks upwards of 300 kg of N per ACRE, and sometimes 200kg or more of Urea during capital fertiliser runs. Fortunately - as far as I have heard - no one promotes or does that any more. Last I heard in died out in the 70's when interest rates went through the roof and fertiliser stopped being used/was used in smaller cashflow friendly amounts (and surprise it was more effective and cheaper). Again, we come to the age/lag question..... if excess nutrients builds up in soil layers... and we're seeing rebound or erosion factors, it MIGHT be that older chemical being released.
With the Waikato... doesn't that have electrical dams on it? Hydro lakes are really really environmentally evil.
I dont get this thing where
I dont get this thing where you reckon over fertilizing was done for in the 70s. It came to an end when it doubled in price about 4 years ago. Mist I recon there is some rose tinting on your spectacles.
It might be local
It might be local variation.
For most of the Manawatu and Waiarapa family style farms, they had large debt exposure in the 70's when the interest rates went over 20% fertiliser was the thing that got cut - it was also before this time when the experts were pushing people to pour the stuff in. with the high interest rate, and the realisation (from the farmers not the experts) that most of the high application stuff tended to get washed off (or cause metabolic issues with dairy cows) that they started experimenting with other methods of spreading - that's about when the small tractor spreaders started being developed as previously it was truck based.
Mist: Are you guessing or
Mist: Are you guessing or what? Prior to 1984 fertilisers were heavily subsidised by the government. When Lange-Douglas got into power, the first thing they did was elimiate all farm subsidies. What was the market response to that event?
I'm not guessing in my local
I'm not guessing in my local area.
But I'm not familiar with outside that area with regards to fert use. So if someone says they are sure it's recent in their area, that may indeed be true... which might explain why some of the runoff readings are high in their area.
But in my area, the drop in subsidies was a shock but not that much of a difference, as it meant proper farming paid off, and "subsidy farming" didn't. However, as mentioned, many of those subsidy dependent types in this low paid area had already been removed by the spike in interest rates. They'd "gotten in low" in the 3-9% range and built their budgets around that so when things hit 19-27% they had no surplus left to cover the interest.
By the time the subside removal hit, it was cheers in Tui factories area.
If the stocking rate is
If the stocking rate is lowered, then there is an issue with pasture going rank. Once it's gone rank it can be a challenge bringing it back to quality.
I'm hoping to get enough time and energy to check out fallowing systems, but most of what I've glimpsed at, restoring a fallowed pasture requires plowing which is very damaging (nutrient loss wise) compared to modern drill and maintain.
I am interested to see what kind of nutrient migration is occuring. As mentioned we try for "little but more often" (ie not just one hit capital covering), but I am seeing nutrient deprivation - except on the paddocks which in theory should have more migration (eg effluent, or easy draining areas). Also seeing deprivations effects in elements which aren't supposed to show great migration (ie potassium, sulphur and phosphates are highly soluble, nitrogens highly volitile - they -should- be showing signs of deprivation). But we're seeing others that shouldn't occur according to the books.
I'm doing a bit of looking into, to see if it's being blocked - but it all takes money and time - AND as always have to wait for the weather and seasons to permit.
I am sure you have been to Oz
I am sure you have been to Oz Mist. Cast your mind back, they know how to do the deferred grazing thing with no fert. Whats the saying.... some NZer tells an ozzie they use too many imputs, ie grains, the ozzie fights back with, you kiwis use more than us you use fertilizer.
Sorry never had the money to
Sorry never had the money to do the tourist thing.
The only ozzies I know doing the deferred system are beef etc or huge areas with marginal productivity and ultra cheap land.
I do know that most Kiwi's who try to own farms over there do incredibly badly, my ex-boss excluded. He's still in the game and he used to laugh at how cheap and wasteful the Aussi's were, and how easy it was to get grain and irrigation compared to NZ. Although he had a hard time with staff who weren't interested in working more than the bare minimum.
I had a bit of a look
I had a bit of a look recently. Saw what a future without fert looked like. Very yellow. And a bit brown. It didnt help their waterways any....haha they didnt have any. Just a few crevices that looked septic.
Just looking at a media
Just looking at a media article on the proposed rules about dealing with those who buy more than 50tonne of fertiliser..... Notice that the small to medium business is ignored. Again.
If Crafar or Carter Holt had 51 tonnes of fert, they'd have to spread it pretty fine.
If my neighbour to the East used the same amount, his animals would be wading through it.
That's the mentality we're having to deal with at the higher echelons of environmental rules. Stuff that just doesn't make sense on anything but statistics, and you can't run a farm or an environment on statistics.
Well thats a duh moment isnt
Well thats a duh moment isnt it... oh dear, what twats.
That's why I figure it's best
That's why I figure it's best to ignore all that kind of stuff best as possible.
Find out what the nutrients are, where they go, use whats on farm (poo) as much as possible, reduce off farm energy sources as I can (solar, biomethane) so I'm not exposed to political/maori/foreign electricity or other nonsense and can look at using more solar power to better process my milk and effluent, reduce labour overheads as much as possible (not so much exposure to ACC and labour laws and employees dramas).
Gotta feed the plants healthily, gotta feed the animals healthily, gotta keep the equipment reasonably well maintained. Letting expensive fert and top quality "ferti-poo" go to waste down the drain isn't my idea of good economics or good operating. Screw any other dramas.
I wonder if any foreign
I wonder if any foreign tourists reading this would be able to sue NZ Tourism for false advertisng with their "100% Clean Green" slogan.
its organic gotta be good for
its organic gotta be good for you. (little 'O' organic)
Two ways of reading the 100%
Two ways of reading the 100% Pure NZ slogan. Is it 100% Pure, NZ or 100%, Pure NZ as in 100% NZ, not anything or anyone else. Officials have never been able to tell me. Is whatever U want it to b. ;-)
Very evocative article Im not
Very evocative article
Im not going to dispute the science I'm not qualified to do so but what I will say is where to from here? Do we want to be able to swim in the local stream and catch native fish and have no intensive farming? Or do we want to remain in the first world and enjoy all the benefits of agricultural export earnings that we've become accustomed to?
Its that simple man affects the environment, we always have.
GWT - great point, from my
GWT - great point, from my experience in the dairy game I believe that we as an industry need to sort out the wayward ones amoungst us that;
a) have limited knowledge
b) have a) and are loaded up with "unlimited debt" by our lovely bankers
c) have fallen onto the Fonterra trap of producing "unlimited amounts of milk for an unlimited market" at any cost.
NZ Dairy farming is a very complex business, it requires competent operators and competent advisors that understand the dynamic and complex business that it is.
Increasing stocking rates and thus production has huge multiple dynamic effects on the business system.
NZ in the last 15 years has produced less University Agricultural Graduates than ever before.
The main crouse most Dairy Farmers employees do now is AGITO, which is great for your basic farm worker but thats it.
The industry has lost the wonderful network learning system it had 20-30 years ago *Discussion Groups" organised by local DairyNZ Consultants.
Typical intellegent Kiwi Kids dont want to go Farming as they dont want to be in a cowshed 10 hours a day (due to more cows/labour unit). Instead they go off to study engineering, law or business etc.
What happens with this change? We end up having to employ the "bottom end" and foreigners to operate our farms.
All of this has meant that the NZ dairy industry has gone several steps to far and now all farmers will pay the price as the only way to control the wayward ones amoungst us is via new laws, rules and regulations.
The writing has been on the wall for the last 15 years.
Typical intellegent Kiwi Kids
Typical intellegent Kiwi Kids dont want to go Farming as they dont want to be in a cowshed 10 hours a day (due to more cows/labour unit). Instead they go off to study engineering, law or business etc.
Had to laugh at that, got a son- inlaw who did engineering degree but then imediatley went farming!
Typical intellegent Kiwi Kids
Typical intellegent Kiwi Kids dont want to go Farming as they dont want to be in a cowshed 10 hours a day (due to more cows/labour unit). Instead they go off to study engineering, law or business etc.
Had to laugh at that, got a son- inlaw who did engineering degree but then imediatley went farming!
Joy's notes are essentially
Joy's notes are essentially academic. He clearly has few to no links with iwi, and seems unaware of the significant pressure Southern iwi are exerting on waterbody quality, or the work being put in at local level by the commissioner-led Ecan.
Intriguingly, those unelected Commissioners have done more work in three years than the hapless, elecled ECan (commonly referred to as ECan't), manged in 19 years....
C-, I'm afraid. EDvidence of data collection, but failure to locate in a real-world context.
And where, pray tell, are the practical paths to achieveing Nirvana????
AWOL.
http://odewire.com/170441/sci
http://odewire.com/170441/scientists-investigate-water-memory.html
close the books for just a while and have a wee think...