HOT TOPICS:   Gold   |   Unitary Plan  |    Mortgage rates

The comment stream

Reader poll

How many new houses will the Government-Auckland Council accord produce in Auckland over the next three years?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Mike Joy calls on the dairy industry to nail their environmental colours to the mast and stop indulging in blame, denial and excuses. Your view?

Posted in Rural News

By Mike Joy*

A few months back New Zealand’s dairy farming industry players mounted another attempt to block the legislation intended to save the Manawatu River from further degradation.

A few years ago dairy industry groups including Federated Farmers, Fonterra, and Dairy New Zealand managed to thwart the implementation of the River protecting plan, Horizons Regional Council ‘One-plan’.

However, that was overturned with a recent environment court decision to reinstate the legislation.

The One-plan approach was motivated by a requirement to do something about the degraded state of the Manawatu River.

The region has long been the butt of travel guide jokes, and the negative publicity around its polluted river added to the already poor reputation of the region. 

The bad publicity eventually drove the Regional Council to come up with a scientifically robust plan to reduce nutrient losses from farming as this is the major cause of most of the problems for the River. 

The resulting ‘One-plan’ was courageous and novel, a regional attempt to do something about the freshwater crisis facing New Zealand.

However, the farming industry saw it as potentially the thin end of the wedge, legislation to be ‘stamped out’ before it spread to other councils.

Consequently, they threw everything they had at stopping it, eventually succeeding in diluting the strategy into ineffectiveness during the plan setting process. 

Two years of expensive and hard work by Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation through an appeal to the environment court saw the plan restored.  In his decision the judge voiced very unambiguous and strong findings in favour of the river guardians and praised their clear scientific evidence revealing the causes of the degradation of the River, and the protections in the One-plan. 

The plan reinstatement was a win for the environment but also for farmers as they would have more certainty and could go forward to a more sustainable future whilst being allowed time to make changes.  As the judge pointed out; many studies presented at the hearing showed that reducing inputs and nutrient losses mean increased profitability for farmers, thus, the minor changes required in the plan could result in more profitability.

The changes required by the plan are essential to make dairy farming sustainable while simultaneously limiting the decline of rivers, lakes and groundwater.

By simply imitating nature and cycling nutrients instead of allowing them to leave the farm and pollute waterways, the plan will reduce expenditure and make farms more sustainable both economically and environmentally. 

The present-day extreme intensification of dairy farming practised in New Zealand gives rise to the loss of precious, expensive, irreplaceable resources such as nutrients and soils.

Obviously this cannot be allowed to continue.

The transition will not be easy, especially on heavily indebted farms. It is however an inescapable reality and consequently it would be preferable that it is a managed retreat rather than waiting for the inevitable crash.

The world is becoming more and more aware that our clean - green claim (crucial to all our primary produce sales) is little more than a tourist poster image. The future of this country depends on truly sustainable farming; an aspirational clean – green image will not suffice. 

Given this pressing need for sustainability, recent claims by Agriculture Minister David Carter and Federated Farmers Connor English that the One-plan should not go ahead because its implementation would cost Manawatu farmers 20 – 40% of their profits is appalling.  

If as claimed, complying with the minimal requirements of the One-plan will cost farmers so much, then it follows that almost half of their profits must come from being allowed to pollute waterways.  Or does the dairy industry expect the rest of society to subsidise their businesses by allowing the continued degradation of the Manawatu River?

The challenge for the New Zealand dairy industry is to nail their environmental colours to the mast.

They must stop indulging in blame, denial and excuses.

Instead of wasting time fighting legislation like the One-plan it is crucial for all New Zealanders that they get on with becoming genuinely sustainable, so we can start to claw back the right to claim that we are clean and green. 

--------------------------------------------------------

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. You can contact him here »

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

18 Comments

I'm afraid that there is too

I'm afraid that there is too much hyperbole and self-advertisement in all this, to be taken seriously.
 
An example:
" loss of precious, expensive, irreplaceable resources such as nutrients and soils"
 
As any farmer knows, soil can be created from a combination of pasture, animal excrement, sunlight, billions of microbes and other small beasties, and time.
 
Working example:  Te Pirita, which was Strugglers Flat for a century and a half until the Selwyn Plantation Board, tired of the ETS hoo-ha, mulched every single one of their downland planations, sold it for dairy, and with the application of mucho dihydrogen monoxide, the dairy farmers made those dry stony plains Verdant Grasslands.
 
Mr Joy is an academic, and seems to be quite disconnected from the forces acting to promote and enact sustainability:  iwi, farmers, councils and communities.   His alarmism is more a symptom of a rage against or discomfort with, the very sources of his income - taxes on wealth creation - than a serious prescription, done in a connected-up fashion.

 
But, of course, I may be quite mistaken.

Mike Joy was the Manawatu

Mike Joy was the Manawatu Standard's person of the year for 2012. The award was not given for being a great perception manager. The Standard's logic then appears applicable on this thread. Their first three paragraphs went:
 
The Manawatu Standard person of the year is a polarising figure. The past year was not the first time Mike joy has come under fire for daring to speak out about the state of New Zealand's environment.
 
It is a message not everyone wants to hear, and certainly not one everryone agrees with.
 
But what is not under dispute is that Dr Joy is a passionate advocate for the environment, and has stood up for his views in the face of withering criticism.
 
From what I read Dr Joy in his article is making a case for sound agricultural production economics.
 
Do you have the knowledge to engage on that?

Yes I have that knowledge.

Yes I have that knowledge.  And not because I hide behind the fallacies of "proof by accreditation" but because I have hands on experience and training with finance, accounting and many sciences.  I also study logic and the theory of scientific process, which Mike has stepped beyond (again).

One only need to think back to his involvement travelling down the Mangatainoka river, from the Pahiatua bridge to the DB Brewery area where he was "proving" the evil damage done by dairy farmers.... an area which had no active dairy farms at the time....
Unfortunately being a "passionate advocate" and "standing up for his views" doesn't actually mean that he's doing a good job, or correct, or even remotely helpful to anyone.  It just means that he won't shut up even when he has been proven wrong, and that he feels free to claim points outside the range predicted by the extrapolated data.

I have personally put in with

I have personally put in with my own sweat and blood put in over 10km of waterway fencing.  I have paid for over 10km more, where the hardwork and equipment is provided by another.
I have spent over $15,000 out of my personal pocket, while paying interest on other debts that the money could have discharged - money spent which I the waterway protection will provide no return (although the inline dispensing system for rumensin, zinc and magnesium will hopefully make the effort economical).
 
How many kilometers has Dr Joy fenced off personally?
How many kilometers has Dr Joy personally from his own pocket paid others to fence off?
How much of Dr Joy's own debt load is due to materials, equipment and labour to fence off farm waterways?

I'm make no gain protecting these waterways "for the public", yet I work and pay.  Nor does the media sing the praises of me and other farmers for economic cleverness of making such ideas work.
Dr Joy has received significant amounts of money personally.  Of the damage done, he blames farmers...but never Catchment Boards or Councils or Government policies that have led to low stream levels and high pollution.  I am yet to see Dr Joy speak of how the dead hydrophyte (plants in the streams/riperian areas) nutrients are not going to cause issues (farmers are already looking at the issue).

Yet despite the profit Joy is making, the attention he is seeking, he has yet to actually fence off anything or pay for someone else to fence off waterways.
....So just WHO (Dr Joy) is profiteering on this "pollution" ... and who are actually doing anything about it (the farmers).  
The evidence is clear for anyone who wants to check the details.  

I noticed it with my TAF shares.  I can make 3 months net profit by selling some shares.  So much easier sitting in an office or talking on the media, than it is to actually get out and run a business.  Just ask my trucking friend, whose only full time staff member just rolled his truck-trail unit....  Very easy Dr Joy, to sit on the sit lines pocketing other peoples' hard earned cash.   If you're so upset with dairy farmers...pick up your spade and RD1 had a "special" on fencing supplies.....

Adolph Hitler was Time

Adolph Hitler was Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938 and Stalin got that accolade...twice...in 1939 and 1942.
'Person of the Year' does not sanctify a person, just that they had an impact.  
Joy is an obsessive who hates dairy farming and that is as obvious as the facial hair on his face.   
Amazingly he is dead quiet on the protections afforded to introduced trout that are an apex predator in our water and then he is really, really quiet on Lake Rotorua's improvement. 
He is the worse kind of academic that gets an income thanks to the industry he hates.
If he had the strength of his convictions he would lave Massey and stand for the Greens,. but doing that would rob him of the protection academia provides.

Agree with you there waymad -

Agree with you there waymad - Miss Taken or not ;-)
 
Mike Joy regurgitates the same old, same old, without any acknowledgement, or comment, on moves being currently undertaken.  He takes only a swipe at dairying, yet Horticulture NZ is appealing the Environment Court decision.  He's a one trick pony who has been pulled around the well a few too many times.
What are his views on the new Sustainable Dairying Water Accord? Or the Fonterra/DoC initiative announced today? http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/sustainability/environment/water/fonterra+...
His silence on such things is deafening.  Can someone please wake him up and drag him in to 2013.

I was wondering where all the

I was wondering where all the margin from my farmgate product was going.   Here I am, supplier, shareholder, NZer' trying to develop a local dairy farm to something sustainable with clean energy and renewable cheap fertiliser and under massive stress due to operating at breakeven levels of revenue.... and they're spending my money on community work overseas....  Work which is the responsibility of their people, community and government.
Why is NZ sponsoring these people and for what return (and why at my cost)?

Mr Joy is an academic, and

Mr Joy is an academic, and seems to be quite disconnected from the forces acting to promote and enact sustainability:  iwi, farmers, councils and communities. 
 
And who are are you?

Do farm profits depend on

Do farm profits depend on waterway pollution?
 
Answer: No.     (suggest the sub ed takes a break)
 
Healthy Soils, a Dunedin-based company established in 2007, was the result of the amalgamation of three companies - Humatech, Folia Feed and Healthy Soils.
Its programme was about rebalancing soil minerals and establishing a healthy biological population. At Shortlands, there were simple but amazing results that got some biological action ''going again'', Mr Crutchley said.
Instead of oversupplying some base elements, they concentrated on balancing the elements. They used to grow 7000kg DM but now expected at least 12,000kg.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/farming/248020/different-approach-transforms-farm
 
Big Question: What does Mike mean by Sustainable.
We think "sustainable" is a bit like a Fonterra share, it means different things to different people. And some people are not open/clear on what they mean......
 

Henry - until more farmers

Henry - until more farmers adopt the principles of re-balancing the soil minerals and getting the mycorrhizae back then we are going to have to read articles like this one.
 
I have stated previously on here that the problems are simple to resolve you can turn farm land around very quickly.
 

notaneconomist - actually it

notaneconomist - actually it isn't just about balancing the soils - that is part of it but is not the complete solution.  Flood waters run high with sediment, sediment that will flow regardless of how balanced your soils are and this sediment deposits nutrients in to waterways, as well as clogging them up. 
 
This summer Lake Roxburgh was lowered 6m to enable sediment to be removed. It is  dead for fish life due to sediment etc starving the lake of oxygen.  Not a dairy farm anywhere near there, but there is a dam. An old dam. And that is what is causing the problem and is acknowledged as such.  No amount of balancing the soils will sort that. 
 
Having said that I am in the camp of having balanced soils, but I have my eyes open enough to know that dairy farmers are not the sole reason water is degraded.  One just has to look at Lake Rotorua and the collaborative effort made by all there to clean up the lake to see that it requires the whole community to make an effort, not just one section. 
 

Co - flooding is a natural

Co - flooding is a natural phenomena and so is sediment moving downstream/river etc. This is beneficial for all the eco systems.
Roxburgh dam has always been an issue partly because of the way it was built the sediment could not move downstream.
Dead fish have also been problematic as the Roxburgh dam design didn't cater for fish. They couldn't spawn.
I would like more information on the oxygen deprivation causing the fish to die. I assume the fish were autopsied.
Nutrient runoff frequently gets blamed on agriculture but there is alot of evidence that suggests town and city sewerage is far more of a problem. While I would fully agree that Nitrogen is a problem farmers can avoid that type of farming if they choose too. So I don't have much sympathy for those who choose the NPK regime as I don't believe it is balanced and is bad for animal health.
Collaborative efforts usually hide the real polluter.

I'm Miss Taken.

I'm Miss Taken.

Thought as much - let us know

Thought as much - let us know when you recover.

Has Mike's review for tenure

Has Mike's review for tenure come up again?  Is that why he's grandstanding his silliness again in hopes for notice and press from those who can't afford him to be taken seriously.

It is clear from Mike's method of reasoning that if farmers make profit from polluting waterways, and Mike makes money from researching and ranting poor-logic in the media about said farmers :. Mike makes his money from polluting the waterways.  
Bad Form Mike, blaming others for the exact same thing you're doing.
If Massey University had better screening for it's professors, then the embarrasing logic put forward by people such as Mike would be replaced with scientific research, which would be used at finding ways to economically removing stock from waterways (eg paying contractors, rather than media whores)

Thats O for Orsome mist, I

Thats O for Orsome mist, I had much more rural language in mind for that joyless F@#$%r.

Actually I think some letter

Actually I think some letter writing is in order.
I pay quite heavy fees, taxes and levies (like many farmers) and I'm surprised that Massey University still has Mike on the payroll.  I'm all for scientific and technological research, especially with regards to comparative and sustainability issues - by research the ideas we can come up with improvements.  That's why we've been paying levies (etc).
But this piece, as like many others by Dr Joy, are absolute rubbish by academic standards.
 
We have many expensive issues facing us today - DCD scares, Carbon issues, constant re-examination of our processes (eg NAIT)  and the worst effect that we have is the ill-informed stirring up media storms and the worst of them deliberately using emotive words and half truths to get them headlines and to sell their particular point of view through sensationalism.
Well if I was DairyNZ, Federated Farmers, Fonterra, Affco, SFF, or the many other companies putting large amounts of business Massey Universities way I'd be asking we they still have Dr Joy on their payroll.  When I was in the corporate world, running down your customers, and/or their industry was one of the quickest ways to get fired.  Lincoln and other Universities would be glad of the Agriculture and Horticulture funding.
Because while Joy is perhaps trained in Ecology and environmental sciences....he is most definately not trained in finance or agribusiness which are the fields that Massey University's _Doctor_ Mike Joy is ATTACKING the farmers over.   And he's not doing it academia, he's doing it in the media, in unscientific and (too be blunt) wildly inaccurate ways built around sensationalism and emotive grandastanding.
 The cost is through loss of land, through capital and interest for laying more fences and water systems, through the huge amortised but real cost of labour, and the inability for farmers to recover such costs from their customers.  These are financial issues of which Dr Joy raises in the media against Massey Universities customers, and are clearly things he is illinformed to comment on.
 Time to call our levy, tax and fee receivers and say we want our money spent with Research Institutes that _support_ OUR business in the media, unlike Massey University who see fit to hire an "academic" who feels free to bash us in the media, completely outside his field of expertise (but happy enough to use Massey's name in his credentials).