Level 2 Evaluation

Level 2 of the LEP Toolkit provided the opportunity for a more in-depth analysis of the farm and its resources. Again as a desktop study, the interview was conducted indoors with both the farm manager and supervisor. The Level 2 assessment was completed using the information gained during the Level 1 assessment, along with the identification and selection of the different land management units (LMU) present on the farm.

Steps 1 and 2 - Prepare property and map land resources

Using the maps generated in Level 1, the same farm paddock map and relevant farm features (waterways, shelterbelts etc.) was used to map the farms basic resources (Figure 4.1). Primary landforms, (hills, wetlands, flats, and included variations) along with other physical differences (slope, elevation and aspect), were used to split the

76

farm into landforms and into further subdivisions called land type. The landforms were then further subdivided into land types based upon the differences in properties of the land.

Step 3 – Land management units

a) Identification and design of land management units

The differences on the Springvale farm were largely based upon physical properties such as soil texture and type, drainage, differences in pasture production, aspect, elevation and workability (ability to plough). Through these differences in land resources and subsequent land use, the different land management units present on the farm were identified.

b) Evaluation of LMU and Resource chart

Once identified, the LMU were analysed to determine the strengths and weaknesses each land management unit presented and once finalised, recorded in a resource management chart (Table 4.4)

Step 4 - Nutrient budget

Using the information provided the OVERSEERTM nutrient budget (Version 6.0) (Figure 4.5) predicted that inputs of N both from fertiliser (10 kg N ha/yr) and atmospheric/clover N (64 kg N ha/yr) resulted in approximately 8 kg N ha/yr lost through leaching processes to water and 31 kg N ha/yr through immobilisation within the soil. Phosphate is predicted to accumulate at a rate of 11 kg P ha/yr through absorption resulting in an estimated decrease of 2 Olsen P unit a year. The model predicts that no magnesium (Mg) input will result in 23 kg Mg ha/yr being lost through leaching processes and a decline in soil magnesium of approximately 3 units per year.

The 8 kg of N lost via leaching processes is within the range found on Sheep and Beef farm systems, but is low, when compared to arable cropping or dairy land uses and is

77 below Horizons Regional Council’s N loss limits in year 1 and 5 in the OnePlan for farms converting to an intensive land use predominantly on class VI and VII land. The calculated N loss limit would be at 10.2 kg N ha-1 yr-1 for the current stocking rate (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Cumulative N leaching maximum by Land Use Capability (LUC) class for Springvale

Station LUC N loss limit (kg N ha1) Area of LUC (ha) Percentage of farm* (%) N loss limit (kg N)

1 year 5 year 1 year 5 year

Class III 22 21 61.2 2 1346.4 1285.2

Class IV 16 16 619 21 9904 9904

Class VI 10 10 1,572.7 54 15727 15727

Class VII 6 6 740.6 26 4443.6 4443.6

Class VIII 2 2 94.2 3 188.4 188.4

Total N loss limit (kg N ha1) 10.2 10.2

Source: (Table 13-2 proposed OnePlan) (HRC, 2010).

*Total area of the farm 3,087.7 ha)

Step 5 - Yield gap

a) Estimate whole-farm pasture yield (current)

The current whole farm pasture yield per hectare was calculated using the equation below.

This value of 7,992 kg DM ha-1 yr-1 represented the minimum amount of pasture that the farm must grow per hectare of pasture to sustain the current stocking rate.

Total SU Kg DM/yr kg

Stock units Utilisation factor* Whole farm yield Effective area Yield per ha

78

Table 4.4 Strength and weakness resource management chart for the land management units on Springvale farm

LMU Description Strengths Weaknesses Land use &

management

1.

Easy country

Fertile, high producing soils located on rolling flats in the middle part of the farm and on valley floors

-Location, tractor accessible -Silage stacks

-Good soils

-Majority of land fenced into manageable paddocks

- -Lack of reticulated water - - Pasture damage - -Exposed

- - No shade or shelter in basin area - -Winter wet and damage from

cultivation  -Fattening/finishing country  -some cultivation/cropping 2. Early summer country

Located on the warmer northerly/westerly facing slopes of the farm

Similar to Early summer country plus:

-Higher altitude allows the pasture to grow for longer -Temperature is cooler and so gets more rain

Similar to easy country plus: -Less infrastructure

-Not as well historically subdivided as Early summer country

-Twin grazing

3.

Breeding country

Fertile, high producing soils located on rolling flats in the middle part of the farm and on valley floors

-Warm north facing aspect of the slopes

-Rolling hills, big paddocks -No problem with weeds -Good natural shelter provided by the topography

-Remote

-Lack infrastructure and more labour intensive to develop the land

-Stock are eating less pasture than what is produced e.g. utilisation problems  -Fattening/finishing country 4. Steep dry country

Located on the slopes by the river, the gorge and on the western part of the farm on the easterly facing slopes

-Low maintenance

-Some good summer country on south facing slopes

-Good weaning country

- -Below zero temperatures in winter – high potential to lose stock (cattle)

- -Low natural soil fertility

- -Problem with toxic weeds – Flaxes and Toots

 -Grazing twinners and cattle

5.

Steep wet country

Cold, wet and heavier soils located throughout the farm on southerly facing hill slopes

Similar to Steep dry country

Similar to Steep dry country plus:

79

Step 6 – Response plan

After completion of Level 2 of the LEP a response plan (Table 4.5) was developed for the SNM issues that were identified including:

 Nitrate leaching and immobilisation of N  Decrease in soil P in certain paddocks

 Phosphate accumulation, pugged soils, risk of P erosion from critical source areas

 Lack of riparian management

 Under-utilisation of pasture, invasive weeds  Shade and shelter

Table 4.5 Springvale Station’s response plan designed after completion of Land and

Environment Planning toolkit - Level 2 Nutrient

affected Issue Response

Nitrogen

Nitrate leaching

(8kg N/ha) -Not a concern (Table 4.3) Nitrate

immobilisation (31kg N/ha)

-Reduce N fertiliser input -Improve stock grazing rotation

Phosphate

Decrease in soil P

(-2 units/ year) -Apply capital P fertiliser to raise Olsen P Erosion

Potential P loss from CSA

-Fence off waterways

-Cease P fertiliser input on high Olsen P paddocks (>30)

Wet, pugged soils -Restrict cattle winter grazing -Graze only sheep

Nitrogen and Phosphate

Riparian management

-Fence off main waterway (Rangitikei River) immediately, and work towards fencing off the other streams over the next year

-Restrict stock access

Other

Low performance, under utilisation of pasture

-Manage nutrients so P deficiencies are addressed

-Improve stock grazing rotation Weeds -Manage invasive weeds

Shade and shelter -Investigate avenues to get funding to plant some trees

Decline in soil

80