By: smiler0999
4/11/2009
8:52 am Yahoo! Profile:
smiler0999 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| but everyone blames the farmers!(Especially those 'secret operators' from the Regional Councils!) The fact is the biggest polluters with sewerage of our streams/rivers and lakes are the District Councils.They are getting away with absolute 'murder' as they hide behind a 50 year grace period to clean up their shoddy act.Blaming the farmers on 'technicality breaches' is a favourite Regional Council pastime.and of course achieves instant press attention! |
|
By: old_wolseley
4/11/2009
1:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
old_wolseley Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The ever increasing scale of dairy farming in New Zealand is causing a lot of the problems. Especially when you see them putting on tons of Urea just to increase production, which then leaches into waterways.
New Zealand dairy cattle numbers:
1972: 3,074,000
2004: 5,154,092
Source: Dairy Statistics |
|
By: bronkhorstjohn
4/11/2009
1:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bronkhorstjohn Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
he trend just follows commodaty prices
Dairy '02-'07 above 5mil.
Sheep '82-'86 around 68mil now 27mil.
goats '87-'90 around 1.3mil now 100k
fawns born (couldn't find deer No.s) peak 600k in '03.
Beef cattle '74-'76 around 6.3 mil now 4.8mil pretty flat.
So as the prices fluctuate the farmers move from one stock type to another. When the this changes again, they will all move to the latest BIG thing. So predicting efflent flows, fertilizer usage, water usage etc on a long term basis, is going to be quite a mission. Think we should look at whether all these stock units have something in common and work on that regardless of trends. |
|
By: mhol@xtra.co.nz
4/11/2009
2:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mhol@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| And a lot of these new units have started up in cattle free country esp the South Island where waterways have been relatively untouched, where once sheep used to safely graze.I hope they(farmers) are self monitoring and limit stock near streams without the need for District Councils to intervene.But overheads and initial set up costs etc often lead to abuse as has been done in the N.I. |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
4/11/2009
2:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I actually agree with bronkhorst for once. Obviously there is a temptation to move with whatever farming sector is more lucrative although in the case of dairying, the outlay to set a dairy farm up is so great that a dairy farmer would have to be pretty desperate to change.
I am a cantab and dairying is a hot issue at the momen. Evweryone is up in arms about the amount of water used for irrigation. That has to be monitored for sure, but I don't think many people actually realise the boost that dairying provides to the economy as a whole. Sure, the recession hit dairying as well but milk payouts are rising again.
There is a major water scheme planned to aid in irrigating canterbury farms which has met with huge opposition. I know a couple of those involved on both sides of the debate and i must say, that if building a dam is going to keep the river flowing all year like it used to in the past, I don't see much wrong. I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.
If you look at some of the Southern lakes that have been dammed, there are actuallyu some awesome recreational reserves. |
|
By: smiler0999
4/11/2009
4:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
smiler0999 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| But--stop blaming farmers!!Go check the stats!The Councils are running a blatant polluting scheme without any comeback!!But then again Joe Citizen doesn't want to pay more for rates--so it is easy to blame the farmer!!Wink!Wink!it is a "In Denial" blaming farmers for the shocking sewerage falling into our rivers/streams and lakes.Even the Maori Party got stuck into a farmer reportedly polluting a lake in the central North island recently.Everyone 'shut up' when the farmer proved it was the District Council and their sewerage overflows!! |
|
By: old_wolseley
5/11/2009
4:03 am Yahoo! Profile:
old_wolseley Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Has never been tempted to convert any of our farms into dairying. Money for me, isn't the be-all and end-all.
Though over the years, I've seen many farmers jump on the money making bandwagon, whether it be deer, goats, pigs, ostriches and emu, poultry, rabbits, stoats and weasels, forestry, cropping, kiwi fruit, e.t.c.
Then, the bottom end falls out of the market and they cry foul.
(In my opinion, none of the ventures listed above are major contributors to the pollution in our waterways.)
And yes, Councils are also to blame. |
|
By: old_wolseley
5/11/2009
4:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
old_wolseley Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Roughly 15 years ago, there were about 800 dairy sheds pumping effluent into the Manawatu River. The water quality of which, is now considered poor.
Source: Massey University ecologist and water quality campaigner Mike Joy |
|
By: inanga@ymail.com
5/11/2009
7:54 am Yahoo! Profile:
inanga@ymail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Councils do treat effluent prior to discharge smiler.
Do farmers ? |
|
By: bronkhorstjohn
5/11/2009
8:08 am Yahoo! Profile:
bronkhorstjohn Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I don't know a lot about farming and farming prctices, but I always wondered why there was a limit as to how much a farmer could recycle the waste (poo etc) onto his paddocks.
Now I understand turning them into a swamp is counter productive, but surely a large amount of recycling waste, would limit fertilizer use and recycle the water content saving irrigation from streams. Am I wrong, or what is the actual reason/story? |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
8:40 am Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
bronk
That is a pretty fair question and farmers certainly do make use of effluent for fertilising paddocks. The argument against this is that large concentrations of effluent being sprayed onto fields can result some of it filtering down into the aquifer water supply that is present (in Canterbury anyway) deep underground. As a result, the faecal count in the water is boosted which is obviously not ideal when it forms the basis of a cities drinking water. Mind you the same argument applies with fertiliser applications also.
Ideally, farmers would have a sealed oxidation pond that the effluent would sit in and breakdown (kind of like our effluent does before being pumped out to sea) [prior to being applied to the paddocks. However this imposes additional cost and hassle on the farmer. In short there are no easy answers and I guess the challenge is finding a balance between environmental and economic sustainability. |
|
By: old_wolseley
5/11/2009
8:52 am Yahoo! Profile:
old_wolseley Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Would comment further, but I'm heading off to visit Hunterville and Taihape with my daughter. |
|
By: ryeguynz
5/11/2009
9:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
4 memebers of Environment Canterbury (regional council set up to manage the impact by humans on the environment) has at least 4 farmers with water consent interests in the mix. There is a commission of inquiry into their potential conflict of interests.
How the FFFF farmers who's bottom line is not the environment but how to maximise profit from the environment end up on ECAN with the potential to exploit the environment for their own gain is incredulous! WTF is going on here? |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
10:55 am Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| ryeguy. It is actually important to have a balanced point of view. Alot of the greenies come up with some pretty dodgy figures and act in an irrational manner. My father has a central role in the debate and says some stuff that comes out of the ecan side of it is pretty dodgy science to say the least. |
|
By: ryeguynz
5/11/2009
11:37 am Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| yeah balance is good but considering the environment doesn't have a voice at all I find it hard to swallow that a farmer brings any real balance. They might balance our greedy human points of view in a strange way as fish and game worry about their ability to enjoy it more than the actual life forms involved and the hard core greenies are the only ones trying to speak for the actual earth/land etc. I just want to see sensible governance that discourages using canterbury land for intensive dairy farming at the expense of the environment, aquifers, lake ellesmere etc. When the land can't support dairying and our aquifers are farqed, rivers wast lands and lake ellesmere a stinky bog you can be sure as hell that the farmers won't be sitting for ecan trying to clean up the mess |
|
By: johnstonea@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
11:40 am Yahoo! Profile:
johnstonea@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Some people on here seem to think they know a lot about Dairying and the waste etc..
Great point tho the Council is getting away with discharging waste big time. One of the councils in the Horizons Council catchment was taken to court recently over illegal discharge and they got off as they had a consent for discharging waste for 50 years. Go figure that |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
11:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
ryeguy. You make some good arguments.
Lake Ellesmere is a disgrace compared to what it used to be. However, you are wrong to say that the environment doesn't have a voice. Look at the central plains irrigation scheme. It is still a long way from getting off the ground because of rpeated consultation etc.
This scheme is one with a lot of environmental safe guards and is simply about storing storm water so that the river can provide irrigation whilst still continuiing to flow at its normal rate. This should be good for fish and game because at the moment, the rivers almost run dry in the summer. Also, any dams that get built are likely to provide good recreational facilities into the future.
I completely agree with coming down hard ofn farmers who pollute rivers and streams. It is a disgrace what Ellesmere hhas become (although apparently it's on the improve). However, if a project like CPW is well set up then it should be able to provide for all those that use the rivers - You don't hear fish and game coplaining about the dam at Lake Coleridge do you?? Why....because it is one of the best fisheries in the South Island.
Canterbury people need to be realistic. If dairying becomes less profitable, it will indirectly lead to lower wages for Christchurch folk and less resources to go around. |
|
By: ryeguynz
5/11/2009
12:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
agreed select if done properly it would be great. I did think they weren't wanting to take flood water as the sediment would cause problems in their system. I worry that if ECAN is run by farmers then the approach will be soft on breaches and even the legislation will eventually be weakened. I would support CPW if they had a clause stating they take responsibilty for a water treatment plant when the nitrates get into our water supply.
What really amazes me is that we have arguably the best tap water in the world for a city this size and we don't sell it. It take hundreds if not thousands of liters to produce one litre of milk so why do we not export water? Countries are doing crazy stuff over water and china has built an aquaduct the length of NZ to try and soften the effects of water shortage in one region. It's a pity you can't export water solids as shipping costs is the only reason I can see why we don't export water. In the future it will be at an even greater shortage and we have a potential goldmine in water that we are prepared to risk.
I know dairying is big but so are the effects of dairying. Pivot irrigators right up to the east coast which is about 20-80cm of soil on stone river bed that leeches straight out to sea. Algal blooms here we come, and don't start on the ocean outfall CCC are building, LA had one in the 70's that destroyed their coastline and changed the way they treat waste water but old side show bob knows better I suppose. |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
12:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You have some good arguments ryeguy even if you are coming at it from a different point of view.
Just a couple of things though. You say it takes hundreds if not thousands of litre of water to make a litre of milk. I would dispute that it's as high as you think. Most irrigation water (as much as 95% on a hot day) gets evaporated back into the air...and thus rejoins water circulation unpolluted. The majority of the rest leaches into the soil....mostly unpolluted also depending on when the field was last fertilised. The grass that is eaten by the cow to produce milk has absorbed a minute proportion of the water. Of the water that ends up in the cow, a large percentage is breathed out etc. Also keep in mind that a top performing friesian cow can produce in excess of 20L of milk per milking. Sorry, I'm going on....I can do that sometimes but you get the point.
I'm also not quite sure what you're getting at with the irrigation water getting channeled out to see on the East Coast. Surely if the water drains into the soil and ends up at sea, it isn't going to pollute otherwise it would be happening already. I actually think the coasstline between CHCH and Timaru is highly underrated. There are some great spots. Where there does become a problem is if the farmer starts spraying effluent on his paddocks near the coast.
Trust me, I care a heap about the environment but I think balance is important and dairying is huge for the economy so compromises have to be made...I guess we'll see what happens in the next 20 years. |
|
By: ryeguynz
5/11/2009
1:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"United Nations' cultural agency Unesco says it takes a global average of 200 litres of water to produce a 200 millilitre glass of milk, while a glass of wine takes 120 litres and a hamburger 2400 litres.
A Unesco report says it takes five times the amount of water to produce an Australian kiwifruit as it does to produce a New Zealand kiwifruit."
From http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2864677/Foot print-for-water
If australia need more for a kiwi fruit and it's global averages then I guess it could well be that we are well below the global average for water used to produce milk.
It is nitrates leeching into the sea that worries me, whether from fertilizer or effluent. In my mind I see such a shallow amount of soil needing alot of added nutrient just to grow good grass and that it is not all taken up by the grass and being so shallow it would just sift straight thru and into the shingle below creating an environment where algae could thrive and spread to the coastal area. My view on dairying is fairly strong but I don't have a lot of education or knowledge in that area to justify it. I have seen rivers such as selwyn deteriorate and lake ellesmere turn to shyt, even the Irwell river that had dried up once in 50 years of monitoring until the last 12 years where it has dried up 11 out of 12 years and one year only flowed in flood times. I used to catch good sized trout in leeston creek and I'm only talking about 15-20 years ago. Hamner drain used to reknowned for it's trout but it is a trickle now. All these and more are tribuatries to lake ellesmere and I guess my emotions are well involved here as it was such a neat way to grow up we swam all the metioned creeks etc too which now you can't. You are right time will tell but to me it seems obvious and I don't think you can buy what we are slowly destroying. I guess that's why water storage is important but has to be done in such a way that it doesn't cause more harm to our already weakened eco syst |
|
By: ryeguynz
5/11/2009
2:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I am tempted to go backto uni to actually (god forbid) do ag science and focus on dairying so that instead of being annoyed about it I may be able to contribute ti minimising the impact it has because as you say it is too important for our damned economy to stop it. Ngai Tahu who I had hoped would help proyect the lack see more money in dairying so neglect it a little. That will change I hope and I have also looked into ways to keep the lake open permanently too which would help. Imagine christchurch with ski fields and mountains on our doorstep having a genuinely beautiful lake for recreation and eel/flounder fisheries that is on average no deeper than 1.5 - 2 meters right on it's other door step. It would be amazing and teh tourism dollar would be huge. Of course then we'd have to contend with the impact all those people would have but.....
Anyway I'm off for the day so cheers for the yarn. Till next time |
|
By: select1000@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
2:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
select1000@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Good article ryeguy. I guess it depends how literally you take the water it takes to make a glass of milk. Whether or not you count water that is evaporated of the fields and soaks through the soil or not. I tend to think looking at it that way is an environmentally extreme view to take as the water evaporated is not contaminated at all.
Anyway that is just semantics. I agree wit with the Lake Ellesmere thing. I used to live just 5 km from it so I am pretty familiar with its problems. I guess the good thing is that with a small volume of water like is in Ellesmere, if farmers got their act together, it would clean itself quite quickly....espescially with its exposure to t the sea. Another area that is polluted to hell is Coes Ford...there are dead sheep and god knows what else in there. Harts Creek is pretty bad too.
I think water storage is the answer as well provided that there are good safeguards in place. This solution may actually enhance the environment in some regards. Thing is with all the consultation that takes place, it'll be 15 years plus before the schemes bear fruit meaning the rivers will be running low for a while yet. |
|
By: johnstonea@rocketmail.com
5/11/2009
5:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
johnstonea@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Wonder what will happen when there is a food shortage in the world, there already is one in many parts of the world so suppose that problem will just be spread further thru out the world. |
|
By: ryeguynz
6/11/2009
7:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
ryeguynz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yep we used to swim there (coes ford) too but now you shouldn't let your dog go in the water at times. Harts creek was another that was once a great fishing resource and had fresh water crays too. I lived out that way for nearly twenty years and still have family dotted all over ellesmere.
I hadn't thought about the shallowness and hence smaller volume of water making it easier to clean out but I guess that would be the case. I hope to see it looking alot better in my life time. If I win lotto that's what I want to do, set up a trust and pay myself to advocate on behalf of the tributeries (sp?) and get the banks planted up with natives that will help prevent stock pollution and absorb some of the excess nutrients. |
|
By: old_wolseley
6/11/2009
8:22 am Yahoo! Profile:
old_wolseley Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Knows enough information about dairy farm effluent ponds and what goes into them, to form a strong opinion. |
|
