Combined Data

This section will combine and summarise the results of both case studies, identifying any common themes or differences between the cases.

5.5.1. Reasons for the introduction of NMPs to Dairy Farmers

Over both case studies all farmers involved supplied milk to Fonterra and were aware that part of their supply agreement with Fonterra was that an NMP must be in place on their farm.

Chapter 5 Results 60 However, farmers were also aware that there was no requirement for them to actually use that NMP as long as the NMP itself was physically present in the dairy shed for the annual shed inspection by Fonterra. Farmers in the Otago region were also required to have an NMP in place as part of the supply agreement with their irrigation supplier NOIC. Farmers in the Waikato region were required to have NMPs as part of the regional policy rule whereby an NMP was required in certain scenarios. Four of the Waikato farmers were also involved in the ICMP which the WRC was involved in and which promoted the use of a NMP as part of an environmental farm plan.

Nine farmers had their NMP created by their fertiliser company while one farmer in the Waikato region had a private farm consultant create their NMP. The major fertiliser company in the Otago region was Ravensdown who supplied five of the six farms, while Ballance was the fertiliser supplier for all farms in the Waikato region. Four farmers stated that they had instigated the development of their NMP of their own accord (three in Otago and one in Waikato) while the remaining seven farmers all stated that the NMP was introduced to them either through there fertiliser company or private farm consultant.

5.5.2. Influences on the degree of uptake and opinions of NMPs by Dairy Farmers Results from the research suggest that the Otago farmers seemed more resigned to the use of new management tools such as NMPs, while the Waikato farmer’s responses suggest that NMPs were viewed as a mixture of useful information and a nuisance due to the additional requirements on the farmer.

Farmers in the Otago area stated that their NMP had increased their environmental awareness and contributed towards better fertiliser application and compliance. Three Waikato farmers said that the NMP had contributed towards their production goals. Examples given were reducing fertiliser costs and improving farm finances and increasing the efficiency of fertiliser application. All farmers interviewed were unaware of any actual environmental goals being specified within their NMPs. Waikato farmers did state that the ICMP was more influential towards their farm goals, with three commenting that farmers in the region had already been setting environmental goals due to their involvement in the programme.

Five farmers stated that they were not aware of any advertising or support offered regarding NMPs in their region with two Otago farmers expanding on this and commenting on a lack of understanding amongst farmers regarding nutrient management. Two Waikato farmers did state that they were aware of NMP advertising being available but that it was often ignored due to the large amounts of information and advertising that they received in the mail. This was a

Chapter 5 Results 61 common theme throughout the interviews in both regions. For example in the Otago region while some were not aware of any information regarding NMPs, others stated that while they were aware of it they had not attended any workshops or actively read up on nutrient

management. Ten farmers saw their fertiliser representative as the main source of information and support regarding NMPs with all farmers stating that they rated the assistance and

knowledge of their fertiliser representative as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Other sources of information regarding NMP included the relevant regional council, Fonterra and DairyNZ. The majority of farmers stated that there was a lack of relevant information and education for farmers around NMPs. Farmers in both regions expressed a desire for information around the need for NMPs and what goes on behind the development of the plan. A Waikato farmer stated that the NMPs were not getting ‘sold to them’ and as a result there was a lot of information in the NMP which they did not understand.

5.5.3. Implementation Process

Nine farmers found the implementation process of their NMP as being relatively easy, due mainly because of the involvement of the farmers’ fertiliser representatives or private farm consultants. The majority of farmers stated that their fertiliser representative or consultant did most of the work for them and all farmers agreed that all that was required from themselves were to supply details on the inputs and outputs of the farm and the soil tests. Six farmers stated that the only cost was the soil tests, while the remaining farmers said there were no costs at all. It should be noted that as the interviews were with actual farm managers or share milkers there is a chance that the farm owners may have paid the costs for soil tests and the farm manager may just not be aware of the fact. One farmer in the Waikato region did state that they had to pay for their private farm consultant’s time however this was viewed as a trivial cost when compared to the savings made in fertiliser usage as a result of the NMP.

Ten farmers saw strengths in their NMP with six farmers seeing value in the NMP as

compliance or monitoring tool. Three farmers also stated that the NMP had helped to increase their awareness and knowledge regarding nutrient management and so in turn helped to improve their fertiliser management.

Two farmers within the group saw no weaknesses with their NMP. Five farmers raised concerns around the NMP not actually being used or not being read thoroughly by themselves and others, while one other stated that NMPs were not necessary. Five farmers did raise concerns around many farmers’ lack of understanding and knowledge regarding nutrient management. Another common issue amongst the majority of farmers across both case studies was concerns over the Overseer program. Farmers commented on a perceived lack of science

Chapter 5 Results 62 behind Overseer and a lack of trust in Overseer due to its user dependency and because of its use of default settings and its inability to accommodate for the individual characteristics of each farm. Farmers in the Waikato region also raised concerns regarding the increased compliance requirements for dairy farmers. This was a common theme with most farmers in both case studies.

5.5.4. Influence on Management Practices

Both sets of farmers from the two regions agreed on the purpose of an NMP with the key reasons given in both regions being the use of an NMP as a compliance tool and as a tool to help farmers improve their farm management practices and fertiliser application. All farmers in the Otago region said they had altered their farm management practices as a result of their NMP, while three farmers in the Waikato region said that they had changed their farm

management practices. Only two farmers stated that NMPs helped to reduce their impact on the environment and these farmers were both in the Waikato region and part of the ICMP. The influence of the NMP on farm management practices was similar in both regions with the major changes identified by all farmers in both regions as:

• Development and expansion of the effluent area

• Increased precision and efficiency of fertiliser application through:

o Splitting the farm into blocks based on such characteristics as soil type and geography and then applying the fertiliser according to the individual nutrient requirements of each block.

o Only applying fertiliser to particular parts of the paddock to account for irrigation or stock movement

• The consideration of other external factors (eg: irrigation and bought in feed) on farm nutrient levels.

• Farmers in the Otago region also stated that they had incorporated more precise soil tests.

Eight farmers viewed their NMP as being successful, with the one farmer in the Otago region who did not view the NMP as being successful stating the lack of education and support as their key reasoning. One of the two Waikato farmers who did not view their NMP as being successful stated that they required a better understanding of their NMP, while the second farmer stated that they saw no value in their NMP.

Those who did view their NMP as a success stated among other reasons that the NMP

Chapter 5 Results 63 on the environment, and how the NMP put numbers on what they did with fertiliser, allowing the farmer to make changes as required.