He did too. Ciaran Keogh, introducing himself as a battle-scarred ex-CEO of 'a regional council', whipped-up a very enthusiastic response from an otherwise quite audience at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland - the reason for my very recent trip away from the Mainland, with his presentation, described below by Southland Times journalist, Shaun McAvinue. Ciaran provoked even more reaction with his 'from the floor' description of what he believed needs to be done to improve local government and make the systems run more smoothly. I happened to be having coffee with my ex-employee when Shaun rang for an interview and was happy to add my impression on the subject of Ciaran's contribution to the conference.
"The former head of Environment Southland says new technology can ensure good farmers having a bad day are not unfairly prosecuted by compliance officers.
Former Environment Southland chief executive Ciaran Keogh said among the well-attended environmental conference in Auckland yesterday were Environment Minister Amy Adams, Primary Industries Minister David Carter and Nelson MP Nick Smith.
Mr Keogh was invited by the Environmental Defence Society to talk about new AG-HUB technology at Aotea Centre. The online system records real-time data on pasture cover, water, effluent and fertiliser management, field moisture and temperature to help farmers make decisions on productivity and compliance.
Council prosecution for non-compliance was incident-based, so a good farmer on a bad day could be unfairly punished, he said.
With the AG-HUB technology, compliance officers could see if it was an isolated incident, like an effluent irrigator stalling, to decide whether prosecution was necessary. The technology could revolutionise compliance by giving officers more certainty and control. "It puts things in context because people know the facts," he said.
The technology cost about $45,000 but lasted up to 10 years, he said, and doubled as a management tool by letting farmers know what their staff were doing.
The system could cut off power to the milking shed if the effluent pond was more than 80 per cent full and would force staff to irrigate before milking, he said.
The effluent spreader could have pre-programmed GPS routes so effluent would not be accidently spread in certain areas of the farm, he said. "It will stop the day-to-day stuff-ups."
Mr Keogh said he had no commercial interest in the AG-HUB company.
The annual conference had the theme Growing Green, he said.
Environment Southland member Robert Guyton, who was at the conference, said Mr Keogh's inspirational speech opened the eyes of politicians, regulators and farmers. "His talk caused the most ripples, it's a damn shame we lost him from Southland."
shawn.mcavinue@stl.co.nz
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Council prosecution for non-compliance was incident-based, so a good farmer on a bad day could be unfairly punished, he said.
So farmers want to have their 'average' compliance considered and to be allowed to slip up here & there and get away with it. Not so slack for those of us in the health sector. A good clinician who has 1 'bad appointment' where something goes wrong, can expect to have action taken against them. No one is perfect, but the rules (rightly so) say we should all try to be. Why should dairy farmers have a lessor standard applied?
Viv - Ciaran's saying that the best way to avoid accidents is to 'computerize' everything - effluent application through to water monitoring and everything in between. It's the 'rogue' farmers that cause the greater damage by their poor performance, so take the potential for their mistake out of the picture by installing technologies that turn-off anything that gets used wrongly - turn off the whole milking shed if the effluent pond is too full, etc. It's not 'being allowed to slip up' - that will be covered by the echnologies, it's creating opportunity for a Council to facilitate these changes, redeploy it's compliance staff to other areas and reform the relationship between the Council and farmers, while at the same time vastly improving the quality of the water and the rest of the environment.
That's the gist of his argument anyway, so far as I can see.
There are some asonishing technologies out there now. Somehow, those have to be installed on farms. It's very difficult for any individual farmer to locate tall of them, but a Council might be able to broker their deployment.
I understand that this new technology would be a useful tool. I still have an issue with the agricultural sector’s apparent attitude that the average farmer has their heart in the right place & is trying to do the right thing and so should be given lots of leeway and not pressured too much. In the health sector (& education too) it is expected that everything will be done to the highest standard all the time- no points for just trying. The government harps on about “the tail” of underachievers in the school system and continually focuses on the negative, yet we’re supposed to forgive & understand farmers for underachievement .
I know I’ve got a bit off-topic from your post, as you can tell it’s something that bugs me. It seems to me that many of the environmental problems arising from dairy farming are due to over stocking- basically greed, and then when fairly ordinary stuff happens, eg a heavy rain event, the farmers cry ‘it’s not our fault, it’s the rain’ when effluent gets into waterways. If they weren’t trying to wring every cent of the land by putting dairy cows everywhere, I doubt the pollution would be as bad. Adding a complicated & expensive computer technology might just encourage some to carry on juggling too many risk factors.
Viv K at 2.10pm
I would encourage you to spend some time on farm if you have not already. Farmers deal with many uncontrollable factors. The factor that causes the most management problems is perhaps weather. If you can imagine a clinician trying to handle patients in a paddock. Some days patients couldn't make it because they would get stuck. Some days it would be insanitary to apply medications. Imagine if they were prosecuted for those 'somedays'. Clinicians have a very difficult job, but the environment is very controlled.
If you want to be that tough on farmers lets consider it a different way. Lets imagine we send one patient around all clinicians in the region. Depending on the problem I would imagine there could be a range of treatment programmes delivered. Now obviously there will be a best practice handling of that patient. Should we prosecute the others. They may have solved the problem... But not best practice. Should they be punished? They have tried their best but it is not the best.
I agree with Robert. There are many technologies to help farmers minimise incidents. As has been pointed out rogue farmers cause the greater damage. Whilst technologies help to prosecute rogue farmers with confidence forcing all farmers to use technologies costs and punishes all. I prefer to see councils educate in the benefits rather than legislate (within reason). Education is a difficult task when compliance is becoming trendy. How inviting would you be of someone with battle scars?
A Tsunami starts off with a ripple. Ripples are not always good.
Viv - I know where you are coming from in saying that we have to be careful not to 'forgive' the cumulative effects of farming, especially the further intensification, by pointing at the 'tail' and blaming that, as many in the industry are doing. At the same time, it would be beneficial to have systems that overrode the carelessness of those who aren't good at farming and prevented their inexperience/neglect from impacting badly on the environment.
Anonymous - I'm not suggesting farmers be forced to adopt technologies any more than they are now, but that a council could have a role greater than educating, which is quite limited in its effect, but could facilitate the spread of technologies through various means. They might, for example, provide a central point at which industry, the technology providers and the governing bodies, could meet and share information. Perhaps the banking industry could be in there also, looking for opportunities to help.
Viv's fears that intensification might get a green light as a result and that intensified systems are riskier than low-impact ones, is fair and has to be accounted for. I call on the precautionary principle to be invoked at all points of the discussion. Supermarkets are efficient, high-tech industries that operate on very exact margins, but are very vulnerable to failure. Just watch what happens when there is a power failure or an earthquake along their supply lines. We don't want to set up our farms to be vulnerable in the same way.
Robert @ 11.41am and
Viv @ 8.39am
Some negative sentiment there. To add balance we have to acknowledge that farmers have made a lot of progress in reducing some historical environmental concerns. ES has reported reductions in waterway phosphates and coliforms (in many but not all waterways). Poorly reported and poorly stated by some councillors unfortunately. Many of these gains have been at the expense of immediate returns. Many farmers take steps above and beyond council requirements and peers expecations.
Sure there are still issues but in my opinion recognising them without balance for good farmers will not help to encourage the collaboration you speak of Robert.
Regarding your last precautionary comment Robert. I couldn't agree more. If we encourage a high capital cost structure to farms we do 2 risky things. We send returns from local products to overseas banks. And we risk over capitalising when Fonterra continues to remind us that milk price volatility is a new reality. If we add significant debt we risk creating a house of cards. Many banks are currently encouraging farmers to reduce expenditure for fear of reduced milk returns.
Yes, phosphorus, Anonymous.
I'd love to hear what you think about nitrate, because that's the real issue, isn't it. Viv has the measure of that and knows that there's next to nothing being done to prevent the pollution of the rural environment, water included, by nitrates. They come straight from the cow, you see, and are pissed onto the ground - the higher the stocking rate, the greater the problem and it is a real problem for Southland, one that won't be effectively countered by technology. It's the problem the dairy industry doesn't want to talk about. How about you, Anonymous? Will you talk about it?
You obviously havent heard of nitrogen inhibitors that slow the conversion to nitrates .
heaven forbid that we ever consider anything positive Mr guyton,,
I know a good deal about nitrate inhibitors, anonymouse, and have heard presentations from industry, scientists and environmentalists about their effectiveness or otherwise. I wonder what your view is on them? You offer no opinion. As to considering positive things, mouse, I do that all of the time but it become very dull constantly espousing the values of organic agriculture, compost toilets, community initiatives and so on, so I'm more interested in hearing defences for those things I find to be less than ideal. Like nitrate management on farms. have you any good ideas on that topic, anonymouse?
It concerns me that while you focus on the negative ,, while extolling the virtues of organic growing,, you cant see the potential already being employed on farm,,
i suggest you go and find some farmers with low nitrate sampling and ask them how they do it ??
i suspect they might tell you , that they didnt learn their skills . from aggressive regulatory policies
Robert @ 1.14pm
Happy to talk about nitrates while you ignore positives.
ES have recorded nitrates increasing (in many but not all waterways). Accepting that and moving on, what are my thoughts around it? In my opinion it appears our systems leak too much nitrogen. I believe we have to accept that as a fact to move forward, even if the science has been labelled by some as questionable. It is important to take ownership of the problem even if the evidence lacks. Although it is hard to accept in stone throwing situations which is why I discourage it.
Farmers have been changing rapidly to try and change this problem. Nutrient capture has changed incredibly and much of that change is yet to translate in waterway improvements but will happen.
Levy paid organisations are working hard to identify the specific problems so the specific changes can be made. The same organisations are also working hard to consider improvements.
I think this is the right way to tackle the problem. ie where can we make the most effective change? The old question of what is the greatest benefit for the least cost? A quesiton ignored by the minimal gain for maximum cost management plans.
In my opinion there does need to be some additional steps. N application needs some regulation (management plans and ORC overseer models are not ideal). A well designed quota system would be ideal. And products like progibb and N inhibitors need more research. I also would like to see more research done on our wintering systemns. What is the optimal P and N best practice and timing to maximise gains and minimise loss from crops? This is poorly understood. More information and teaching is needed.
The "nothing being done" comment shows a level of naivety. The amount of research put into sustainable N use is impressive. A lot at the expense of the farmer and tax payer. Surely to understand urine patch issue you must have read some research or spoken to an expert? And surely the problem must be identified before action is taken? Is that nothing? Or do you magic these theories up?
I will give you credit for raising the issue. About time too. Southlands greatest environmental threat is a simple element. Go on.... Lets collaborate to solve the problem. Even better. Create an ES committee that concentrates on N and N only. Invite Feds to join in and help, you might be surprised.
Why is it I feel like I am the only one to offer solutions here when others prefer to throw stones? Is it simply that stones win votes and solutions don't?
Anonymous said...
Robert @ 1.14pm
Happy to talk about nitrates while you ignore positives.
There are positives about nitrates? I guess its a matter of degree - there is too much of it, I'd have thought.
ES have recorded nitrates increasing (in many but not all waterways). Accepting that and moving on, what are my thoughts around it? In my opinion it appears our systems leak too much nitrogen.
Nitrates, yes.
I believe we have to accept that as a fact to move forward, even if the science has been labelled by some as questionable.
You've 'accepted that and moved forward, but still imply that there is doubt? Odd.
It is important to take ownership of the problem even if the evidence lacks.
The evidence lacks? I thought you'd accepted that and moved on". Odder still. Where do you really stand?
Although it is hard to accept in stone throwing situations which is why I discourage it.
Can't follow you here - what do you mean?
Farmers have been changing rapidly to try and change this problem. Nutrient capture has changed incredibly and much of that change is yet to translate in waterway improvements but will happen.
Nutrient capture doesn't cover the nitrate problem though, Anon, does it. It's largely urine straight to ground.
Levy paid organisations are working hard to identify the specific problems so the specific changes can be made.
Changes? Such as...
The same organisations are also working hard to consider improvements.
I'm interested to hear about those, Anon.
I think this is the right way to tackle the problem. ie where can we make the most effective change? The old question of what is the greatest benefit for the least cost? A quesiton ignored by the minimal gain for maximum cost management plans.
In my opinion there does need to be some additional steps. N application needs some regulation (management plans and ORC overseer models are not ideal). A well designed quota system would be ideal.
You're talking about applications of urea, Anon? That's the easy bit. What about urine patches?
And products like progibb and N inhibitors need more research.
They aren't proving very effective down here are they? Seems a wrong direction to take, to me. Antibiotics applied to the broad acre is a bad concept.
I also would like to see more research done on our wintering systemns. What is the optimal P and N best practice and timing to maximise gains and minimise loss from crops? This is poorly understood. More information and teaching is needed.
Agreed. That's a good direction to take but we are going there too slowly. In the meantime, stock numbers are increasing...
(Have to continue in a seperate comment, Anon - the powers that be won't allow me a lengthy comment :-))
The "nothing being done" comment shows a level of naivety. The amount of research put into sustainable N use is impressive.
Impressive? Maybe. What's the result though? Anything that reduces nitrate pollution? Really?
A lot at the expense of the farmer and tax payer. Surely to understand urine patch issue you must have read some research or spoken to an expert? And surely the problem must be identified before action is taken? Is that nothing? Or do you magic these theories up?
What theories are you referring to? Can you tell me of one genuine advance on the problem that has been implemented? Nitrate inhibitors don't excite me much, I have to say. Do they you?
I will give you credit for raising the issue. About time too. Southlands greatest environmental threat is a simple element. Go on.... Lets collaborate to solve the problem.
What do you mean by "collaborate"? Simple question.
Even better. Create an ES committee that concentrates on N and N only. Invite Feds to join in and help, you might be surprised.
A committee? Ha ha ha ha! You are funny. Okay, who would you want on board? Me?
Why is it I feel like I am the only one to offer solutions here when others prefer to throw stones? Is it simply that stones win votes and solutions don't?
You have solutions? I'm intensely interested to hear what you have. And what is it with your obsession with stones:-)?
I invite you to use this forum to describe your solutions. I'm genuinely interested and can assure you, there are those who read but don't comment here, who will be as interested as I am. And thanks for offering up your thoughts. I'm keen-as to see them.
mr Guyton,, i have offered u a solution... ask the best pastoral farmers in the world how they would tackle the issues , or is that just too much of a psychological obstacle for you
Some people concentrate on problems.. other concentrate on solutions
we are indeed fortunate our forebears were positive and progressive other wise you mr Guyton, we would still be driving the horse and cart ,, obviously you would be happy if we all had a push bike ,
I would be happy, Anonymouse, if we all had a pushbike! There're the most efficient of all transport options, I believe, and like you, I respect efficiency and science. have you a pushbike? I do, and I use it.
Asto asking the best pastoral farmers in the world for a solution to nitrates resulting from cow urine, I ask them often! Do you have a solution? I'm all eas and genuinely interested!
ANONYMOUSE SAYS ..
once again,,, you have not gone out into the field and asked .
these people who are out there . and as far as i can see highly productive as well.
as with all things to concentrate on one issue or one facet of an issue and expect a solution yesterday ,, is a tad optimistic.
remebering that nitrogen is probably the third or fourth most abundant element both occurring naturally in atmosphere and water . Biological processes not related to agriculture whether that be meteorological or those produced by all fauna and flora also , imput into the nitrogen cycle,
all n has or will at some time go thru the same cycle . and as a result there will be various forms of n in various amounts ,, some being nitrate N.
this is not new ,, it is not solely related to agriculture .
the n loses in some agricultural systems far outstrip those from animal agriculture and dairy,
at the moment ,, i watch with interest as the blind lead the blind developing ever increasing restrictive regulation to dumb down agriculture ,,
i have been associated with agriculture for much of my working life ,, and there is no doubt regulators dont know agriculture and are not good at observation or interpretation of what happens in the field ,,
No no no, Anonymous, nitrates from agriculture are threatening human health in Southland. Your obscure rant (previous) avoids the simple facts.
I hope you will share your acute observations on this issue, after alluding to them.
What's the truth about nitrates?
ANONYMOUSE SAYS .... AND RIGHT ON CUE,, THAT WAS NOT A" RANT" IT WAS FACT..why dont you want to ask people involved in agriculture mr guyton,, and no as i understand there has been no incident of blue baby syndrome in new zealand ,, it has occured in the states and that experience has been transferred here as fact ..??
You're claiming that there is no threat to New Zealanders from nitrates that result from agricultural practices?
Okay..........
Anonymous at 8.50am
35 years rural living so far and counting, so am not coming at this from an urban view.
Your comparison with healthcare doesn’t work. The clinical environment is not very controlled as you suggest. Patient are human animals and they and the conditions people work in are variable. Having said that, there would not be much of a ‘range of treatment programmes delivered’ . Evidence based treatment means that an appropriate consistent standard of care will be delivered. Those who don’t follow the ‘best practice’ handling of the patient can expect to be censured and possibly prosecuted and punished. A different standard to farming it seems.
Anonymous at 1.02pm
The Tokomariro river is dirtier when it arrives at the town of Milton than when it leaves, the run off and discharge from the sewage system dilutes and reduces the e coli count. Check the ODT in July for the reports on that river. That problem comes from too many cows - full stop. The facts are negative, not the messengers.
Our systems leak too much nitrogen because too much nitrogen is going into the system!
Anonymous @ 7.14.
“Our forebears “ didn’t cover the Mackenzie country and Canterbury with dairy cows.
I am not anti dairy per se. I have lived in the Waikato and in Northland in historic dairy farming areas. When I lived in the Hakataramea Valley it was sheep and cropping, now there are dairy conversions spreading over the land. Surely ’the best pastoral farmers in the world’ wouldn’t expect to apply the one model (ie a dairy farm) to land that isn't suited to it?
aNONYMOUS E SAYS certainly not as much risk as riding your push bike around on the open road.
you appear to be desperate to put words in people mouths ,
To drag the discussion back to problems and not solutions.
like it or not you are one of my regional representatives , and i would prefere you to be solution focused .
as i have observed this blog and considered it a window into the green attitude,, i find one thing ironic,,
as a group, the green philosophy seems to be a desire to return to a kinder , less stressful and more caring social atmosphere ,, but of course to be " green' seems to also mean in reality , a desire to legislate everyone and everything that doesnt agree with you out of existence or into financial paupery .
its ok to be "mean if your green"?.. others might term it as fascist .
ANONYMOUSE SAYS .. lets not cherry pick data from all over ,,
my comments are in the context of agriculture in Southland ..
other wise we could be all over the show citing examples of urban sewerage systems ,, run off from metoipoliton .
when i talk about the best pastoral farmers in the world , i am in fact using that term to describe sotuhland / ssouth otago pastoral systems ,
agricultural practice that is considered by those in the northern hemisphere fantastically innovative and to use the much abused term" green"
we are in danger in the south . of having regulators getting this wrong ,, and even now there have been huge mistakes made .
for those who practice and understand agriculture ,, this is obvious .
What nonsense from you, Anonymous! Where have I promoted legislation over innovative solutions? Your prejudices are showing and they're not tempered by the presentation of evidence. Come on! You can do better than that!
Show me an example of what you claim - if you can't, withdraw your claim and apologise!
Waiting...
What 'huge miistakes', Anonymous?
You're all cloak and dagger.
Out with it, lad!
ANONYMOUSE SAYS .
NO APOLOGY FROM ME
you are party to a dirth of legislation and new policy regarding land use ,, and as such you are also party to legislative remedies . which are focused on fines and prosocution.
the compliance function with in the regional council continues to grow .
you are party to this direction also.
where is the investment in solutions d agricultural research as apposed to compliance ?
Anonymouse says ...
you ask for examples of mistakes ,
i asked some farmers a few years ago about storing effluent ,, after they had writhed around on the ground a bit and picked themselves up off the ground .
they said storing effluent was fraught with problems ,
like a lot of things ,, good in principle but as i understand it not that straight forward in practise ,, and so i quote Mr keough back at you,, with his remedy about storeage ponds being too full and so a milking shed would automatically shut off at some ungodly hour in the morning as the ag hub took over ,,
put some thing problematic in place , ,then add layers of regulations and rules to make it work,,,
thats what i mean when i talk about needing to be careful about the direction taken ,, w tih agriculture as with all things inlife
Anonymouse - it's 'dearth' and I'm sure you don't know what it means.
The compliance function, I would argue, has been somewhat hobbled, rather than expanded, though you'll not be party to that development and can't know what went down there...
I wonder if you've been enjoying a few beers tonight - that's my assessment. Tomorrow'll clear that up.
Anonymous@8:24
I'm with you there! Poo-ponds, eh!
Abominations!
Hardly something I was party to though, eh :-)
ANONYMOUS SAYS ,,
dear o dear o dear ..
back to personal criticism and now the next step aspersions as to a critics character and practice,,!!
unfortunately it would take more than a beer to allay my concerns.
your right ,, i dont know what goes on behind the scenes ,, , but what ive mentioned was of course headlines in the times .
.... i think we should be celebrating the capacity of nz agriculture .
and while we celebrate we can at the same time , continue to develop , changes in management to minimise negative effects ,,
what i see happening at the moment is green lobby desperately trying to legislate any innovation out of agriculture at grass roots level.. this presumes that bureaucrats and clerical people know more about agriculture than those who make agriculture their full time career.
this is a huge mistake i think
anonymouse .
yes it should be mountain of new regulation ,, rather than" dearth"
Robert @ 6.50 and 6.51pm
There are positives about nitrates? I guess its a matter of degree - there is too much of it, I'd have thought.
For a matter of correction, I was referring to the positive gains that farmers have made in phosphate and coliform reductions. You are suggestion that there are no positives from nitrates? Do you think farmers spend $800 a tonne of urea for fun?
You've 'accepted that and moved forward, but still imply that there is doubt? Odd.
it is important for me to recognise that whilst I am making an assumption some have the fair right question that assumption.
The evidence lacks? I thought you'd accepted that and moved on". Odder still. Where do you really stand?
I simply recognise the presence of a viable argument to my assumption again. Call it humility. I am sure you don't know what it means.
Can't follow you here - what do you mean?
If farmers are attacked they will defend their position with a viable arguement.
Nutrient capture doesn't cover the nitrate problem though, Anon, does it. It's largely urine straight to ground.
Do cows not pee in milking and wintering sheds? Do we not capture that and spread that according to council requirements? Okaaay. What was I thinking?
Changes? Such as...
I hope you are not suggesting that identifying the problem is not a viable part of change? If so you might have to stop some of the ES monitoring.
You're talking about applications of urea, Anon? That's the easy bit. What about urine patches?
No I didnt mention urea. There are many N containing fertilisers. "Easy bit"??? Other than the new conversion rules what is ES doing about N application?
They aren't proving very effective down here are they? Seems a wrong direction to take, to me. Antibiotics applied to the broad acre is a bad concept
Jury is out. Evidence for and against. When 'commercial science' is removed from the picture it doesn't look good. But I have not formed a solid opinion yet. Antibiotics? What? I eat baked beans therefore N inhibitors are bad.... Similar argument?
Agreed. That's a good direction to take but we are going there too slowly. In the meantime, stock numbers are increasing...
When you are questioning N inhibitors ask yourself "where did the urine patch science come from?". In my opinion urine patch scare mongering was a clever marketing approach for N inhibitor sales. Research focused on per lysimeter outputs which painted urine patches in a relatively negative light. N fetilisers got off scott free without people asking the question "what about per hectare comparisons" Clever marketing and you are a good fish and in my opinion. Hung up on stock numbers. The "easier" issue N fertiliser seems to be forgotten. Dont get me wrong urine is a concern. Simply over emphasised to shift the focus.
Impressive? Maybe. What's the result though? Anything that reduces nitrate pollution? Really?
Come on Robert... NZ farmers have been using clovers for years as a way of sustainably harnessing N. We have been world leaders in sustainable N use. Much of that has been as a result of research understanding. Long may that continue. Good science is the answer. Not the moon or magic powers. Perhaps you could apply to be the wizard of Invercargill if you want to forget about science?
What theories are you referring to? Can you tell me of one genuine advance on the problem that has been implemented? Nitrate inhibitors don't excite me much, I have to say. Do they you?
What do you mean by "collaborate"? Simple question.
*Sigh* Do I really have to tell a councillor how the council can collaborate? *Reinstating my patience....* Here we go....You're asking me for ideas.... How about we ask stake holders, even the Feds for ideas. Model the suggestions. Take results back to stake holders for review. Adjust the model. Come up with some 'maximum gain for minimum cost' answers. Test the findings...etc. If they own the solutions they adopt easier. Use your stake holders. Collaboration.... I know ES does some of this, but in my opinion it has been more about politics than involving stake holders in solutions. Venture Southland seems to have grasped the concept well.
A committee? Ha ha ha ha! You are funny. Okay, who would you want on board? Me?
Why do you sell yourself short? In my opinion committees need balance to function well. Do you think you would not be allowed on a N committee?
You have solutions? I'm intensely interested to hear what you have. And what is it with your obsession with stones:-)?
I invite you to use this forum to describe your solutions. I'm genuinely interested and can assure you, there are those who read but don't comment here, who will be as interested as I am. And thanks for offering up your thoughts. I'm keen-as to see them
In case you havent understood my solutions.
Collaboration to form the ideas and test the theories.
Research to identify the specific problems and solutions. Nothing rocket science you would think.... If you are hunting for a silver bullet, you might be hunting for a while. Sometimes answers require hard work. Sometimes battling is not the solution collaboration is. I challenge you to think of that the next time you intend to target Connor or Bruce in your blogs.
As a solutions-based Councillor, I'm most interested in your dénouement.
In case you havent understood my solutions.
I haven't struggled to understand them, Anon. They are quite straightforward.
Collaboration to form the ideas and test the theories.
We'll have to default to your interpretation of collaboration - the general sense of the word. I've tried to show you that the political 'collaboration' is more nuanced, but you've not accepted that. No matter, I'll run with your broad interpretation. There is a problem with doing so, but hei aha
Research to identify the specific problems and solutions. Nothing rocket science you would think...
There's plenty of that going on amongst the ES scientists. Cooperative too..
If you are hunting for a silver bullet, you might be hunting for a while.
Hardly. Magic Wonder solutions are not something I look for. Too pragmatic for that, me.
solutions Sometimes answers require hard work. Sometimes battling is not the solution collaboration is. I challenge you to think of that the next time you intend to target Connor or Bruce in your blogs.
"Target"? Give me a break! People in the positions those men have taken are not granted immunity from criticism, Anonymous, just as I am not. Fawning over them doesn't help anyone. There must be a creative tension kept between decision-makers and rank and file, presumably the reason you comment here. I suppose you also believe I shouldn't say that John Key speaks with a forked-tongue, that he has a lovely smile. Goodness, Anonymous, authoritarian much?
ANONYMOUSE SAYS
Mr Guyton,,, " solutions based councillor "
i have seen no solutions put forward by you in this forum.
save indirect reference to ever increasing controls , regulation and now endorsement of mr keoghs crazy idea of turning of dairy sheds so farmers cant milk cows ,
the compliance function at environment southland grew like topsey when mr keogh was the ceo.
Anonymouse, I'd like to help you with your self-induced ideological blindness, but wonder if I'd be wasting my time.
In this very post I'm advertising a technological solution to poor performers and the issue of council's over-reliance on regulation - did you not read it at all?
I despair a little at your shallow comment.
aNONYMOUSE SAYS ..
no mr guyton,, your advocating more control , and more expense .. in this case $45000 to employ technology without realising what has been suggested wouldnt work,
i suggest we wire your home up to a similar hub and monitor in real time your every move .. what a breakthrough... no longer will you have to cope with the stress of when to have a meal. wash or go to the toilet . if you get out of sync with the technology your electricity will be turned off.
does that make sense to you...?? because its no different than the solution you and mr keogh are advocating
your solution , is a non solution.. obviously , if your involved in agriculture and know how it works
aNONYMOUSE SAYS ..
no mr guyton,, your advocating more control ,
And you're advocating LESS control, aNONYMOUSE? That's irresponsible - a dairy industry that has LESS control over it's effects on the environment - shameful! Perhaps you are confused about who it is that has the control? Surely a farmer who has crutial aspects of his farming operation monitored and controlled, is rthe responsible, efficient farmer? The farmer who is, as you advocate, 'out of control', or having minimal control will be a danger to the environment and his industry, which relies of a good environment as well as good public relations.
and more expense .. in this case $45000 to employ technology without realising what has been suggested wouldnt work,
Wouldn't work? Why not? A monitor on effluent ponds is commonplace these days, surely? As to the expense, that's central to Ciaran's proposal - that councils, industry, financial institutions and farmers combine their expertise to provide affordable technologies that add to the economic success of each farm. Geddit?
i suggest we wire your home up to a similar hub and monitor in real time your every move .. what a breakthrough... no longer will you have to cope with the stress of when to have a meal. wash or go to the toilet . if you get out of sync with the technology your electricity will be turned off.
Do you know the phrase "reductio ad absurdum"? You certainly employ the technique, but not to any useful end.
does that make sense to you...?? because its no different than the solution you and mr keogh are advocating
Your take on the proposal doesn't make sense to me, no, because you have misunderstood it. Perhaps the article didn't do it justice and that would explain your confusion.
your solution , is a non solution.. obviously
It's not my solution, aNONYMOUSE, it was a presentation by Ciaran keogh at a conference.
, if your involved in agriculture and know how it works
Involved in agriculture? I guess I am. I take part in more workshops on farming issues than any man reasonably should, talk regularly with farmers, visit numerous farms throughout the year, argue issues with farmers on all sorts of platforms and have friends who farm, so to suggest that I'm not "involved in agriculture" is wrong, it seems to me.
anonymouse says .
you havent convinced me mr guyton,
i suggest when u go out an interface with farmers ,, you do more listening , you might actually learn somthing ,
why o why o why,, would u shut down a milking shed when u have an effluent pond with 20% freeboard??????
unless your sole objective is to create havoc, cost , inconvenience.
that attitude and it appears to be one you support , i nothing short of disgraceful.
i think you have become so infatuated with mr keoghs suggestion and the prospect that tegulatory bodies could employ such that you havent thought this through,
your function is not to attack people/ ratepayers / farmes / it is to work with people and develope solutions.
your suggestion is not a solution , its an example of what someone who doesnt know what they are talking about thinks is a solution
aNONYMOUSE
you havent convinced me mr guyton,
I didn't intend to. You have an entrenched position.
i suggest when u go out an interface with farmers ,, you do more listening , you might actually learn somthing ,
I would learn more, I do listen and I will go out and 'interface' with farmers ("interface'? - quaint choice of words).
why o why o why,, would u shut down a milking shed when u have an effluent pond with 20% freeboard??????
Why did I advise doing that, aNONYMOUSE?
unless your sole objective is to create havoc, cost , inconvenience.
that attitude and it appears to be one you support , i nothing short of disgraceful.
What pish.
i think you have become so infatuated with mr keoghs suggestion and the prospect that tegulatory bodies could employ such that you havent thought this through,
Infatuated? Why do you say that? I've simply posted an article from the Southland Times, because it included a comment I made from Auckland. I said his talk caused ripples - infatuated? ha!
your function is not to attack people/ ratepayers / farmes / it is to work with people and develope solutions.
So you say, but that's merely your opinion. Are you telling me what I should do? Dictator, are you? I thought you'd be one of those, 'let people have their own thoughts' kind of mouse.
your suggestion is not a solution , its an example of what someone who doesnt know what they are talking about thinks is a solution
Not a Keogh fan, eh aNONYMOUSE! Poor you. What did he do to upset you?
Anonymous misses the point RG that the system you are talking about has been developed by farmers for farmers - namely Ballance and Landcorp plus some others - it is not a regulatory all seeing eye - it is a sophisticated farm management system that as a bye-product could change the way farming is regulated very much for the better. The farmers who do use it do it to make more money and = to farm more efficiently - and by chance these farmers aslo tend to have less adverse impact on the environment as a side effect.
Perhaps because it is a sophisticated farm management system is the reason why anonymouse doesn't know about it/want to know about it/understand it
you can show some people commonsense but you can't make them think
Telling him that, darkhorse, would have been making it too easy. Yes, the system described is farmer-initiated and designed to maximise efficiency and minimise cost to the farmer, but anonymouse is determined that it is a plot to steal the God-given rights of farmers, somehow, and must be opposed.
It's Anonymous, I think, who bangs on and on about collaboration and it's to him I direst this question: what efforts have you made to collaborate with environmentalists?
Just one example would convince me that you are not being a hypocrite.
anonymouse says.
Mr Guyton,, do you support a computer program accessed by regional councils that can switch off milking sheds ,[ as your support of mr Keoghs suggestion indicates ]
A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL BE SUFFICIENT ???
aNONYMOUSE
You sound paranoid. The system described by Mr Keogh did not recommend the process you are suggesting. I can though, understand your fears; that with the flick of a switch, a central agency could turn off a milking shed. I've not promoted that idea at all. I think what you are doing is called 'boxing at shaddows'. So, that's a no from me, made bold so you don't misconstrue.
What I think Ciaran's proposal involved was a safety mechanism that alerted farmers to any possible 'overloads' in a system, electonically controlled it until the overload was attended-to, all under the control of an electronic system that was installed through the cooperation of every one involved. The beauty of such a system might be that the Council Compliance staff might never have to visit to assess breaches of consent, because there will be none, inexperienced farm workers would not cause discharges inadvertantly, farm owners wouldn't have to anguish over the possibility of being taken to court for mistakes their workers have made - it's all about precision, early intervention, failsafe systems and a unified, agreed-to-by-all-parties approach to managing the effects of farming on the environment as well as increased efficiency and a chance for farmers to free themselves from the Regional Council's influence. What's not to like?
It worries me that you are so reactive to the mere suggestion of a new idea, aNONYMOUSE. Your SHOUTED response is the sort that ruins collaborative efforts to improve all round :-)
Heard of Overseer, aNONYMOUSE?
http://www.overseer.org.nz/
It's a good place to start learning about systems that support good farming.
anonymouse says
yes mr guyton,, big brother will be watching 24 hours of the day,
what a repressive , regime you are prepared to embrace ,
dont you realise remote monitoring has been available for years ? but you and mr keogh are prepared to abuse the technology to
"switch of dairy sheds when effluent ponds are 80% capacity"
the data required to be available to a regulatory body, to prove you are innocent ,
interestingly enough anonymouse the pond at 80% full override that cut off the dairy shed power had nothing to do with the regional council - it was put in place by the farm manager who didn't want the sharemiklker to eb causing problems - obviously a more insightful farmer than yourself - you don't seem to realise that it if all farmers were like that one you wouldn't need regional councils - it is only reactionaries like yourself who make regulation necessary = you sound like a spoiled teenager.
no different than Fonterra putting speed limiters on their trucks - non-compliance becomes a non-issue and lots of other good things come from it too -better care for the vehicles by the drivers is one and improved fuel economy another.
actually if you want a good model of automated regulation the Fonterra vehicle fleet is a the best - the drivers can't sneeze without ti be recorded - they have loads monitored, gps tracking, braking and acceleration recorders - the whole works on each truck - pity they didn't watch their suppliers as closely as their drivers - then you definitely wouldn't need regional councils.
The reason for applying these technologies on farm are not altruistic/green - they are there to improve farm economic performance
My instincts say I should protect you, aNONYMOUSE, from the slapping darkhorse is giving you, but I'm not convinced that your position is a genuine one. You're determined to see up-to but not beyond, your own nose and I haven't been able to extend the focus of your vision at all so far.
What Keogh was describing might worry a council more than it seems to be worrying you, in that it proposes a reduction in their involvement in on-farm activities. You seem unable to see the possibilities here, choosing instead to flutter about crying 'Big Brother'.
Do you also worry about lizards in suits?
anonymouse says
what i worry about mr guyton,, is you endorsing a repressive and impractical excercise in compliance , where a dairy shed can be switched off if the effluent pond still has 12 days capacity left.
i dont think you two realise how impractical , disruptive ,, and convoluted that suggestion is , Obviously you wouldnt manage that issue in that fashion,, i wont tell you the more obvious method but i will repeat and
return to my orgional piont,
go and ask farmers in the field what they think of that idea ? have you done so .. will you do so ,, report back please?
"The former head of Environment Southland says new technology can ensure good farmers having a bad day are not unfairly prosecuted by compliance officers."
Didn't read/want to read the leading sentence to the article, aNONYMOUSE?
Hung up on one suggestion and the details thereof. Surely you don't think the proposal to automatically turn off a shed is set a fait accompli, do you?
Not a great collaborator, I imagine, aNONYMOUSE?
The concept Mr Keogh proposes is a good one, I believe. he'll have to take into account knee-jerky detail-pickers like yourself, if he's to progress it though.
"...it's a damn shame we lost him from Southland."
That is the strangest comment of all from RG as it was his council (governance) that gave the ex CEO the boot.
It was indeed, tired farmer, but there is always room in any council for individual opinion. The booting was not unanimously supported, by any means.
"Not unanimously supported"
Let's know the voting stats, please RG, so that the public knows who to vote for at the next election.
Robert @ 11th August 9.33am
As a solutions-based Councillor, I'm most interested in your dénouement.
I love self endorsements. They say alot about a personality.
We'll have to default to your interpretation of collaboration - the general sense of the word. I've tried to show you that the political 'collaboration' is more nuanced, but you've not accepted that. No matter, I'll run with your broad interpretation. There is a problem with doing so, but hei aha
I dont understand the nuance you describe. Perhaps you could elaborate?
There's plenty of that going on amongst the ES scientists. Cooperative too..
I love that term scientist. Such a losely used term now days. Back in my day you needed a phd to be a scientist. Now you simply need a box of weetbix
Hardly. Magic Wonder solutions are not something I look for. Too pragmatic for that, me.
Self endorsements again. Great!
"Target"? Give me a break! People in the positions those men have taken are not granted immunity from criticism, Anonymous, just as I am not. Fawning over them doesn't help anyone. There must be a creative tension kept between decision-makers and rank and file, presumably the reason you comment here. I suppose you also believe I shouldn't say that John Key speaks with a forked-tongue, that he has a lovely smile. Goodness, Anonymous, authoritarian much?
Does your form of criticism of people in such positions lead to productive relationships? Interested in your opinion. I was certainly not suggesting you should fawn. I don't care much for what you say about John Key.
Robert @ 10.42pm
It's Anonymous, I think, who bangs on and on about collaboration and it's to him I direst this question: what efforts have you made to collaborate with environmentalists?
Just one example would convince me that you are not being a hypocrite.
Was I 'banging'? Sorry you find it such a irksome subject. Are you fishing for identity? I am sure if I specified all the projects I have collaborated on I could not longer be called "anonymous". Given that it is not in my nature to self endorse I will have to leave you guessing about my hypocracy status. I do have to ask, why do we have to make this about me? Do you not like discussing collaboration by the council and nitrogen, or are you just being defensive?
Certainly, Tjred Farmer, but if you are referring to a particular vote, you'll have to tell me which one you are referring to.
Great to see you back, Anonymous.
Plenty of grist too, for my mill.
Anonymous said...
Robert @ 11th August 9.33am
As a solutions-based Councillor, I'm most interested in your dénouement.
I love self endorsements. They say alot about a personality.
You love self endorsements? Excellent! I'll try to do more of them.
We'll have to default to your interpretation of collaboration - the general sense of the word. I've tried to show you that the political 'collaboration' is more nuanced, but you've not accepted that. No matter, I'll run with your broad interpretation. There is a problem with doing so, but hei aha
I dont understand the nuance you describe. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I did eleaborate, Anonymous, further up the thread. I thought I provided quite a bit of detail. To add to that, at a Government level, MPs and experts in the field in question are sequesterd somewhere for a set time to view all evidence and debate the pros and cons. A decision is reach and the Government and its MPs bound by that decision. This is different from the collaboration you describe (or rather, don't describe - you've still not defined what you mean by 'collaboration'. This is a problem wih those calling for more of it - they don't know what it is. There are several Councillors in this boat.
Part one ends. part two follows.
There's plenty of that going on amongst the ES scientists. Cooperative too..
I love that term scientist. Such a losely used term now days. Back in my day you needed a phd to be a scientist. Now you simply need a box of weetbix.
You don't often say daft things, Anon, but that claim is quite daft. You must know, surely, that the ES scientists are qualified scientists. Surely you didn't think they were employed under false pretenses?
Hardly. Magic Wonder solutions are not something I look for. Too pragmatic for that, me.
Self endorsements again. Great!
I'm pleased when you're pleased!
"Target"? Give me a break! People in the positions those men have taken are not granted immunity from criticism, Anonymous, just as I am not. Fawning over them doesn't help anyone. There must be a creative tension kept between decision-makers and rank and file, presumably the reason you comment here. I suppose you also believe I shouldn't say that John Key speaks with a forked-tongue, that he has a lovely smile. Goodness, Anonymous, authoritarian much?
Does your form of criticism of people in such positions lead to productive relationships?
Between them and me? I don't imagine so, but then I'm not trying to build a relationship with them. My useful relationships are with my constituents.
Interested in your opinion. I was certainly not suggesting you should fawn. I don't care much for what you say about John Key.
Robert @ 10.42pm
It's Anonymous, I think, who bangs on and on about collaboration and it's to him I direst this question: what efforts have you made to collaborate with environmentalists?
Just one example would convince me that you are not being a hypocrite.
Was I 'banging'? Sorry you find it such a irksome subject.
Yes, you are, but that's okay, I like to bang on about some things too. The subject of collaboration is not irksome, the vagueness from those who call for it is.What do you mean by it? Can you define what you are calling for? So far, no.
Are you fishing for identity? I am sure if I specified all the projects I have collaborated on I could not longer be called "anonymous". Given that it is not in my nature to self endorse I will have to leave you guessing about my hypocracy status. I do have to ask, why do we have to make this about me?
It's not 'about you', Anonymous. It's about Ciaran Keogh's presentation at the Environmental Defense Society's conference.
Do you not like discussing collaboration by the council and nitrogen, or are you just being defensive?
I sincerely do want to discuss collaboration by the council. Care to tell me what 'collaboration' means? Are there rules? Agreements about process? Or are you happy just to use the word in a luvey-dovey sort of way, as a hippie might say 'peace' or 'groovy'?
Oh, and Anonymous, you might provide at least one example of where you've collaborated with environmentalists. You claim that you'd be revealed by citing examples looks like a very lame dodge to me. Don't be frightened.
Robert @ 12.57pm and 1pm
You don't often say daft things, Anon, but that claim is quite daft. You must know, surely, that the ES scientists are qualified scientists. Surely you didn't think they were employed under false pretenses?
I didn't make any claim about ES scientists Robert. Simply that I have seen the term scientist used in many ways in questionable circumstances. Is there are definition of scientist under New Zealand law?
Between them and me? I don't imagine so, but then I'm not trying to build a relationship with them. My useful relationships are with my constituents.
I dont understand. I understood that productive relationships were an important part of the councils decision making process. Are they not? Are productive relationships with the Feds not useful?
Yes, you are, but that's okay, I like to bang on about some things too. The subject of collaboration is not irksome, the vagueness from those who call for it is.What do you mean by it? Can you define what you are calling for? So far, no
To put it simply I would like to see more collaboration when policy is being written. In my opinion that requires productive relatinships with people like Connor and Bruce. Nothing to do with super councils or anything like that. Is that groovy with you?
It's not 'about you', Anonymous. It's about Ciaran Keogh's presentation at the Environmental Defense Society's conference.
Beaut
I sincerely do want to discuss collaboration by the council. Care to tell me what 'collaboration' means? Are there rules? Agreements about process? Or are you happy just to use the word in a luvey-dovey sort of way, as a hippie might say 'peace' or 'groovy'?
Rules of collaboration. Decided on the day for the circumstances. Generally pretty easy if parties are getting one well together.
Oh, and Anonymous, you might provide at least one example of where you've collaborated with environmentalists. You claim that you'd be revealed by citing examples looks like a very lame dodge to me. Don't be frightened.
I have been labelled an environmentalist before. I do put organic compost on my spuds. Being part of the team makes me a collaborator. My best examples will be kept private. Given that I repeatedly tested my alcohol tolerance on the weekend, am I a scientist too? I did test a null hypothesis using replication.
"Rules of collaboration. Decided on the day for the circumstances. Generally pretty easy if parties are getting one well together."
An ad hoc approach to collaboration at the governance level isn't good enough, Anonymous. 'Being mates together in a room' is not the way to develop robust policy. I'm surprised that you would condone such a laissez faire approach.
I'm not saying this lightly, Anonymous. This attitude, and you're not the only one to display it - I've seen it promoted in the boardroom, is unprofessional.
"I do put organic compost on my spuds."
Is that in lieu of salt and pepper and do they taste better that way?
I didnt say rules needed to be lax or lack detail Robert. But different situations require different rules.
Say for example a group of farmers invited the council to a meeting to discuss their ideas for a policy. Would you slap your hammer down and say "here are the rules of engagement"?. You would be kicked out the door. Rules need to be flexible for the situation. We can all be nerdy when it comes to meeting procedure but there is a time and a place.
Why do I use organic compost on my garden? I am an environmentalist Robert. Although I dont know how much nutrient I am putting on in one hit. Us greenies like talking the talk but walking the walk is another thing. I suspect regular but light rates of conventional fertilisers would be better from a leachate point of view. But the words 'organic compost' have better connotations than 'conventional fertiliser' and I would need to slap myself in the face with my roman sandals if I used it.
Us evironmentalists have to use the stuff that sounds good so we feel good. If we dont... Well that is why we wear sandals and not steel capped boots.
Have you ever noticed that 10 years ago people applied manure as a 'sustainable fertiliser'. Now it is called effluent and has all sorts of stigma attached to it. In my opinion we need to get back to encouraging farmers to act good rather and brandishing with hate.
Taste??? I double there are any flavotoxins without pets and disease. In my garden pest and diesase are not an issue.
Sorry above should read doubt not double.
Having ground rules in high-level collaborative negotiations is not "nerdy", Anonymous, it's best practice. Your 'casual' approach has a place, but there are pitfalls, you'll no doubt be aware. For one thing, groups not at the table will feel that there is undue lobbying taking place, unless you have a rationale in place to counter that concern. How binding are the decisions made in one of your 'relaxed' collaborations? Your plan has merits and I've never opposed it, but it's not the full picture and seems to have no 'safety provisions' and wouldn't pass the integrity test without further development.
Compost has more properties than the sum of it's nutrients, I believe. The carbon content and humus component add more than you'd expect to its effectiveness. Kind of a gardener's Gestalt.
For the organic 'thinker', cow manure has always been regarded as excellent manure, ideal for all sorts of growing situations. I think it was those farmers who jumped on board the synthetic superphosphate bandwagon who 'forgeot' how valuable cow shit is.
Mind you, the manure that's broadcast over our Southland pastures is a very poor version of that produced by a cow under a Biodynamic regime. Now if we could get Southland dairy farmers to adopt those practices, we'd be getting somewhere!
Productive relationships are the first steps Robert.
Carbon is useful but develops rapidly under a nutritive system regardless. People often associate benefits to carbon when it is the nutrients mineralised from the organic matter that are the effect.
Biodynamic. Is somewhere down the drain? Pardon the pun.
What do you have against Biodynamic agriculture?
It's superior in many ways to conventional agriculture.
For one thing, it treats cow manure as treasure, as it should be treated - not as a nutritional commodity, but as a treasure.
Don't tell me you have a closed mind, Anonymous!
Poor per ha returns. That matters with 3 million debt.
The problem is the $3 million debt.
Seems to me, modern farmers have been sold a pup.
Wheat do you mean a "pup"?
Wheat do you mean "wheat"?
Post a Comment