Squeeze on dairy farmers
Will ECan’s proposed nitrate reductions make dairy farming untenable, asks Paul Gorman.
Could this be the plan change that breaks the back of dairy farming? A proposal by Environment Canterbury (ECan) to protect Christchurch’s drinking water by setting tough – some would say, draconian – nitrate reductions in the decades ahead to stop the nasties creeping below the Waimakariri River, has some dairy farmers in states of high anxiety.
There are about 1.3 million dairy cattle in the region, a doubling from 2003 made largely possible by the expansion of irrigation schemes.
Simplistic arguments swirl around that, if dairying fails, the Canterbury Plains can easily revert to ‘‘cleaner’’ farming, such as cropping. But the ease of such a land-use shift and the belief cropping is better environmentally may be the stuff of myth.
TOO HARSH, OR TOO WEAK?
The impacts of the proposed nitrate cuts over the next 60 years have divided farmers and environmentalists. Some farmers consider the schedule of reductions beyond 2030 as a disincentive to keep going or encourage the next generation into the business.
However, ECan councillor Lan Pham, a freshwater ecologist, believes the plan change could call for even tougher nitrate reductions. She says ‘‘more improvement, much faster’’ is needed from ‘‘farmers who think they deserve a pat on the back for simply polluting a little bit less’’.
Any plan will be reviewed in 10 years, so farmers should not get too hung up on the longer term goals, which could well change.
Farmers are only being asked to reduce beyond good management practice (GMP) by 15 per cent over a decade, she says. ‘‘The rest of the reductions over 20-60 years, although they provide a general policy direction . . . could – like anything in the next plan review – change markedly depending on many factors,’’ Pham says.
CONCENTRATED URINE
So what are nitrates?
Lincoln University agri-food systems professor Keith Woodford says it is to do with the ‘‘piddle patch’’. ‘‘Nitrogen compounds [nitrates] leach though the soil and go into the deep aquifers and also into the rivers. Nitrogen is particularly an issue on shallow soils such as in Canterbury.
‘‘When you talk about nitrogen leaching, the main cause is not fertiliser directly – it is all about the piddle patch. When a cow piddles, in that square metre where it is piddling, it is putting nitrogen on to that spot at a rate of up to 1000kg per hectare.
‘‘That urine patch is more of an issue with cattle than sheep. And it is more of an issue with female cattle because of the way they piddle and how they concentrate it.
‘‘In spring and summer and early autumn, as long as the soils don’t get super-saturated . . . the nitrogen to be taken up by the plants. But into the second half of autumn and winter . . . that piddle patch leaches out.
‘‘If you really want to control that, you have to get the cattle off the paddock during that time.’’
FIVE SUB-ZONES
Shareholders in Waimakariri Irrigation Ltd (WIL) are worried and annoyed about ‘‘Plan Change 7’’ of the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, out for consultation until September 13.
They say reductions in nitrates after 2030 could cause financial ruin for some farmers. The plan change splits the area north of the Waimakariri River into five subzones. Zone E dairy farmers are saddled with the biggest reductions in nitrates, with a 15 per cent drop required by January 1, 2030; 30 per cent by the same date in 2040; 45 per cent by 2050; 60 per cent by 2060;
75 per cent by 2070; and 90 per cent by 2080.
Ben McKerchar, of Larundel Dairy Partnership at West Eyreton, has already spent $2 million on his
625-hectare operation over 10 years to achieve the independently audited baseline GMP (good management practice) standard.
He now finds himself in Zone E, faced with seemingly endless nitrate cuts that will put pressure on his business.
McKerchar says the $2m was mostly spent on effluent infrastructure and irrigation upgrades, as well as new technology such as flow meters, weather stations and soil-moisture probes to ensure efficient water use – by applying precisely the right amounts of water at the right time.
Indicative modelling shows these efforts have reduced nitrogen loss at Larundel significantly over the 10-year period, McKerchar says. He is ‘‘relatively confident’’ the farm can manage the 15 per cent cut by 2030 but the 30 per cent cut by 2040 will cause some to go ‘‘to the wall’’.
WIL environmental manager Paul Reese says those kinds of targets will make some want to give up farming almost straight away. ‘‘Expectations have got to be realistic, they have got to be achievable. The extremes of those tables are not helpful at all.’’
WIL chief executive Brent Walton said farmers could not see a way to achieve the necessary targets with current technology.
‘‘So why even start? We had such great momentum, support and buy-in from every single farmer until that table came out.’’
Reese says even getting to ECan’s baseline GMP is not going to be easy for some.
‘‘And the second step is the expectation around the nitrogenloss reduction. And for some it will be harder to get to baseline GMP.’’
That is because some farm owners have not upgraded effluent or irrigation systems as they could have, he says.
‘‘Up until about 2011, when the NPS [National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management] came out, every single signal was: get out there and produce, you are the backbone of the country, intensify, produce, produce, produce, keep on going; and that is what they did.
‘‘And all of a sudden, the signals have switched around and gone: right, now we need to consider the environment; and they are doing that. And people just say: you are just a bunch of vandals.’’
Walton says WIL works with any struggling shareholders but in the end they have to help themselves if they want to stay in the scheme. ‘‘They can get their water turned off – like getting your income turned off but you still have to carry on feeding the beasts – and then the next stage is actually getting booted off the scheme, so they would have to go and get their own individual consents.
‘‘So we have got 200 shareholders, and say one is not playing the game, that person has the potential to make the entire scheme non-compliant.’’
FEWER COWS A POSSIBILITY
Reese says it is unlikely just one factor might push a struggling dairy farmer into bankruptcy.
It might depend on the business structure, debt levels, and on the structure of the ownership and management of the farm.
Potentially there could be a reduction in cow numbers in years to come. ‘‘One of the biggest things this plan change, [and] the whole environmental focus, is driving is more efficient use of resources – basically water and fertiliser in particular. As soon as you start to reduce cow numbers, you start to hurt farm incomes.
‘‘The expectation that we will just drop cow numbers and see wonderful improvements may not necessarily pan out.’’
Walton says there may be a ‘‘perception that farmers are . . . making these massive profits’’.
‘‘There actually has to be enough [money] left . . . so they can make these improvements.’’
PROFITING FROM POLLUTION
Pham has ‘‘heard a lot’’ that farmers want to be seen as ‘‘part of the solution, rather than the cause’’. ‘‘If your farming practice is environmentally unsustainable, it is already economically unsustainable. There is no doubt positive changes in farm practice and investment are being made on a farm-by-farm level by some proactive farmers.
‘‘However, it is well overdue for us as a society to grasp the scale and the urgency of the changes required which, yes, may unfortunately mean some shortterm economic hardship.
‘‘Like anyone with any business, these farmers have made investment decisions and many have taken on debt at their own discretion. The same farmers are happy to enjoy their profits when markets are booming but as soon as they are asked to be held accountable for the true cost of their environmental impact, somehow it is acceptable to suggest that the public pick up the tab.
‘‘I would suggest that free ride has come to its end.’’
It would be morally wrong to leave nitrate pollution ‘‘for our kids and grandkids to deal with’’.
‘‘We are one of the largest remaining metropolitan cities in the world that doesn’t need to treat its water. It is socially unacceptable for any industry or private enterprise to profit from the pollution of our increasingly precious public resources. The implications for Christchurch’s drinking water is a classic case of where we have crossed the line.’’
A PLACE FOR WINTER BARNS
Woodford says the northern banks of the big Canterbury rivers have the poorest, stoniest soils of the Plains. For that reason it is a ‘‘myth’’ to say cropping would be a better use of that land than dairying. Even historic pine plantations on the north bank of the Waimakariri struggled with the conditions and were sometimes blown down before they could be usefully harvested.
‘‘As soon as you want to grow crops, you are going to have the same problem with nitrates.
‘‘There is this myth around that nitrogen leaching is just down to cows. But if you are going to grow potatoes, because of the cultivation you will also get big nitrogen leaching. Given cropping isn’t the solution, forestry isn’t the solution, beef cattle still produce piddle, we are going to have get cows off the pastures from mid-April through winter.’’ Composting barns are one method which can help liberate the land for several months and stop winter leaching, while dealing with cow effluent environmentally safely, and keeping animals safe and happy, Woodford says.
These pitch-roofed barns have open sides and a venting system.
‘‘It is still OK for the animals to go out and graze for several hours per day during these seasons, as long as they then come into a barntype situation ... for the rest of the time. The composting barn solution can definitely be economic if done properly – at a cost of about $1500 per cow,’’ Woodford says.
‘‘But right now, farmers currently are loath to invest in anything, given the social and economic climate.’’
‘‘There is this myth around that nitrogen leaching is just down to cows. But if you are going to grow potatoes, because of the cultivation you will also get big nitrogen leaching.’’ Keith Woodford