Options for improved nitrogen sensitive practices

In a study carried out on a Landcorp farm in the western sector, AgResearch compared the amount of nitrogen that leached from paddocks that were grazed by deer, sheep and cattle. This study (Hoogendoorn et al., 2011) established that Taupo was no different from other farming areas in that leaching from pastoral farming was occurring and that leaching under cattle was higher than that

under sheep and was least under deer116_{. Thus it was clear that, although present-day farmers were}

not responsible for current levels of nitrogen in the groundwater117_{, pastoral farming was}

contributing to the nitrogen problem, and would be a risk to groundwater in the future, particularly if animal numbers in the Catchment were not capped. It also suggested that an obvious way to reduce nitrogen discharges from farms would be to reduce the number of cattle. However, as pointed out previously, cattle play an important role in sheep and beef farming in income and pasture

management complementarity.

116 _{losses averaged 37,26 and 25 kg N/ha/year respectively (Hoogendoorn et al., 2011).}

117 _{Groundwater age is estimated to be up to 80 years old (Vant & Smith, 2002). Thus, current levels of}

Funds were obtained from the Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF)118 _{to undertake a research study}

located on a Māori-titled land in the southern sector119_{. The study did not result in any clear}

directions for farmers but did suggest that improving stock performance (e.g. by continuing to

improve lambing percentages and carcass weights) “…emerges asthe most profitable route for farmers in the short-term” (Thorrold & Betteridge, 2006:3). The grazing study component of this research showed that removal of cattle between May and August reduced nitrogen leaching from 13 KgN/ha/yr to 5 KgN/ha/yr (Betteridge et al., 2007) but this result was not thought to be an

economically viable option by the sheep and beef farmers that the authors talked to. Another

proposal was DCDs120 _{but their initial promise was not fulfilled, both because of cost, and concerns}

over food safety. The product was later removed from the market.

A study funded by FRST and the Sustainable Farming Fund121_{, on a commercial farm in the western}

sector, looked at a range of options for improved nitrogen sensitive farming systems. In the first part of the study, begun in 2003, the investigation aimed to determine all potential options. In the second part of the study, members of Taupo Lake Care, in conjunction with the scientists, chose the

‘best bets’ from the options from stage one, and these were to be tested in a grazing trial on the same property from 2007 to 2010 (Ledgard et al., 2007). A full account of this research is yet to be published but interviewed farmers connected with the research claimed that no recommendations have resulted. One such farmer commented:

That 3-year research project was very practical. The farmer group had a lot of input into that to make sure it was practical - and it was useful. But there weren’t too many tools in the toolbox and nothing’s really changed. There’s tinkering … But none of them [the tested potential tools] were really

conclusive in terms of any major benefit.

Other research has suggested that dosing cattle with salt in order to force them to urinate more frequently will reduce nitrogen leaching (Li, Betteridge, Cichota, Hoogendoorn, & Jolly, 2012) but some interviewed farmers expressed doubts about the ethics of such an approach.

118 _{This fund is managed by the Ministry of Primary Industries and is a contestable fund that invests in applied}

research and projects led by farmers, growers, or foresters. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from:

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/farming/sustainable-farming-fund/

119 _{Sustainable Farming Fund project 05/114. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from:} http://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/farming/sustainable-farming-fund/

120 _{An ammonium oxidation inhibitor that limits nitrate loss from soil. It was voluntarily withdrawn from the}

market in 2013 because of concerns about residues in milk. See https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/videos/490-

nitrification-inhibitors. Retrieved February 20, 2017.

121 _{FRST – the Foundation for Research Science and Technology was a contestable Crown operated research}

fund. It was absorbed into the Ministry of Science and Innovation in 2011. Sustainable Farming Fund Project 10/088. Retrieved from: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/farming/sustainable-farming-

Beef + Lamb New Zealand came to the assistance of farmers in the Catchment by setting up Monitor Farms in 2008. One was on a commercial sheep and beef farm in the western sector and one on a

Māori-titled sheep, beef and deer farm in the southern sector. The research project aimed to look at

farming “…sustainably and profitably under the nitrogen cap”(Beef + Lamb NZ, 2012:3) and to disseminate information to other farmers through thirteen on-farm field days. At the last field day, held in 2012, Doug Edmeades (a science consultant and soil scientist) was asked to summarise the

day’s presentations. He commented as follows (Beef + Lamb NZ, 2012:23):

I guess in terms of the tools that farmers currently have I was disappointed with this section of today. I’ve heard of all these things [mitigation options] going back ten years and I was expecting and hoping to hear some really new initiatives from the scientists, some breakthrough ideas, some outside of the square thinking, but I did not hear that today and that disappointed me.

The view that there are few mitigation tools available to farmers, particularly sheep and beef farmers in Taupo, is wide-spread. An interviewee, who was one of the government representatives on a Variation 5 consultation committee set up by the Waikato Regional Council, summarised the mitigation options for sheep and beef farmers as follows:

The big issue with nitrates of course is dairying. There is very little that sheep and beef farmers can do. They can play around – increase their sheep numbers and decrease their beef numbers - but you are not going to get big swings on that because you need both for income complementarity. So longer term the environmental restriction [Variation 5] may drag your farm down - which is a concern in Taupo.

With few mitigations currently available122_{, it seemed that a different approach to managing nitrogen}

discharges might be called for. The Sustainable Farming Fund provided funds for Taupo Lake Care to

employ a consultant to look at the potential for individual environmental management systems123

rather than a cap and trade system to regulate nitrogen discharges across the Catchment. The report, however, did not change the overall direction of Variation 5.

122 _{The Waikato Regional Council have produced a series of booklets showing mitigations that are possible.}

One highly effective nitrogen mitigation suggested for sheep and beef farmers is more careful placement and timing of fertiliser applications and use of feed crops that actively grow through winter (Waikato Regional Council, no date b).

123 _{The report recommended the establishment of a Catchment Management Group to facilitate a sound}

working relationship between stakeholders and ensure that the interests of each are fairly represented in achieving a reduction of 20% N output and a cap on N output from remaining pastoral land. Sustainable Farming Fund Project 03/210. Retrieved from: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-

Other sector groups were also undertaking research on alternative land-use systems. The

Sustainable Farming Fund provided funding for Pure Power Global to investigate energy farming in

the Catchment124 _{and the Lake Taupo Protection Trust funded projects looking at:}

• the potential for hazelnut production125_,

• establishing the rate of nitrogen leaching under cut and export lucerne126_,

• establishing native trees as a woodlot127_{, and}

• using DCDs to reduce leaching from animal camps128_.

A member of the Lake Taupo Protection Trust suggested that the problem of lack of alternatives was

a result of the “…poor soils and short growing season” which substantially reduced potential land- uses. The Group Manager at Waikato Regional Council who was responsible for Variation 5, however, suggested that a broader range of research was required:

All of the research that the Lake Taupo Protection Trust did about alternative land uses didn’t show any silver bullet – but they were never asked to research miscanthus [for biofuel production] for instance.

124 _{Trial plots of willows were established in the southern sector and showed that it grows well in those}

conditions. The technology to produce biofuel from the willows, however, was still under development when the trial finished in 2008. Sustainable Farming Fund Project 05/058. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from:

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/farming/sustainable-farming-fund/sustainable-farming-

fund-project-search/.

125 _{The Hazelnut project showed that this crop will grow in the catchment and that there are some 4800 ha of}

suitable land there (with a further 4300 ha of possibly suitable land). However, the lack of a processing facility in the North Island, the high initial costs and the volatile market conditions make it a risky venture despite the good returns predicted in later years. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from

http://www.laketaupoprotectiontrust.org.nz/page/lake_58.php

126 _{By far the most promising results for Catchment land-use alternatives have come from this lucerne trial,}

which has shown that N leaching is well below previously established values. Once the results are incorporated in Overseer®, lucerne may offer an alternative crop for farmers in the catchment either as a feed source for e.g. housed animals or for a sale outside of the catchment. The economic viability is not established. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from: http://www.laketaupoprotectiontrust.org.nz/page/lake_65.php. A second stage of this

project is being funded by the Sustainable Farming Fund (Project entitled “Lucerne grazed by stock” and

received funding in the 2016/17 funding round).

127 _{The native trees establishment trial has shown that a variety of natives can be used as alternative tree} species in the catchment at a cost not too far above radiata pine or eucalyptus. One of the Māori

Incorporations (located in this Western sector) has sold N to the LTPT and is planting 153 ha in native species. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from: http://www.laketaupoprotectiontrust.org.nz/page/lake_60.php

128 _{The project has been stopped since DCDs are currently withdrawn from the market. The first of these}

studies has shown that intensive use of DCDs during feeding-out during winter reduces N discharge. The second established that camp sites for animals can be predicted and thus potentially treated with DCDs to reduce N discharge. This latter would reduce the cost of DCD application for e.g. sheep and beef farms. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from http://www.laketaupoprotectiontrust.org.nz/page/lake_59.php

In the end, all of the research undertaken both within and outside of the research community did not come up with any alternative farm practices, useable mitigations, or viable, low nitrogen farm systems that could be adopted by farmers in the Catchment.

Researchers were not the only people that were looking for a solution. Numerous well-meaning

‘experts’ descended on Taupo in the mid-2000s, set up meetings, were interviewed by local newspapers and suggested a variety of farm practices and new land-uses to farmers. However, as this farmer explains there is a crucial gatekeeper in the regulation system:

You get every witch doctor and snake oil salesman trying to sell you something - saying this will solve the problem. Whether it may or may not work is irrelevant. It’s whether or not OVERSEER® _{accepts that it works or} not. There may be some technology that’s absolutely brilliant, but until it goes into OVERSEER®_{, it’s irrelevant … [this is] farming at the whims of} OVERSEER®_.

Eventually, the patience of farmers was worn out by this constant stream of advice from sector and interest groups and lack of progress from the science community. An ex-member of the Lake Taupo Joint Committee who has been closely associated with the Taupo implementation from its inception, summed up the situation as follows:

There is very little that sheep and beef farmers can do [about nitrogen discharge]. They can play around … but for sheep and beef farmers I think that there are limited options open to them.

Further, if there were answers to be had, they had to be included in the OVERSEER® _{model that was}

used to implement the new regulations and monitor the performance of consented farmers.