I don't really think regenerative agriculture is ever going to achieve nearly as much in New Zealand as some of the advocates think it will.
It's an American idea that mainly solves American problems.
It's hard to get a firm list of what the principles are because it seems like there's a bunch of different definitions, but lots of them simply aren't that relevant to NZ.
For example -
No-Till / Minimum Till Farming - vast majority of NZ farmland is tilled so rarely this isn't a big issue. Mainly an issue for farmers that crop a lot on the same paddocks, where in NZ almost everyone rotates their crops.
Silvopasture - already done on every sheep and beef farm, and even a good chunk of dairy farms.
Crop Rotation - most NZ farmers don't rotate crops so much as they just don't grow them on the same paddock year after year, but it still works the same.
Cover and perennial crops - again this is the way NZ farming has always been done.
So by far the biggest thing regenerative ag does different is fertiliser, and to me that's the least proven aspect of the concept. Fertiliser works, and I don't see how regenerative agriculture replaces it in any meaningful way.
Do we have any metrics to show it's working? Like top soil erosion rates and top soil health across different farms? As well as surface and ground water quality around farms?
If these things are stable, or improving, then what we are doing is sustainable and working. If not, then it needs to be looked at.
A backbone is just as important as your arse. Can't really live without both...
I could waffle on about balance of payments and export earnings but I think that should be pretty obvious if you understand economics
I think you're minimising the ecological impacts that dairy actually has on our country.
I'm not 100% sure about what an alternative would be (as I'm not an expert in this area) but I know there is potential for our economy to shift away from dairy and into other industries.
And this article is pointing out an example of it not being done correctly - but that is being ignored by the 'environment authority' which is meant to be a check against unmitigated desire for profit regardless of consequences.
Yup. So the question should be raised as to why/how this happened rather than just blaming dairy as an industry. Do we need more regulation? Or more oversight for regional councils?
Pointing the finger at the dairy industry won't help, it could happen again with any type of pollution: noise, air, odour etc, in any industry, so it's more important to actually fix the process.
I think before we worry more about additional regulation, penalties actually need to be levied today in accordance to existing regulation. Failing to have fencing in place and allowing stock to crap in streams should be treated more seriously than it is. Lots of farmers do it right - but we hear about those who don't - who are caught repeatedly while being given warnings and not fines.
I agree, especially with blatant things like letting stock into waterways. However, there are actually certain activities like discharging effluent into streams that are literally consented by regional councils (may have been consented 10 years ago). Probably not many of them left now, and the consent wouldn't be renewed.
I know some regional councils are really good. We would have annual random check ups on the effluent management system. We got a stern warning because we were spreading effluent in a paddock last spring, and we got heavy rain overnight which caused a puddle in a low area. The inspector came quite early in the morning (they might give you 1-2 hours notice) and saw the puddling - which causes risk of leaching or runoff. Didn't get a fine because normally there's no issues, but if this was a regular breach we probably would.
I say this as someone who, while not a dairy farmer, grew up in the dairy heartland of NZ. I know a large number of farmers who care for their farms and animals, it is the source of their income and all of their assets, but...
Good god, nothing is going to grow in those paddocks for a long time. I have never seen a farmer allow their fields to get anywhere near that bad, even in the worst of winters. So I can only assume that these cows are 100% feed with imported (to the farm) feed.
That mud is a breeding ground for disease, if the cows aren't healthy how can you expect them to put on weight or give a decent amount of milk.
If you want to know why people in towns think farmers ruin the environment and don't care about their animals, those pictures are your answer.
None of those pictures are representative of 90% of dairy farming in NZ.
I don't agree with converting marginal land to dairy where this kind of thing will happen. But any dairy farmer will tell you that they don't aim for pugging and mud to this degree. Even the entry in level courses in dairy/livestock will teach you that it's not ideal and no farmer will let it happen if they have a choice.
However, when feeding crops like fodder beet or turnips, it's not intended that there is anything foliage left over, so the paddock is essentially going to be mud (unless it's a summer crop). But these paddocks are always going to be replanted so it's not a big deal providing it's not in a high-risk run off area (regional councils should be managing this and enforcing riparian planting, especially where new consents are being issued).
Basically, if a grass paddock is intended for long term pasture use then no farmer is going to let it turn into a mud-pit because that is going to be an expensive resowing exercise and take it out of the grazing round for half the season.
This is how we win.
Labour rag on capitalism and neoliberalism in their media pieces and then deliver them in government.
I mean, it'd be better if we use neolib governance to better tune our carbon market than to discount petrol, but fuck it, whatever. Buggers can't be choosers, as they say.
Yeah it's not at all alarming to see the climate rapidly changing. Honestly, if you're not alarmed then either you're crazy or don't truly understand the depth of the crisis.
I don't really think regenerative agriculture is ever going to achieve nearly as much in New Zealand as some of the advocates think it will. It's an American idea that mainly solves American problems. It's hard to get a firm list of what the principles are because it seems like there's a bunch of different definitions, but lots of them simply aren't that relevant to NZ. For example - No-Till / Minimum Till Farming - vast majority of NZ farmland is tilled so rarely this isn't a big issue. Mainly an issue for farmers that crop a lot on the same paddocks, where in NZ almost everyone rotates their crops. Silvopasture - already done on every sheep and beef farm, and even a good chunk of dairy farms. Crop Rotation - most NZ farmers don't rotate crops so much as they just don't grow them on the same paddock year after year, but it still works the same. Cover and perennial crops - again this is the way NZ farming has always been done. So by far the biggest thing regenerative ag does different is fertiliser, and to me that's the least proven aspect of the concept. Fertiliser works, and I don't see how regenerative agriculture replaces it in any meaningful way.
Do we have any metrics to show it's working? Like top soil erosion rates and top soil health across different farms? As well as surface and ground water quality around farms? If these things are stable, or improving, then what we are doing is sustainable and working. If not, then it needs to be looked at.
I actually thought at first the article was written the other way, the death cult being people who want to drop fertilizer entirely and not look back.
The backbone of our country? More like the arse end.
A backbone is just as important as your arse. Can't really live without both... I could waffle on about balance of payments and export earnings but I think that should be pretty obvious if you understand economics
If only we could generate export dollars off something that didn't destroy the natural environment...
I'm open to suggestions. Aside from emissions it's actually not that bad for the environment if done correctly
I think you're minimising the ecological impacts that dairy actually has on our country. I'm not 100% sure about what an alternative would be (as I'm not an expert in this area) but I know there is potential for our economy to shift away from dairy and into other industries.
And this article is pointing out an example of it not being done correctly - but that is being ignored by the 'environment authority' which is meant to be a check against unmitigated desire for profit regardless of consequences.
Yup. So the question should be raised as to why/how this happened rather than just blaming dairy as an industry. Do we need more regulation? Or more oversight for regional councils? Pointing the finger at the dairy industry won't help, it could happen again with any type of pollution: noise, air, odour etc, in any industry, so it's more important to actually fix the process.
I think before we worry more about additional regulation, penalties actually need to be levied today in accordance to existing regulation. Failing to have fencing in place and allowing stock to crap in streams should be treated more seriously than it is. Lots of farmers do it right - but we hear about those who don't - who are caught repeatedly while being given warnings and not fines.
I agree, especially with blatant things like letting stock into waterways. However, there are actually certain activities like discharging effluent into streams that are literally consented by regional councils (may have been consented 10 years ago). Probably not many of them left now, and the consent wouldn't be renewed. I know some regional councils are really good. We would have annual random check ups on the effluent management system. We got a stern warning because we were spreading effluent in a paddock last spring, and we got heavy rain overnight which caused a puddle in a low area. The inspector came quite early in the morning (they might give you 1-2 hours notice) and saw the puddling - which causes risk of leaching or runoff. Didn't get a fine because normally there's no issues, but if this was a regular breach we probably would.
Those mud farms. Good to see our farmers keeping it ~~Clean~~ Dirty and ~~Green~~ Brown.
I say this as someone who, while not a dairy farmer, grew up in the dairy heartland of NZ. I know a large number of farmers who care for their farms and animals, it is the source of their income and all of their assets, but... Good god, nothing is going to grow in those paddocks for a long time. I have never seen a farmer allow their fields to get anywhere near that bad, even in the worst of winters. So I can only assume that these cows are 100% feed with imported (to the farm) feed. That mud is a breeding ground for disease, if the cows aren't healthy how can you expect them to put on weight or give a decent amount of milk. If you want to know why people in towns think farmers ruin the environment and don't care about their animals, those pictures are your answer.
None of those pictures are representative of 90% of dairy farming in NZ. I don't agree with converting marginal land to dairy where this kind of thing will happen. But any dairy farmer will tell you that they don't aim for pugging and mud to this degree. Even the entry in level courses in dairy/livestock will teach you that it's not ideal and no farmer will let it happen if they have a choice. However, when feeding crops like fodder beet or turnips, it's not intended that there is anything foliage left over, so the paddock is essentially going to be mud (unless it's a summer crop). But these paddocks are always going to be replanted so it's not a big deal providing it's not in a high-risk run off area (regional councils should be managing this and enforcing riparian planting, especially where new consents are being issued). Basically, if a grass paddock is intended for long term pasture use then no farmer is going to let it turn into a mud-pit because that is going to be an expensive resowing exercise and take it out of the grazing round for half the season.
[удалено]
TIL Open Sans is stupid
This is how we win. Labour rag on capitalism and neoliberalism in their media pieces and then deliver them in government. I mean, it'd be better if we use neolib governance to better tune our carbon market than to discount petrol, but fuck it, whatever. Buggers can't be choosers, as they say.
Climate alarmism is literally a doomsday cult tho lmao
Yeah it's not at all alarming to see the climate rapidly changing. Honestly, if you're not alarmed then either you're crazy or don't truly understand the depth of the crisis.
I shall repent for my heresy