By Mike Joy*
Water scarcity and water pollution are increasingly critical global issues. Water scarcity is driven not only by shortages of water, but also by rendering water unusable through pollution. New Zealand is no exception to these trends.
Demand for water has rapidly increased, and New Zealand now has the highest per capita take of water for agriculture among OECD countries. Regulatory failures have also led to over-allocation of many ground and surface water resources.
Some water sources are also well on the way to being unusable. Over the past few decades, nutrient and sediment emissions into waterways have increased, driven by agricultural and horticultural intensification.
Much is made of the environmental benefits of New Zealand’s “grass-fed” dairy systems. But a major downside of high-intensity outdoor farming systems is the nitrate leaching from animal waste and synthetic fertilisers that contaminates fresh water.
Milk’s grey water footprint
Our new paper focuses on nitrate pollution in Canterbury. We comprehensively quantify, for the first time, the nitrate “grey water” footprint of milk production in the region.
A water footprint (WF) is a measure of the volume of fresh water used to produce a given mass or volume of product (in this case, milk).
It’s made up of both “consumptive” and “degradative” components. The consumption component is rainwater (green WF) and groundwater or surface water (blue WF) used in irrigation.
Grey water is the degradative part – the volume of water needed to dilute the pollutants produced to the extent the receiving water remains above water quality standards.
Most water footprint studies of food systems highlight the consumptive water component and often neglect the degradative component. However, we found Canterbury’s pasture-based systems mean grey water is the biggest component.
Standards and thresholds
Our analysis found the nitrate grey water footprint for Canterbury ranged from 433 to 11,110 litres of water per litre of milk, depending on the water standards applied and their nitrate thresholds.
The 11,110 litre figure is to meet the Australasian guideline level to protect aquatic ecosystems, and the 433 litre figure is to meet current drinking water limits.
(Drinking water having lower limits may seem counter-intuitive, but the limit is based on 70-year-old research that has been superseded without legislation catching up.)
The larger footprint is higher than many estimates for global milk production. It reveals that footprints are very dependent on the inputs (such as feed and fertiliser) included in analyses and water quality standards.
A previous dairy water footprint study in Canterbury gave a grey water footprint of about 400 litres of water to make a litre of milk. However, it used the New Zealand drinking water standard for nitrate-nitrogen (nitrogen present in the form of nitrate ion) of 11.3 milligrams per litre (mg/l).
This vastly underestimates the problem. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual, which sets a global standard, stipulates the concentration of pollutants should meet “prevailing” freshwater quality standards.
In New Zealand, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management sets a bottom line for nitrate-nitrogen of 2.4mg/l, much lower than the level for drinking water.
Our analysis – based on prevailing freshwater quality standards – shows the production of one litre of milk in Canterbury requires about 11,000 litres of water to meet the ecosystem health standards.
12-fold reduction needed
The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.
Dairy farming at current levels of intensity is clearly unsustainable. We know 85% of waterways in pasture catchments, which make up half the country’s waterways (measured by length), exceed nitrate-nitrogen guideline values for healthy ecosystems.
Evidence is also emerging of the direct human health effects (colon cancer and birth defects) of nitrate in drinking water. Extensive dairy farming in Canterbury is already leading to significant pollution of the region’s groundwater, much of which is used for drinking water.
Current practices also threaten the market perception of the sustainability of New Zealand’s dairy industry and its products. The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.
Also overlooked is the palm kernel expeller (PKE) fed directly to cows. New Zealand is the biggest importer globally of this byproduct of palm oil production.
The synthetic fertiliser problem
Growing use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser has helped dramatically increase nitrate levels and the water pollution problems New Zealand faces.
Until the 1990s, reactive nitrogen (a term used for a variety of nitrogen compounds that support growth) in pastures was predominantly obtained through nitrogen-fixing clover plants. But synthetic nitrogen fertiliser from fossil fuels displaced natural systems and drove intensification.
Globally, synthetic nitrogen production has now eclipsed all that produced by natural systems. This disruption of the nitrogen cycle seriously threatens global human sustainability, not only through its impacts on the climate, but also through localised impacts on fresh water.
The European Science Foundation described the industrial-scale production of synthetic nitrogen as “perhaps the greatest single experiment in global geo-engineering that humans have ever made”.
It is clear that water is becoming a defining political and economic issue. Changing attitudes to its quality and accessibility depends on accurate information – including how water is used to dilute agricultural waste.
*Mike Joy is Senior Researcher; Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Here is the original article.
112 Comments
Yes a 100% negative article with no idea of solutions which Farmers are already progressing. As a retired beef farmer a reduction of herd size by even 50% would equate to Beef Mince at $28-30 a Kilo and Fillet $100 so tell the population what the effects of reductions and see if they buy your fear porn or listen to those who actually produce the food. And if you think crops/plants are better check out the land area per protein equivalent KG and the herbicides/fertilizer & water required. The global problem is too many humans and nature will eventually solve that issue probably starting in 2023.
My mates farm makes 80 thousand milk solids, it is a bit over ten litres of fresh milk to the milk solid. So 800 thousand litres of milk and according to Mike N. Joy that requires 11000 litres of water each. That would mean, in MIke Joy's parlance you need 880 million litres of water. How come my mate uses one 200th of that which is 55 litres of water for everything. From drinking water for cows to equipment and shed hygiene, to running his own household. Shed hygiene is so there is no shit, hey mike joy please take note not to spread any shit
Where does your mate farm? I bet it isn't Canterbury. I used to make milk in the Waikato at around that level and I didn't think I had much impact on the environment BUT our water table was largely undrinkable because of nitrates. I live in Canterbury now and it is criminal, ecan is run by farmer interest groups and gets away with murder.
The water requirement Dr Joy assesses is not just the the on-farm water use you describe in your piece of anecdata.
It includes the amount of water required to dilute the runoff - in line with the well-known approach that the solution tov pollution is dilution.
Add that in and what figures do you get?
It is a known secrete that water ways in all Canterbury plain have become so dry and disgusting.
But, all council members, and key figures in Environment Canterbury have deeply vested interests in dairy farming business, and they have been managing to take the water issues in the Canterbury plain off public eyes and scrutiny.
Environment Canterbury commissioners named
The Government has appointed a team of six men to take over the running of Environment Canterbury, handing them sweeping new powers that by-pass the Environment Court.
Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide have just announced six commissioners who will join commission chair-delegate and Government fix-it woman Dame Margaret Bazley in the ECan council chamber.
keith,
With no farming background or technical knowledge, what weight should I give to this assessment? It looks authoritative and i believe that Canterbury experienced a huge increase in dairying over a short period, so at first glance I am inclined to accept it. Also, should we not stop importing palm kernel asap?
Powerdown - Mike Joy article was 100% negative with no solutions so following his advice would have social consequences so severe the population reduction would be so drastic that there would be no need for so many Cows and Mike Joy may be one of those no longer in need of protein. I back Keith as a practical & experienced person in agriculture every time.
Between Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee Canterbury was comprehensively buggered up. The city and province has so much potential yet our Wellington based politicians have consistently shown they have no vision for NZ's second largest city and for one of its most productive rural provinces. I don't expect much from Labour either. As for bickering local and regional council system it seems deliberately set up for infighting and uselessness.
Those people who criticise the use of PKE in dairy could start to 'walk their own walk' by not buying anything in the supermarket labelled as containing 'vegetable oil'. Roughly half of the products in a typical supermarket trolley would need to be removed, including many non-food products such as hair shampoo.
KeithW
Here is one person that does everything in their power to avoid palm oil, I won't buy unless the oil used is specifically named and that name isn't palm oil, there are a bazillion labels the stuff hides behind.
I also avoid anything sold under the Goodman Fielder umbrella as well, Vogels, Molenburg, Freyas, Edmonds, Meadow Fresh to name a few, there are more, I simply look for Goodman Fielder on the label anywhere. I also try to find alternatives to Chelsea sugars, as all of these things are owned by Wilmar, the world's largest palm oil processor
And they could stop living in cities. I wonder when Mike Joy's will "comprehensively quantify, for the first time, the nitrate “grey water” footprint of urban living?
"For example, urban rivers have 30 times higher E. coli, 3.3 times higher turbidity, 19.5 times higher nitrate-nitrogen levels, and 4.7 times higher dissolved reactive phosphorous than rivers dominated by native land cover.
Data collected in the past five years revealed that 94% of the total river length in the urban land-cover class is at high risk for swimming because the predicted average campylobacter infection risk is greater than 3%.
Only 6% of river length in the urban land-cover class poses low or zero toxicity risk to aquatic biota with regard to nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia (Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand, 2019).
This grim picture of the New Zealand urban freshwater environment is partially due to historical neglect and current lack of environmental stewardship.
Urban freshwater bodies (be they streams, rivers or lakes) are often used as sinks for untreated urban run-off from a wide range of land uses, with the predominant urban pollutants being heavy metals (zinc and copper), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), total suspended solids, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and pathogens (e.g. E. coli). In addition to storm water run-off, a few urban waterways in Auckland also receive combined sewage overflows (CSOs), in catchments where storm water and sewage are not separated. "
View of The Impact of Urbanisation on New Zealand Freshwater Quality (victoria.ac.nz)
"We shouldn't do anything" doesn't seem to be the rural sectors approach. What is the urban sectors approach before they start lecturing the rural landowners?
https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/116126/formal-or-informal-growing…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/460551/water-quality-issues-at-auck…
I have paid a considerable amount of taxes to CCC to clean up Christchurch's waterways. We had some earthquakes. A lot of water and sewer pipes were broken. It is a big job but a lot of work has been done and more work will be done.
Now back to the nitrate pollution problem - what is being done about that? Are the polluters prepared to pay to clean up their mess? Can they stop making a mess? Or is the answer - yeah nay can' be bothered with anything like that?
Yes the nitrate pollution problem - what is being done about that? "19.5 times higher nitrate-nitrogen levels". Are the polluters prepared to pay to clean up their mess? Can they stop making a mess? Or is the answer - yeah nay can' be bothered with anything like that?
View of The Impact of Urbanisation on New Zealand Freshwater Quality (victoria.ac.nz)
But I repeat myself. Farmers are doing it. I even provided a handy link for you.
https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/116126/formal-or-informal-growing…
Captains Cindy's strip mined Indo coal adventure clearly demonstrates doing nothing can be the best path - with the added bonus of keeping high paying jobs in the country. You can be sure that ex-rainforest will never be planted in oil palm.
My God that article was a lot of waffle. I didn't see a single thing actually making a difference right now. It reminded me of exactly what our current government do, make a group, access funding and talk about what needs to be done but do nothing of any real importance. You like to point out urban pollution but you forget what percentage of waterways are rural and seem to have the attitude of why am I getting picked on? It's two separate issues and farmers CAN change and should before they destroy the most valuable asset we have for future generations. You need to stop trying to win an argument and have a long look at what is actually happening.
The reference to landscape in this video is not what we see when we look above the ground, but rather the underground landscape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zje3URfTy4
keith,
That's not good enough. Why? I suggest that few doing their supermarket shopping would have any idea of a connection between vegetable oil and PKE, or of the destruction caused in its production. I certainly wouldn't claim to be perfect, but I do make an effort to avoid it.
farmers on the other hand know this very well. landcorp stopped using it years ago I believe.
linklater01,
Why don't people know about palm oil?
Why aren't the people who criticise use of PKE in farming also criticising the use of palm oil in supermarket products?
No-one grows palm oil for the PKE; it s grown for the palm oil. PKE is just the by-product that otherwise goes to waste. And it is a very good stock feed.
the plant that produces the palm oil is a remarkable crop and it is a very efficient way to produce vegetable oil. The alternatives would require a lot more land to produce the same amount of oil. Without it, a lot of people would go hungry.
KeithW
KW - WRONG
And I left the caps lock on purposely.
PKE is NOT a 'by-product' - any more than wood pellets are a ' by-product' of forestry. Or kerosene a 'by-product' of petroleum. Or, or, or. They are all attempts to maximise the short-term profit from a raw resource, and without the selling of PKE, palm-oil would be ' more expensive. Ironically, because of the nutrient removal (which ends up in milk-powder going to China) the plantations must degrade faster, so in a way it shows up as 'more expensive palm oil' anyway. Or - and it's inevitable - as 'less palm oil available'........
If you left it to rot it would cause nitrate leaching... Plenty of palm oil mills that are far from sea ports just dump it. Fun fact Indo beef feedlots don't go near the stuff. There are much better feedlot tucker options in the tropics than palm kernel. In a NZ context it is the equivalent resource as wool dags.
As an advocate alteration - rather than the (rainforest) status-quo - the onus is on you, KW, to provide the evidence that your industry is not destroying rainforest.
Which you cannot do. Sorry, you're a nice enough fellow, smart even, but Upton Sinclair seems to have you by the reproductive pieces in this instance.
I think you have the solution Keith - hunger - a sure way to get people to listen to those that are the practitioners not the University trained keyboard Farmers. Yes there is a problem but Mike Joys solution is not a solution that many would accept once the consequences appear and then its too late.
So true, how can you possibly reply on millions of individual consumers to have the knowledge and time to make such informed choices. I mean, who would expect Fonterra to include palm oil in baby formula. You just couldn't imagine them doing it, but yes they do.
Palm oil needs to be regulated out of existence.
PKE used to be a byproduct, but since NZ became the largest global consumer it has become a genuine commodity in its own right.
The FOB price might be only 20% of palm oils by weight, but the only cost of manufacture is to get some child slave labour to turn it in the sun. Whereas palm oil goes through a complicated refining and bleaching process. So the profits from the PKE industry contribute more and more every year to the palm oil industry, and cannot simply be ignored in the destruction of orangutan habitat.
Wow, turning it up to 11 here. I heard the child labour in the soybean meal industry is ground in to up the protein content. Ironic that holier-than-thou greens make up stuff about child labour in relation to the PKE meal, - when there is actual Congo child labour going into their EV virtue signal battery.
I wonder if Canterbury dairy farmers adopted Keith Woodford mootel concept if the nitrogen water pollution problem could be solved?
Keith wrote a while back, "The key reason that mootels can be transformational is that they provide a mechanism to solve the leaching problem from urine nitrogen, and to do so within a pastoral grazing system. The cows still go out to graze every day but then they come back into the mootel to do their resting, pissing and pooing. The compost, which is replaced once per year, is then used as fertiliser. The nitrogen is bound within the compost and is released at a rate that the grass can use rather than being leached."
https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/107435/composting-mootels-barns-a…
Would synthetic nitrogen fertiliser be needed if natural compost is available? Would PKE be needed if the mootel system is providing a production boost? Could Canterbury dairy farmers grow their own carbon compostable material - say miscanthus or hemp? Perhaps in areas bordering the irrigated land, on waterway boundaries and areas of natural nitrogen and water run-off - so the carbon crop can soak up any excess nitrogen - which should be much less because cows are spending less time on the fields and natural compost is replacing synthetic nitrogen fertiliser.
As a Cantabrian I consider nitrogen pollution of the waterways and aquifers an existential crisis. It could make Christchurch - the city my family has lived in for nearly 150 years unlivable because the water is so poisoned. It has already destroyed swimming spots that I used to visit as a child. Farmers should have to pay for the damage they are causing - perhaps with this incentive they would find better, less polluting farming systems.
Thanks Brendon for reminding people as to what I wrote some 20 months ago.
We can indeed smash the nitrogen leaching.
I am involved with people who are implementing these technologies, but there is still no focused RDE&E (research, development, extension and education) programme to support the change that is needed. Five years have now slipped by since I first wrote about the technologies and associated farming systems. Those years can never be regained. And it remains a long and narrow rutty path towards implementation rather than the super highway we should be travelling.
KeithW
Peter Gluckman has long been pointing out that NZ invests only 50% of the budget necessary in R&D in order for us to receive the benefits of it acting as a true incubator and driver of productive enterprise. Perhaps if we could get one major party to see the merits of investing in R&D we could get both that, and this issue assisted.
Less cows per hectare? Sounds good to me, with less stress, wear on machinery, more time from less stick, less fertilizer, etc
Unfortunately that means you need to convince the world to pay say 30 or 50% more for our milk. This is because of the high fixed costs we have in nz with labour, fuel taxes, rates, duties, levies, fees and so on, which includes paying Mike Joy's salary. Everyone is clipping the ticket.
We had 140 cows 25 years ago, and now have 200, yet make less profit despite working harder and having more machinery. It is my off farm 8ncome that puts food on the table. If we could subdivide,mi would have turned it into a housing estate long ago.
Well, not quite. National were the Government for only 9 of the 22 years of the current century. In any case, what we need to be focusing on the current and future rather than reliving the past. In relation to the Christchurch water supply, the key area of concern has to be the shallow soils north of the Waimakariri. And there sure is a story there.
KeithW
Keith
Maybe the soils a little closer to Christchurch are a greater risk.
One way of defining risk is that it is a function of probability and consequence.
The Christchurch Groundwater Recharge Zone (roughly John’s road/Airport/ Halcett road) under the NRRP (Natural Resources Regional Plan for Canterbury) had strong protection. Land use in that area was restricted. Those protections were removed in the LWRP (Land and Water Regional Plan).
There are now many industrial activities including car parks and petrol stations in that crucial ground water recharge zone.
While there might be low probability of failure the effects could be catastrophic and long lasting.
Compare the effect to nitrates from agriculture which are small and a long way in the future.
These comments are specific to the Christchurch Groundwater Recharge zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugGsgwJL8b8&ab_channel=JoelBrackenbury
(There are many reports starting in the mid 2000’s and some more recently associated with Plan Change 7.)
Yes, septic tanks may well be part of the issue.
But there is also a lot of dairying on the north bank of the Waimakariri and the leaching therefrom will almost certainly travel through to aquifers under Christchurch. The current outlet of the Waimakariri is very recent - it was only about 550 years ago that the Waimakariri river mouth was south of Christchurch. The flows within the deep aquifers are essentially independent of surface flow directions within the river.
KeithW
Hi Keith, I am a long time reader and admirer of you knowledge and logic. I should comment more.. As a GP I understand that we advise all people to eat lots of green veges, and there is a strong movement to eat these greens raw. Yet the broccoli and spinach I am fed is packed with NO3.. Plus the bacon and ham I enjoy is also packed with nitrates, so much that it is measured in percentage terms rather than mcg per litre. The vegans among us flag the nitrates in veges away because it is natural and associated with vitamin C (which reduces the production of the carcinogenic amines which may make excess NO3 somewhat dangerous). I acknowledge that bacon is the most carcinogenic food I eat.
Am I missing something here or are we in Canterbury diving down a ‘rabbit hole’ of partial information? I noted that our local esteemed Medical Officer of Health admitted that he was quite happy to drink any reticulated water in Canterbury, He just would use boiled water to mix baby formula, something we have always advocated. Best Steve
Keith - Mike Joy' s value is limited to identyfying a problem we were already aware of - I farmed just south of ChCh not too far from Lincoln and the soils were deep peat and so heavy drainage was a problem evidenced by surface ponding but e-can still claimed runoff ignoring this and the almost zero use of fertilizer - the land did not require any to produce sufficient grass for my Beefies, the root problem and a solution is the Bureacrats whose main objective seems to be to obstruct and introduce one size fits all to maintain their cushy well paid jobs paid for by those they obstruct. In another life in finance we had a test - what would happen, how quickly and how severs the consequences if the people not doing the doing were removed - once tried and the discovery of how little value those removed contributed quickly resulted in the talkers listening. I am sure many Kiwis could identify 500,000 such chair seat polishers whose removal would improve matters and help with keeping our roads clear of debris whilst saving a considerable sum of money.
There is certainly a need to further improve Fertiliser stewardship in terms of rates, placement and timing, but fertilisers are not all bad. The global population has increased on the back of higher yields achieved through the use of fertilisers and crop protection chemicals. Any changes to farming systems need to be gradual and backed by science. Sri Lanka has provided a recent example of what not to do.
Moving back to a clover based system at reduced stocking rates would be a sensible approach.
Agree Waikatohome clover systems used to be the norm before palm kernel and large amounts of urea being used . The problem appears to be the acceptance of lower stocking rates many farms are geared financially to high production driven by their financial position. Changes need to be backed by impartial science , SriLanka had a range of issues not a poster child politically or scientifically. Sooner or later dairying will need to alter it's outcomes to be acceptable in terms of the footprint it leaves .
But Sri Lanka raises an important point. Sans fossil fuels (and feedstock, for the likes of fertiliser, baleage wrap, pipework) agriculture cannot support 8 billion people. Not even close. And we are starting to see the wheels come off already; x harvest remaining, y topsoil remaining - doesn't take a genius to realise we're in deep trouble.
Yes, we will end up with no fossil fuel input to food - in less than a century even if we're clever, in a decade or two if we're not. Then we will have to be pushing organic/regenerative agriculture, as hard as it can be pushed. And we'll be doing it on monoculture-depleted/degraded soils. Forget certified organic - we'll just have to repossess the Cant'y plains as-is. And yes, we'll curse everyone involved in making them the disgrace they currently are.
You make a valid point, but how do you transition from one global food production model to another without a lot of poor people dying of hunger? How does a dairy farmer transition from a high input, high output, model to a sustainable model without going broke? It is obvious that we can’t continue as we are, but it is not so obvious what an acceptable alternative is.
That is the 64,000 cabbage question.
We could pay the farmers off using NZD - after all, you can just print as much as you need, apparently. Then we could repatriate the good quality soils (mainly flats), repatriate water-flows (solving a lot of quality problems; less trans-paddock migration, more dilution) and have a discussion about hill-uses - including repatriation.
Oh, and we could have a robust discussion about population, both here and what we're prepared to support o/seas.
I'd far rather taxes paid farming landowners to reduce herd size and retire sensitive land, than to pay/compensate beachfront landowners to retreat to higher ground.
Pop quiz: And of the two options (above), which do you think the government is currently consulting on?
Said dairy farmer probably needs to diversify, a portion of the farm to grain can be done using dairy effluent. Used to harvest maize for grain in the waikato in the 70s. I understand machinery constraints but contractors used to plant and harvest back then , many farms currently do maize for green feed or finechop silage etc this is used to increase stock numbers by increasing feed , if this was changed to grain production stock reductions could occur . I know financial constraints may still apply but by doing this you are not reducing production just changing it .
Is there a technological solution to removing or reducing nitrates from drinking water? Clean drinking water for Cantabrians is crucial, but affordable milk products are important also, locally, regionally and globally. It's too easy to say that we need to a twelve-fold reduction in the dairy herd in what is now one of the major dairy regions in a major dairy producing country because of water quality, without considering the other side of the ledger.
I had to read this 3 times to get the gist of it . If I didnt have accounts to do , the study itself might provide more insight.
To me its a product of an inbalanced farming system . excess nitrogen , not enough carbon . plus no wetlands to process the excess.
to play the "urban is just as bad" card , you'd have to ignore 90% of our urban areas are coastal . They are not to be excused, ( the ocean has limits too), but this is a predominately rural problem.
currently , i am trying to plan a water based sewage system , that suits our sewage requirements by a river. my aim would be to not discharge anything on to the land ,which is the river catchment. My dear wife keeps proposing nice prefab toilet / shower blocks , with no concept that the waste water has to go somewhere. My thinking at the moment is to add carbon materials, with in a glasshouse closedloop system , that evaporates some water off. solar assisted of course. Wether this concept could be scaled up to dairy farm size systems , I do not know. Certainly it would require massive amounts of carbon matter. Also wether there is a tree that can assist in the process , i know the Osier willow is capable of absorbing large amounts of toxins . certainly any gross feeder plant would help .
So Canterbury dairy farming equals NZ dairy farming.
Yeah what ever.
Putting 4 cows per hectare on thin soils on shingle then add water in lieu of rain was never a good idea even for most dairy farmers. But then extrapolating those figures to the rest of the country is just reduculous.
On a N leachate basis becoming a vegan is the by far the last thing you should do!
On a per unit area basis, vegetable cropping systems produce by far the largest nitrate leaching to groundwater compared to any other land use type. Leaching losses range from 80 to 292 kg N/ha/yr depending on the amount of rainfall and the type of crop grown (Ledgard, 2001).
And Interestingly for a financial site, I dinnae see much if any discussion about the effects on export earnings, trade balance, etc if dairying is wound back substantially.
Was talking to an ex dairyer yesterday as we puzzled over a worn gear on an old seed drill. He said that if dairy is exited on a given farm it cannot be reinstated. The hierarchy for N purposes seems to be dairy, then arable (idk where Hort fits) then grazing. It appears the travel down the hierarchy is one way only. It does not augur well for paying our way in the world.....
If Mike Joy is advocating zero enhanced productivity processes in farming, in other words getting back to natural grazing and producing simply what the land will provide as it is, then he should also be advocating limits on human population growth (but I bet he doesn't). You just can't have it both ways but it is why we can feed an over-populated planet.
Don't put too much money into that bet. He's read this:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48866273-blip
'but it is why we can feed an over-populated planet'
Add the word: Temporarily. We are doing if via draw-down; of phosphate, of fossil energy, of rainforest ecological services (essentially, levering 'other' acreage to augment output from ours; other concurrent acreage and other historical acreage). That will not / cannot continue. Therefore 'needing to feed' is a straw-man argument.
Why does Mike Joy still get to be under the heading of rural- he is an activist who time and again has not provided accurate information. I love the classic 'its not the farmers fault' so the independent reader think' he must a reasonable person, so I will take all the rest of what he says as honest, informed or factual'.
This is not the case. Shame, as there is some real issues that can be collaboratively addressed but when it is overrun with this hyperbole it gets lost.
He is , " a Freshwater Ecologist and Environmental Scientist, researcher and author. I am a senior Researcher at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University Wellington".
Certainly, he has his own opinions , that are expressed in this article. Maybe take it up with victoria University if you think it oversteps his mandate.
It was my opinion - and I havnt noted down each of my perceived inaccuracies/ points I disagree with over the past few years reading and listening to Dr Joy.
But happy to apologise and withdraw that part of the comment as appears I have overstepped the mark using that word.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.