I'm closely following the on-line comments that the series of articles on dairying the Southland Times have been running lately. They're the usual mix of for and against, with some trite thrown in for good measure. I've contributed just the one comment, in response to a pointed criticism around the word 'draconian', but have generally kept my own counsel.
Here's sample of what people are saying:
Chris #5 10:19 am Apr 08 2012
Federated Farmers and the dairy industry is close to having zero credibility after the last week. Their own president agreed that something needs to be done about controlling the never-ending stream of dairy conversions, and in response the dairy farmers turned their back on him and he'll most likely be rolled in the coming weeks. Now the Fed's vice-president wants to hire scientists to disprove ES's scientists findings that say dairy farming is almost certainly to blame for our degraded waterways. Why not hire some scientists to prove the earth is flat while you're at it boys?
Monday, April 9, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Sitting from afar this constant them and us is sad the read about when the answer lies in cooperative thinking.
Such as farmers instigating a "night cart" service (must be a few ex milk tankers lying around) for the dairy effluent captured by the milk shed runoff.
The local community (especially sixth and seven formers as project managers) finds the best method to treat the sewerage to generate reuseable resources (methane gas, dry fertiliser, irrigation water, etc.)
The council fast tracks RMA consent to build a treatment plant (possibly extand the existing sewerage treatment plant?).
The local community creates a cooperative to fund the treatment plant (suitable for human sewerage as well).
The local business association takes on the task to market the treated products and ensure the treatment station at least breaks even (profit would go back into the community).
Once the cowshed effluent has been removed from the eco system in its raw form, the farm run off becomes the next project for the six and seventh formers project managers to tacke (young people a clear thinkers without the blinkers of age and bigotry).
Such as wintering pads, feedout stations, best local feed to grow for the feedout stations (to supplementy pasture grazing and increase effluent collection from wintering and feedout pads), planting flaxes alongside the drains, ditches and streams, etc, etc.
Hoepfully we will see this type of cooperation wil flow onto other farming districts.
But why stop with effleunt treatment? Many, many projects could be community owned and run for the benefit and profit to suit local requirements.
Stop butting heads and causing nothing but headaches.
Put the heads together for the exitment of the future.
It sure reads that way from afar, Gerrit, but collaboration has been the hallmark of progress between industry and regulators up to the point where the feds baulked at the transitional rule. Personally, I think they dropped the 'collaboration' ball and dug their toes in, unnecessarily. They'll say differently, but here we are. Your suggestions for community solutions are good ones and there is a lot of movement in that direction. I'd like to see the same for the disposal of dead farm animals as well, rather than burying them on farm. We're discussing this at present.
Who, might I ask, would be the 'initiator' of the cooperative projects you describe? A representation of industry, governance, community... who, I wonder could swing it?
The only problem with initiatives such as suggested is it requires a vehicle using imported fuel to pick up store or distribute.
With predicted rise of oil prices it could be a problem to make it constant solution to diary farming.
What needs to happen is stiff laws with stiff painful fines or those that ignore the laws.
that say
1) All waterways must be fenced of from livestock.
2) Riparian planting as directed by regional council along waterways
( I am told somewhere in Southland think Balfour way ..the farmer planted fruit or nut trees along the waterways and as result the owner now has a a very productive orchard growing along the waterway.)
Fertilizers high in nitrogen content should be banned or only allowed to be used in areas where the waterways would not be threatened by their use.
If these laws were introduced I believe our waterways problems would be diluted considerably with pollution from dairy farming.
I do think that any solution should apply equally to existing dairy farms as to new ones.
I also think that Southland must be close to saturation point with dairy farming and the proposed new plant of Fonterra is scary as it will put more pressure on our land to stock more cows.
Pauline - if you find out who the fruit-tree-planting dairy farmer is, I'd love to hear from you. It's a story I'd like to follow up. Hedgerows are a (growing) passion of mine.
My own view is that 'effluent' should be managed on-site, used fresh and in lieu of synthetics. A recent presentation to the Council by a man who has designed such a system looks very promising indeed. Tiny application rates, rapid turn-over and a high degree of control with zero or thereabouts chance of mistakes. The quality of the manure concerns me, given the lack of 'body' to urea-fed grasses and the pats they (don't) produce.
All that said, the issue is, as you say, full allocation and the way forward for an industry that seeks to expand and at the same time not ruin the environment. It's a tough question and if industry won't agree to capping numbers of cows, they'll have to, in co-operation with community and Council, come up with some very clever ideas. There are such ideas out there, but one branch of the industree is rubbing against the other. The 'Theo Spierings letter' that Hugh Gardyne alludes to is a good example.
Gerrit is one the right path with his thinking. Farmers are past masters at cooperative thinking but even now their best example is under threat from the greedy and the grasping and the ignorant who are trying to corporatize it.
And pauline the cow is a wonderful energy collector -80% of the total fuel value of what a cow eats comes out its rear end. That this is the case is evidenced by the fact that about quarter of the worlds population uses dried cowshit as cooking and heating fuel it is just a matter of getting or keeping the water out of it and air drying does that - just a matter of developing technologies to utilse it and they are simple and commonplace but not as convenient as the liquid fossil fuel engine. If each cow was to excrete the equivalent of 10kWhr (rough guess only) of fuel equivalent each day a 700 cow herd would be excreting the equivalent of 7000kWhr per day - if the waste was collected and converted to mechanical or heat energy a modern farm could be enregy self sufficient in all aspects, and the flue ash could go back on the farm as fertilser.
Fertilizers high in nitrogen content should be banned or only allowed to be used in areas where the waterways would not be threatened by their use.
Add groundwater to that, Pauline.
if you find out who the fruit-tree-planting dairy farmer is, I'd love to hear from you. It's a story I'd like to follow up. Hedgerows are a (growing) passion of mine.
Hmm could be difficult as we were told in class by a visiting rep on water pollution in the South
I think from memory it could have been a representative of ES. But the town Balfour I am sure was mentioned and also their school had a involvement some how... BUT it was about two years ago now so !!! I was facinated as it made sense with the nitrogen discharge been very good for fruit trees as a fertilizer.
I'll sniff it out. Thanks Pauline.
Balfour's not too far off.
Post a Comment