Will ECan's proposed nitrate reductions make dairy farming untenable?

Friday, 30 August 2019

Could this be the plan change that breaks dairy farming's back?

A proposed move by Environment Canterbury (ECan) to protect Christchurch's drinking water by setting tough – some would say, draconian – nitrate reductions in the decades ahead and 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.

* ECan councillor says proposed plan changes don't go far enough to protect drinking water

* Forest & Bird pledges close watch on Canterbury water committee members

* Farmer-led group lobbying for changes to Waimakariri water plan

* Disgusted environmentalists quit water talks over claims of farming bias**

Proposed staged nitrate reductions in an ECan plan change aim to protect Christchurch's drinking water supply from nitrates percolating below the Waimakariri River.

Simplistic arguments swirl around that, if dairying fails, the Canterbury Plains can easily revert to supposedly 'cleaner' farming, such as cropping.

But both the ease of such a land-use shift itself and the belief growing crops is better for the environment may be the stuff of myth.

TOO HARSH, OR TOO WEAK?

The impacts of the proposed staged 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 10 years down the track, so farmers should not get too hung up on the longer term goals, which could well change.

The main cause of nitrogen leaching is cow urine, which can put nitrogen on to a square metre patch of land at a rate of up to 1000kg per hectare (file photo).

Farmers are only being asked in the life of this plan to reduce beyond good management practice (GMP) by 15 per cent over a decade, she says.

'The rest of the reductions over 20 to 60 years, although they provide a general policy direction for future planning, could, like anything in the next plan review, change markedly depending on so many factors.'

CONCENTRATED URINE

So what are nitrates?

Lincoln University agri-food systems professor Keith Woodford says it's 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 but it's all about the piddle patch.

Cows in a composting barn in the Waikato. Such barns help reduce nitrate leaching into already wet soils in the late autumn and winter.

'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, there's enough time for the nitrogen to be taken up by the plants. But into the second half of autumn and winter, there isn't enough time and so 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 (LWRP), out for consultation until September 13.

They say staged 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 sub-zones for nitrate cuts.

Waimakariri Irrigation Ltd shareholders have significant concerns about aspects of Environment Canterbury's plan change 7, particularly nitrate levels and the modelling of water quality. They talked to Stuff at Larundel Dairy Farm at West Eyreton. From left: Graeme Sutton, Andy Gilchrist, Craig McAllister, Victoria Traynor and 2-year-old Maella, Brent Walton, Ben McKerchar and Geoff Spark.

Zone E dairy farmers are saddled with making 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 Tram Rd operation over 10 years to achieve the independently audited baseline GMP standard.

He now finds himself in Zone E, faced with a seemingly endless series of 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.

'This means virtually every irrigation event is justified.'

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 in the zone 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.

ECan councillor and freshwater ecologist Lan Pham believes nitrate reductions proposed in Plan Change 7 do not go far enough (file photo).

'Expectations have got to be realistic, they have got to be achievable. The extremes of those tables are not helpful at all in trying to make behaviour changes.'

WIL chief executive Brent Waltonsaid farmers could not see a way to achieve the necessary targets with current technologoy.

'So why even start?

'We had such great momentum, support and buy in from every single farmer until that table came out.'

Rees says even getting to ECan's baseline GMP is not going to be easy for some farmers with infrastructural issues.

'So that's going to be the first step. And the second step is the expectation around the nitrogen-loss reduction. And for some it will be harder to get to baseline GMP.'

That's 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're the backbone of the country, intensify, produce, produce, produce, keep on going', and that's what they did.

'And all of a sudden, the signals have completely switched around and gone, 'right, now we need to consider the environment', and they are doing that. And people just say, 'you're 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've got 200 shareholders, and say one who's not playing the game, and that person has the potential to make the entire scheme non-compliant.'

FEWER COWS A POSSIBILITY

Lincoln University agri-food systems professor Keith Woodford says it is a myth that crop farming might result in less nutrient leaching than dairying (file photo).

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 that will just drop cow numbers and see wonderful improvements may not necessarily pan out.'

Walton says there may be a 'perception that farmers are sitting around making these massive profits'.

'There actually has to be enough [money] left in the tank 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's 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's well overdue for us as a society to grasp the scale and the urgency of the changes required which, yes, may unfortunately mean some short-term economic hardship.

'Like anyone with any business, these farmers have made investment decisions and many taken on debt at their own discretion. The same farmers are very happy to enjoy their profits when markets are booming, but as soon as they are asked to be held accountable for true cost of their environmental impact, somehow it is acceptable to suggest that the public pick up the tab.

'I'd 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 their 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've crossed the line.'

A PLACE FOR WINTER BARNS

Pine plantations once stood on the northern bank of the Waimakariri River but even they struggled with the stony soils and desiccating nor'west winds.

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 sometime 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, then 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 and keeping animals safe and happy, Woodford says.

These pitch-roofed barns have open sides and a venting system. The animals' bedding is of sawdust and/or woodchips over a liner, with a layer of a perennial grass, miscanthus, on top up to 4m deep.

'When the cows walk into the barn, they think all their Christmases have come at once. It just composts naturally, and once a day the farmers run a tractor through the bedding. Then once a year, when spring comes, they put the bedding out on to the paddocks.

'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 barn-type situation where they can piss and poo and lie comfortably 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. But right now, farmers currently are very loath to invest in anything, given the social and economic climate.'

*Comments on this article have now closed.