Here you are, Anon's-all and anyone else interested to hear and see what our ex-CEO is saying about farming and Councils, now that there's some distance between himself and us.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Ciaran Keogh's presentation at the "Growing Green" conference, Auckland
Here you are, Anon's-all and anyone else interested to hear and see what our ex-CEO is saying about farming and Councils, now that there's some distance between himself and us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Comming from Northern Europe where housing cattle indoors has long been the norm, I'm suprised that the Southland farmers dont do more housing of cattle indoors.
I remember the Greens were against this
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10614107
What is your take on cows indoors?
The presentation ended with such a premise and I can see many many advantages (not least effluent control, healthier stock and farmers, etc.).
Are the local councils against indoor farms?
Housing cattle indoors over winter is a kindness in areas where the climate is unfavourable. It also keeps them off the pastures and prevents erosion and overland flows of effluent into the waterways. There's a lot to be said for winter barns. The modern cow's a very domesticated animal. I'd not like to try to shed auroch. Otoh, your Northern European barns, Gerrit, are very unlike the giant stadiums being built down here - 190 metres in length and more concrete than a small motorway! I've concerns about that sort of investment.
As far as the Greens concerns go, those views might have been stated when the 'barning' was in it's infancy and conditions not so good. There are sheds on the market at present that I consider inappropriate and don't condone.
Care has to be taken too, that barning doesn't give an excuse for intensifying in areas that wil suffer in other ways. The McKenzie example is one where barns were proposed as a solution/reason for hoof-farming on an unsuitable landscape.
Better technologies can improve environmental protection but where they also bring intensification, I'm wary. Loading-up the system and becoming reliant on technology over farmer experience and the commonsense approach has some dangers.
The question of "barning" dairy cows in NZ is at a very interesting stage. Twenty years ago it probably have had little appeal, maybe still not much general support, but so much has changed in dairying and the environment that an industry-leading set-up could change that negative perception. I believe that most of the distasteful aspects of "barning" can be overcome, and many of the disadvantages of conventional farming also overcome to the benefit of the welfare of the animals, the environment, and human working conditions. Although the financial outlay would be eye-wateringly large, running costs also large, the increased productive efficiencies could be worthwhile. Southland or Otago would probably be ideal for such an enterprise to be trialled.
SC
SC. I divert to Roberts thoughts. He has actually formed a balance view which is nice to see. There are positives and negatives of sheds. But to put it simply the efficiencies, that are so regularly discussed, may not necessarily cover the millions of dollars out lay. Inevitably farmers do things like increase cow numbers, milk longer, increase feed purchase from nutrient intensive sources, and increases the intensity of cows on spring, summer, aumtumn pastures. You have to pay for the shed one way or another or you go broke fast.
You have pointed out the huge capital expense, putting dairy farmers at risk of volatile markets and creating a house of cards in Southland. Its easy to see benefits but I suspect much of these are negated by issues, costs and risks.
It is realistic to acknowledge that wintering sheds are no silver bullet. Many farmers are trying it and it is fair to say mixed results delivered. Often farmers talk of them highly. Although if I just spent a couple of million on a shed I would only say good things too. DairyNZ are releasing a report about the costs benefits and decision processes.
There are sheds and there are sheds. My preference is for a low-tech, purpose built barn that doesn't commit the farmer to the treadmill of having to intensify beyond what is reasonable, in order to pay the thing off. That involves more than just the initial design and ties in with stock numbers and feed production. The last thing I want to see is sheds that iompact onj other parts of the world, eg PKE producing environments, and gaining their productivity advantage by disadvantaging other environments. It's a balancing act. I've seen one good example of it being achieved.
Very interesting Robert ..to be frank I never understood why he was not reemployed by ES..when I worked at ES I found it was a smooth happy ship this only happens if it management of the ship is good.
Re regulatory ..this is what I have suggested needs to happen for sometime .... I discovered when I said this lots of negative comments etc BUT also interesting many farmers agreed with me and said it would make it better for them if it was more regulated..ie the good farmer had nothing to worry about but the other plenty to worry about !
Robert @4.45pm
Back to your biodynamic wizardry eh?
Paulinem @ 3.15am
In my opinion the relationship between farmers and the council is at an all time low. I believe that is a result of a trend towards regulation. It is hard for regulation and teaching (learning) to occur at the same time. I believe a trend back to teaching and learning is needed. Learning needs to go both ways.
I also believe technology is inevitable and future technologies will be, in large part, learning tools. I think if the council goes back to teaching and learning farmers will share their learing tools with the Council. I imagine a region where we could pin point weaknesses in an instant. Imagine the power of that. Increased regulation would not facilitate such a vision.
Also a couple of overservations. I have never seen a repesentation with so many claims lacking data to back those claims up. He is welcome to present opinions but without backup data I treat claims as opinion only.
Also the "we" was repeated over and over. It would almost seem he still works for ES.
Anonymous said:
"In my opinion the relationship between farmers and the council is at an all time low."
He also said:
"He is welcome to present opinions but without backup data I treat claims as opinion only."
Fair enough.
At least I state them as opinions not portray them as facts.
He wasn't presenting a scientific paper, Anonymous, but his view on the potential for an approach that's been floated for a while now. Everyone at the conference kbnew it was his view. Cut him some slack, for goodness sake (as I do you).
I have no problem with his view being presented on technology. But the information leading up to that... There was so much up it and in my opinion, it lacked quantification.
"Everyone at the conference knew that it was his view" Did you survey them? :)
"Cut him some slack". Like you did to Mr Willis, Mr Rose and Mr English on this blogg site. To me, it appears that you willingly forgive loose statements from those that share your political views and the others.... Well... Look out. Should I reference the posts?
You cut me "slack"? How is that? Why is that? I may be a constituent but surely political gains are not that important to you?
I have no problem with his view being presented on technology.
Excellent!
But the information leading up to that... There was so much up it and in my opinion, it lacked quantification.
It was a 10 minute presentation, what were you expecting?
"Everyone at the conference knew that it was his view" Did you survey them? :)
Yes
"Cut him some slack". Like you did to Mr Willis, Mr Rose and Mr English on this blogg(sic)site.
Yes. I look and listen to what they say and respond directly to their words.
To me, it appears that you willingly forgive loose statements from those that share your political views and the others.... Well... Look out. Should I reference the posts?
Yes. That would be fun. I like details and actual examples, rather than broad generalizations. Go for it!
You cut me "slack"? How is that?
It was a light-hearted statement. Be cool.
Why is that? I may be a constituent but surely political gains are not that important to you?
Of course. Politics is fun!
It was a 10 minute presentation, what were you expecting?
Cough - 20 minutes. To quantify it correctly.
Yes
Wow, you even asked that question?
Yes. I look and listen to what they say and respond directly to their words.
Are you deliberately ignoring my point?
Yes. That would be fun. I like details and actual examples, rather than broad generalizations. Go for it!
You missed the humor
Of course. Politics is fun!
Meh. I hate politics. But I understand certain personality types find it fun.
Post a Comment