Key Learnings from the IrrigationNZ Study Tour to Nebraska

I was part of a 24-person group who went to Nebraska at the start of September 2018.  The tour was organised by IrrigationNZ and was an amazing opportunity to go and see how another part of the world deals with the same issues that we have here.  Below is an overview of my key learnings from the tour.  

Governance of Water

The governance of water in Nebraska is complex. There is Federal legislation, such as the

Endangered Species Act, which the state has to abide by. Alongside this there are also Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation that control most of the surface water through storage and diversion infrastructure. The state then sets its own laws around how it will manage its water.

In Nebraska the surface water is manged at state level by the Department of Natural Resources, but groundwater is managed by Natural Resource District’s (NRD) at a local level. For a number of surface water bodies, there are also interstate pacts that determine how much water must remain in the river to reach downstream states.

The NRD’s have a Board that is democratically elected, and are often dominated by rural people including farmers. Despite this, the farmer representatives have been proactive in driving practical change among their peers.  

The NRD system in Nebraska has been very successful in managing groundwater. All takes are controlled through a well permit system that allows for a given number of hectares to be irrigated per well.

Both of the NRD’s that we visited had invested heavily in science to help them better understand their resource. They also look for solutions as both a farm and catchment level, the latter including raising capital to build environmental infrastructure such as that required for augmentation projects.  

Conjunctive Management

‘Conjunctive management’ is a recent development in Nebraska that has largely come about through the management of ground and surface water takes in ‘conjunction’ to achieve interstate pacts. This has involved the NRD’s (the managers of the groundwater) working closely with irrigation districts and the Department of Natural Resources to ensure downstream flows are achieved.

This has included restriction of individual water takes (wells) – controlling any new ones, limiting the irrigated area from existing ones and in some cases placing a seasonal limit on usage. Alongside the implementation of environmental infrastructure such as Managed Aquifer Recharge and Stream Augmentation projects.

Managing Water Quality

Nitrates in groundwater are of significant concern in the heavily irrigated districts of central Nebraska. In some areas over 50% of the land is now under irrigated crop-farming. Historic poor nutrient management (type and timing) and poor irrigation practice resulted in nitrate concentrations being frequently observed over 30ppm – well over the US drinking water standard of 10ppm.

However, in recent years there has been a significant declining trend, with relatively few areas now exceeding 20ppm. This has largely been brought about by a non-regulatory approach.

State law requires the production of water quality and quantity management plans that identify the issues and then require the development of an implementation plan to address them. All the NRD’s have a rule framework, but most of the rules are currently focused on managing water takes and farming practice reporting. Incentives, knowledge and enabling peer to peer learning in combination with environmental infrastructure is currently seen as the way forward for water quality.

The widespread move from surface flood to centre pivot irrigation has been instrumental in reducing nitrate losses to groundwater. This has enabled soils to be irrigated on an ‘as and when’ basis to minimise nitrate leaching. There is now also a push towards the more widespread adoption of fertigation, as it allows ‘as and when’ nutrient applications – significantly reducing the risk of leaching from rainfall events.

Public perception

Despite the widespread use of intensive farming methods, and the water quality and quantity challenges facing Nebraska, the one issue currently not facing farmers at the state level is pressure from the anti-farming lobby or environmental groups.

Of the almost 2 million people living in Nebraska, the majority understand the role of crop farming and ranching in providing for their social-economic well-being. The Nebraskan economy is based on the irrigation of almost 4 million hectares of corn and soy beans and this is widely understood. 

The University of Nebraska research and extension service runs an outreach programme to attract the next generation to agriculture. This currently interacts with one in every three school age children in the state, providing an agriculture ‘101’ and highlighting the exciting career opportunities that exist within it.

Keri Johnston, Irricon

Natural Resources Engineer

Nutrient Budgets and Farm Environment Plan Auditing

If you live within Canterbury, there is a good chance you have been tied up in the nutrient saga that has come to life in recent years. The environment is a hot topic at the moment and promises not to slow down anytime soon.

A common word bandied around rural communities is Overseer or nutrient budgets (Overseer being the program used to create a nutrient budget). Overseer is constantly being updated to reflect changes in software and science developments.  As I write this, we are currently using Overseer v6.3.0.

In Canterbury, a farm is required to have a baseline nutrient budget which covers the years of 2009 – 2013, which in conjunction with Farm Environment Plans (FEP) often forms the basis for any Land Use Consent to Farm (farming consent) that may be required and a current season nutrient budget using actual farm input data for the most recent season.

Farming consents set a Nitrogen Discharge Allowance (NDA) for a farm, and this figure is not to be exceeded. Farming consents are a way for ECan to draw a line in the sand and monitor nitrogen losses from properties or irrigation schemes to determine how nitrogen losses are tracking. Any farming consent requires auditing of a Farm Environment Plan to be completed within 12 months of granting, then after depending on the grade received (A grade – 3 yearly for an individual farm or 4 yearly for an irrigation scheme, B grade – 2 yearly, C grade – within 12 months, D grade – within 6 months). These audits are carried out by independent (non ECan employed) FEP Auditors who have to audit to  guidelines and templates set by ECan.

Part of the FEP audit includes a section on nutrients, and has two objectives;

                1. To use nutrients efficiently and minimise nutrient losses to water; and

                2. Nutrient losses do not exceed permitted or consented nitrogen limits

For us as auditors to determine this, we must be able to compare ‘apples with apples’ in terms of nutrient budgets. This requires the baseline nutrient budget to have been updated into the most recent version of Overseer (currently v6.3.0) and the most recent season end nutrient budget to have been completed in that same version.

If we are unable to determine if the farm is operating within its NDA, we cannot grade objective 2 very highly which could mean the difference between an A or B grade or a non-complying grade (C or D).

Therefore to ensure your FEP audit grade is not impacted, make sure your baseline nutrient budget has been updated to the most recent version of Overseer, and that you also have a nutrient budget that reflects the most recent season on the farm.

By Ben Howden, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 021 242 0023 or email ben@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz

Winter Grazing

It always amazes me how quickly time flies – as I write this, we are in June of 2018 already and winter is upon us.

With the onset of winter comes the slowing (or stopping) of pasture growth and the need to supplement feed with crops or imported supplements, so it is timely to discuss winter feed management and the environmental perils associated with feeding winter crops and supplements.

It’s a hard road finding the perfect paddock to plant your crops in, if the soil is too heavy the chances of pugging and the loss of soil and faecal matter is higher and if the soil is too light, the drainage is great but with more drainage comes higher nitrogen leaching, particularly in areas of high rainfall.  Planning ahead and selecting the right paddock or even the right areas within a paddock to grow crops can reduce the environmental risk.

 

There is a lot of information about good practice for feeding winter crops available, but as for any farming practice there is no one size fits all and it is a matter of taking those good practices that apply to your situation and putting them in place.  The key issues with the intensive grazing of stock over winter are the loss of soil and faecal matter through run off into water ways and the leaching of nitrogen into groundwater from intensive stocking. 

Any management practices that can be implemented to reduce run off into waterways are beneficial, this can help to reduce the soil/ sediment and faecal contamination of waterways.  These include grass strips or margins not planted in crops alongside waterways and planning the direction of cultivation so that it doesn’t lead to a flow path into a waterway carrying contamination with it.

   

Planning ahead and having a back up option such as taking the animals off the crop, allowing animals access to another paddock or grazing for only a few hours can make all the difference when the weather is too wet for intensive grazing.  Troughs and supplementary feed can be placed strategically so that pugging is minimised in these areas and so that if there is pugging it won’t run off into a waterway.

Some regional plans include rules with regards to the wintering of stock including requirements for intensively grazed stock and stock on winter crops to be excluded from waterbodies.   There may also be rules around standoff areas and feedpads to minimise the environmental impact of these.  In my view these rules constitute the absolute minimum with regards to the good management of stock in winter. 

For information on industry good practice, see the Beef and Lamb website, Deer Industry NZ or the DairyNZ website, in particular the following link provides some useful information which can be applied to beef cattle and deer also -
https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5786508/wintering-on-crops-in-the-south-island.pdf

Post grazing, following the crop with a whole-crop cereal silage crop, before putting the block back into winter crop, can greatly reduce the nitrogen in the soil and therefore, leaching. 

So, with winter already here it is not too late to do some research and plan how you will manage your winter grazing this year.

Lilian Sherman, Irricon Resource Solutions Limited (NI).

Phone: (021) 378 308

E-mail: lilian@irricon.co.nz
www.irricon.co.nz

Regulatory Update

Below is a quick update on where things have gotten too from a regulatory perspective. 

Canterbury

2017 saw Environment Canterbury (ECan) introduce Good Management Practices (GMP) into its Land and Water Plan framework.  This is known as Plan Change 5.  Plan Change 5 also introduced the Waitaki specific nutrient management rules.  The decisions on the plan were appealed by a number of parties, particularly in relation to how the irrigation and fertiliser GMP’s were being treated in the Farm Portal (the online tool developed to determine exactly what GMP is at a farm level).  Appeals are still yet to be resolved, and therefore, it is likely to be mid-2018 before this plan is made operative.

Plan Change 2, which is specific to the Hinds Plains region, is also still under appeal, however, Plan Change 3, which is specific to the South Canterbury Coastal Streams area, had all its appeals resolved in November 2017, and is now fully operative.

ECan has also been doing a big push in the areas where a consent to farm is required, to encourage those who need one to go through the process.  There has been a good response to this (contrary to the opinion of Dr. Mike Joy) as the process is new to many, and requires professional help and a change in mindset for many. 

Otago

Otago’s nutrient management rules are now two years away from kicking in (the date is 1 April 2020).  Otago Regional Council has been encouraging farmers to get their Overseer done.  They have also taken the initiative in the more sensitive catchments such as the Kakanui, and have been providing resources and funding to assist with this.

 

Southland

Southland’s Land and Water Plan is nearing the completion of hearings.  Council gave its reply report and recommendations (a summary of all the information and submissions presented to the hearings panel, and answers to all questions from the panel during the hearing) in November 2017.  Watch this space.

Horizons

Horizons One Plan struck a major hurdle in early 2017, with the Environment Court deciding that the way in which the Council was implementing its plan was not what the plan actually said.  This has left the council with a plan that effectively doesn’t practically work as it was written, and wondering what to do now.  Implementing the plan as written creates a massive cost to farmers and other consent holders, and doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired water quality outcomes.  Given this, in August 2017, the council voted to investigate the possibility of a partial plan change.  However, this will not be a quick or easy process as it is both a legal and public process.

Hawkes Bay

Irrigators in the Tukituki catchment are left high and dry (literally) after the Ruataniwha Dam project is put on the shelf indefinitely.  The Tukutuki River minimum flow is still going up, and without the dam to augment and flush the river, the increase in minimum flow will mean the possibility of severe restrictions for irrigators in this catchment.  Effectively, the raise in minimum flow was coupled with the dam, but the impacts of de-coupling are now about to be realised.

Gisborne

Gisborne’s Freshwater Plan decision was released in August 2017, and was subsequently appealed.  The appeals are still to be worked through and there is no timeframe at this stage on when appeals are likely to be resolved.  Gisborne’s Freshwater Plan was actually pretty kind from a nutrient management perspective when compared to Canterbury for example.  There is no requirement for on farm limits using Overseer, and they have adopted a Farm Environment Plan approach to managing water quality.  However, it does have some issues with water quantity.  As horticulture, and kiwifruit in particular, look set to increase, those looking in the Gisborne area for plots to develop are soon realising that there is basically no water available for allocation unless you are prepared to take high flow water and store it.  Therefore, this is limiting the potential for the Gisborne region.

Overall

As well as all that is going on the regions, we have a new government who looks set to wind up funding irrigation scheme development, has already taken a stand on climate change, and will undoubtedly want to stamp its feet on the water issues.  2018 will be an interesting year…

By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 0272 202 425 or email keri@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz

The Importance of Timeframes – Resource Consent Timeframes That Is…

Christmas seems to be a magic deadline for people – apparently the 25^th of December is the date at which the professional world as we know it will cease to exist and heaven help us if we miss it.

While Christmas is more of a perceived deadline for things, there are some real resource consent timeframes or deadlines that you should be aware of.   As over-allocation of our resources has become an issue, so has the methods by which councils can use to reduce over-allocation.  This is where timeframes around consenting are beginning to bite and councils are actually using their powers. 

Lapse Date and the Cancellation of a Consent

The first is the lapse date on a resource consent.  This is not the expiry date, but rather the “use it or lose it” date.  From the date of grant of a consent, you have up to five years to use the consent, or you lose it.  This is particularly important in over allocated water catchments for example as lapsing a consent is one of the mechanisms that a council will use to claw back over allocation.  You may apply to the council to extend your lapse date, but you have to be able to demonstrate to the council that you have taken considerable action towards actually using the consent.  The maximum extension that would normally be given is a further two years.

Even if a consent has been used before the lapse date, it can still re-lapse if it is not used for a five-year period after that, so this is something that you also need to be aware of.   This is referred to as cancellation of a consent. 

Renewal of Existing Consents

There are also important deadlines around renewing resource consents.  An application to renew a consent that is received by the council at least six months prior to the expiry of the consent is guaranteed to be given ‘continuation’.  What this means is that you can continue to operate under your existing consent until such time that a decision is made on the replacement.  Getting continuation is critical if processing the renewal is likely to take considerable time like we have seen here in Canterbury where renewal applications have spent years in process waiting on plans to be developed. 

A renewal application received after six months but before three months of the expiry date may get given continuation, but it is at the council’s discretion. 

Securing continuation also means that you have priority to a resource over someone else competing for the same resource.  So again, if we think water permits where a resource is nearing its full allocation, you want to be able to re-secure your access to that water ahead of a new user.   

If you find yourself within the three-month window, then continuation cannot be given, and you must cease your activity at the expiry date.  If you are in an over-allocation situation again, this may cause issues with your renewal, and there is a risk of the council not granting the renewal consent (another way to claw back over-allocation). 

Expiry Date

Once a consent expires, and if no application has been received by the council to renew the consent within the required timeframes, then you no longer hold a consent to undertake that activity or have any right at all to renew it.  If you find yourself in this situation, and you do want to carry on undertaking your consented activity, then you have to apply as if you are a brand-new consent.  In over-allocated areas, you may not even be able to apply for consent as many councils have now made it a prohibited activity to apply for consent in over-allocated areas.  Prohibited means that you cannot even apply to the council – the door is shut tight. 

These dates are all things that any consent holder needs to know.  A resource consent is not an unlimited right for unfettered access to a resource, or to undertake an activity.  It can be revoked by not using it, or by failing to meet the timeframes around the renewal process.  

Also, a small request from this consultant.  An application for resource consent can take a fair amount of time to prepare – even if it is for a renewal, the amount of information required to be supplied is just the same as it is for a new application.  Therefore, please give your consultant plenty of time to get the application in – it is no good fronting up a week before the application must be submitted and expecting that it can and will be done in that timeframe, and the same goes for that magic Christmas deadline…

By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 0272 202 425 or email keri@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz

Useful Farming Technology Apps and Websites

Technology – there are those who embrace it with open arms, and then there are those who don’t… but love it or hate it, there are some very good pieces of technology that could be extremely useful for farmers wanting help with environmental compliance, or even just some advice and support.  And, with the increased need to be accountable and “doing things right”, these are some of the technology tools and resources that I have come across in my day job that I thought were worth a mention. 

Riparian Planner

This is an online tool developed by DairyNZ.  It is a step by step process to design, budget and prioritise water management on farm.  It is extremely user friendly, and a good starting point if you are considering riparian planting on your farm.  This is a useful tool for all types of farms.  The web page address is as follows:

https://riparian-planner.dairynz.co.nz/plans

Check-It Bucket Test app

This is available for both Apple and Android devices via the App Store or Google Play Store.  The app walks you through an annual performance assessment of your irrigation system, provides the results instantly to your device and e-mails a final report to you.  This is a great way to check whether your irrigation system is performing as you expect.  Is water being applied evenly?  Are you putting on what your control box says you are putting on?  You do need to own a few buckets to carry out the test, but the insight into your irrigation systems performance is well worth the trip to town to invest in the buckets.  Some irrigation schemes do have buckets that you can borrow for this purpose, so ask around too. 

Soil Moisture Monitoring

Soil moisture monitoring equipment is by no means new technology, but the amount of it now on the market has increased substantially and understanding what is the right tool for you can be difficult to work out. You must choose the right equipment for your soil, land use activities and irrigation system type, and then locate, install and calibrate (if necessary) it correctly. Accessing, managing and understanding the data is also important. If soil moisture monitoring is to be successful, each of these aspects has to be carefully worked through.  Irrigation New Zealand has developed a resource book for this very topic and it can be found here:

http://irrigationnz.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Book11-SoilMM.pdf

Online GIS systems

For those of us here in Canterbury, Canterbury Maps is an amazing resource.  Not only can you create farm maps, but it can be used to search for information about any property, consent information, bore information, and any other relevant information that you may need such as nutrient allocation zones, the location of wetlands or Runanga sensitive areas.  This can be found here:

https://canterburymaps.govt.nz/

Other councils do have online GIS systems, but none are quite to the level of Canterbury Maps.  But check out what your local council does have.  Understanding what is of interest and/or significance on and around your farm is key these days. 

  

FDE Calculator app

Dairy NZ has developed an app to allow you to work out how to manage your Farm Dairy Effluent (FDE).  You can easily calculate nutrient loadings and application rates, therefore enabling application of effluent with greater precision.  It can be used for diluted dairy effluent as well as for slurry tankers and muck spreaders.  This is also available for both Apple and Android devices via the App Store or Google Play Store.

I hope you find this information useful, and please let me know of any others that you think might be worth checking out.

 By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 0272 202 425 or email keri@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz

Resource Consent Compliance

Resource consent compliance…three words that will generally illicit reactions such as a long sigh, a shuffle of feet, or a desperate look for just about any alternative to this less than exciting aspect of farming. There is a long list of things that need sorting on any farm and compliance management isn’t usually very high on that list.

However, as we all saw in the lead-up to the general election, society's microscope was placed squarely on the agricultural industries. Now more than ever, a higher level of diligence is required and expected to be sure that the correct resource consents are in place for what you are doing and that you are adhering to their content. A she’ll be right attitude won’t cut it and is likely to lead to some quality time with your friendly Regional Council Compliance Officer. The days of getting a consent, stuffing it in the desk draw and forgetting about it are in the distant past.

Let’s take a step back here. What is a resource consent? In essence, it is a licence to do something. In simplistic terms, you want to do “X” and to do “X” you agree to do (or not do) “A, B & C”. If you live in the Canterbury region and have been granted a new resource consent in the last few years, or renewed an existing one, there is a good chance that "A, B & C" has had a good portion of the alphabet added to it and the level of what is required has gone up a notch or two.

Don’t get me wrong, not every condition is onerous, and in fact your everyday on farm management will be ticking the boxes for a lot of conditions. “Don’t discharge effluent to frozen ground.” Done. “Avoid leakage from pipes.” Of course. “Avoid irrigating non-productive land and impermeable surfaces.” No worries, the end gun is programmed to turn off across there.

There are, though, going to be conditions that are less straight forward or just simply not easily remembered. Implementing a program of water quality monitoring on the stream that runs through your property with annual summary reporting isn’t something the average Joe has to deal with very often. And likewise, getting your water meter verified every five years isn’t exactly front of mind for most farmers.

How you deal with these types of conditions will vary according to your situation. For some people, it can all be a bit much at times and a bit of help is needed to tidy it all up.  At Irricon we offer a wraparound service to help out, called Compliance Pro. In the first instance, we can look at your consents to make sure they are right for what you are doing. With the aid of a software package we can store relevant documents and set up reminders for things such as meter verifications and backflow prevention testing. The software package works as project management tool where conditions can be worked through and ticked off so that you can be confident you are front footing your obligations rather than following a visit from the Council Compliance team or a firm letter in the mail. We can implement the work required to undertake and administer such things as water quality monitoring, seepage test or monitor the standing water levels of bores during the off season. We offer varying levels of involvement from help on just a couple of things to becoming the nagging mother you never wanted but always needed.

Ultimately, you have a choice in how you manage your compliance. You can be reactive or proactive. If you are sick of having the Council on your case, if you think you could use a bit of help or want to change the approach you take to your compliance, let us know. We’d love to hear from you. Come over and check us out online at http://irricon.co.nz/.

In the words of Rachel Hunter - it won't happen overnight, but it will happen...

Wasn’t the whole election one big roller coaster?  If we have learnt one this from this whole affair, it is that we are all very passionate about our water resources – not necessarily for the same reasons, but passionate none the less.

Regardless of who ends up running the country (at the time of penning this blog, Winnie was still  courting both the National and Labour parties), I think it is clear that public opinion will ensure that water management and associated policies will be addressed is some way, shape or form by the incoming government.  Given this, I think it is important (and timely) to look back and acknowledge where we have got too in relation to this, but also to look forward at where we can still go.  

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and Regional Plans

Most regional councils now either have notified or operative plans which outline their methods for addressing water quantity and water quality.  While no two plans are alike, the NPSFM requires limits are set, therefore, all plans do just that – they set allocation limits for surface and groundwater resources, as well as water quality limits.  It is the latter which takes various forms including property limits and/or catchment limits using Overseer, in stream water quality limits, and the development of the Good Management Practice (GMP) framework.    Many councils have also adopted the use of audited Farm Environment Plans to be able to monitor, measure, report and ensure that farms are meeting their environmental obligations. 

As with anything in life, good things take time.  Councils are in the process of rolling out and implementing these plans now.  The effects will not be immediate, but they need to be given a chance to actually work. 

It must also be remembered that for many areas, it is as much about maintaining the already good water quality that exists – this is not allowed to deteriorate.  For those few areas where improvement is needed, the plans bite much harder, and that it totally appropriate.

The fact that all of this has occurred seems to have been completely overlooked by many, and it’s not just politicians I’m referring too. 

How are we meeting our environmental obligations already?

Figures provided by Irrigation New Zealand show that since 2011:

·       

• $10 million invested in audited Farm Environment Plans;   
• $600 million invested by existing irrigators upgrading to modern, efficient irrigation systems;
• $18 million invested in precision irrigation technologies;
• $15 million invested in installing irrigation decision-making technologies;
• More than 24,000 kilometres of our waterways have already been fenced off to exclude stock at a cost of $220 million. 

As we continue to meet our environmental obligations, you can only expect these numbers to increase.  It is noted that this expenditure is all on farm, reinforcing the point that water quality will be addressed at the farm level. 

Looking Forward

Regional Councils need to continue to implement their plans. This may seem like an obvious thing to state, but it’s true nonetheless.  Consistent messages and enforcement from the regulatory bodies will be a must.

I believe that many farmers are on board with GMP (the on-farm practices) despite still being largely ignorant or merely confused by the new environmental regulations.  Education is still key to the success of this stuff, and that has to come from all involved – banks, valuers, real estate agents, farm advisors, customers… anybody involved with the farm.  And, many farmers are being innovative and taking up technology where it is available.  You only have to look at the statistics above regarding the investment to date in irrigation upgrades and precision irrigation technologies.  

And last, but not least, time, time, time.  To quote Rachel Hunter from her Pantene ad, “it doesn’t happen overnight, but it will happen”, and it is happening.  Get on board, and keep it up.

 By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 0272202425 or email keri@irricon.co.nz

Stock Exclusion - What's the go?

Out and about recently, Lilian Sherman, our North Island Rural Environmental Specialist, has heard a lot of discussion about the stock exclusion rules coming into play.  Unfortunately, a lot of what she has heard has had a serious dose of the ‘chinese whispers’ and the end result is that there are a lot of myths out there with regards to stock exclusion.  Below, Lilian dispels some of those myths and provides you with some confidence around the rules.

While there is no formal definition, stock exclusion generally means to exclude stock by some means from entering a waterbody.  In most cases, the stock exclusion definition does not include sheep or goats, as sheep and goats do not tend to linger in water!  In most cases the means of achieving stock exclusion is not specified, therefore the best method or technology for each situation can be used.  This may be a permanent fence, a hot wire, or as is currently being developed, virtual fencing.
Why is stock exclusion necessary? Stock entering waterways can cause significant damage by contributing nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), sediment and faecal coliforms to our waterways. They do this though the direct deposition of dung and urine into rivers, treading damage and reduction in beneficial vegetation that results from grazing stream banks.

As part of the Clean Water package recently released by the Ministry for the Environment, there are proposed National Rules for Stock Exclusion.  Consultation on the proposed stock exclusion regulations and other aspects of the Clean Water package closed on 28 April 2017. This feedback is being considered and will inform the final decision on the National Rules.  The proposed stock exclusion rules are practical and there are different requirements for different classes of stock and for topography (plains, rolling and steep).  More details are available on the Ministry for the Environment Website (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Fresh%20water/next-steps-for-freshwater.pdf).

The proposed National Rules for Stock Exclusion recognise that for some landowners, there may be significant practical constraints that mean they are unable to meet the new requirements. In those cases, landowners can apply for permission to instead develop a stock exclusion plan with their regional council. The plan may include alternatives to fencing or mitigations to reduce the impact of stock access to waterways.  An example of this would be providing alternative areas of shade and reticulated stock drinking water, which may also provide other economic and animal health benefits.

It is important to note that the National Rules for Stock Exclusion will form the minimum requirements, and councils may choose to regulate over and above these in their regional plans.

There are some challenges excluding stock from waterways, including the effects of flooding, the proliferation of weeds and pests and access through vegetation to waterbodies.  These are valid issues and I have confidence that farmers will find practical solutions for these as the rules come into play.

In the meantime, if you are putting in new fence line or carrying out fencing maintenance, consider whether there is an opportunity to make a change to a fence line to exclude stock or make it easier to exclude stock in the future, but its also an important consideration for any development on farm such as irrigation (whether new or upgrading) and the location of waterways should be a key consideration in any design being undertaken. 

Keep an eye out for the final versions of the National Stock Exclusion Rules.

Lilian Sherman, Irricon Resource Solutions Limited.
Phone: (021) 378 308
E-mail: lilian@irricon.co.nz

Lilian is a Rural Environmental Specialist and Director at Irricon Resource Solutions, who works with farmers and horticulturists to prepare farm environment plans, resource consent applications and to assist with nutrient management and Overseer modelling. 

Lilian grew up on and lives on a sheep and beef farm, she has a practical knowledge of farming, including sheep, beef, deer, dairy, cropping and horticulture and combines her passion for farming with a wealth of nutrient management and environmental expertise in this role.

Tips, Tools and Technology for Efficient Farming - Part 1

During winter the H2Grow team ran a series of workshops throughout the South Island titled ‘Tips, Tools and Technology for Efficient Farming’. These workshops were very well attended and the team thoroughly enjoyed meeting everyone and the wide-ranging discussions that were had.

For those that were unable to attend we do not want you to miss out, so over the next few blog posts we will be posting notes of the key messages from each of the presentations. These are only condensed versions of the main points so if you would like further information or have any questions then please do feel free to contact the contributors directly by either clicking on the photo widgets to the right of this blog, or use the links provided.

The first set of presentation notes briefly cover the following topics:

1. Why should we care about farming efficiently?
• Nutrient management - why are we doing this?
• Irrigation and nutrient management - how to they fit together?
2. Soil moisture and water use efficiency

You will see there are two copies of the notes, one for Canterbury and the other for Otago as the notes relating to the regulations between these two areas differs.

Nutrient Management and Soil Moisture - Canterbury

Nutrient Management and Soil Moisture - Otago

Both topics were presented by Irricon Resource Solutions, so for more information please fee free to contact Keri Johnston or a member of the Irricon Team.

'Tips, Tools & Technology for Efficient Farming' - Workshop Series

Do you want to improve the nutrient and irrigation management on your farm but are not sure where to start? Come along to a free 'Tips, Tools & Technology for Efficient Farming' workshop jointly hosted by Lindsay NZ, Agri Optics New Zealand Ltd and Irricon Resource Solutions.

Over the course of the workshop we'll cover off a range of topics from nutrient management, irrigation management and hardware, precision agriculture and how these all tie in with farm environment plans for efficient farming.

Please use this link to register - Register me for a workshop please!

We look forward to seeing you there

The Finance of Farm Environmental Improvement

There has long been the perception that good environmental management comes to the detriment of the overall farming business.  I’d like to think we’ve got beyond that, but with nutrient regulations coming into play, I suspect that this perception if running rife again!  But, it doesn’t have to be that way, and in fact, it can be positive financially for the farm.  In this post I’m going to show you examples of where environmental and financial gains can be made for farms, and that the two objectives don’t have to be at logger heads.

Resource consents held by a farm is the obvious place to start.  Quite often, consents were obtained, shoved in a draw and never looked at again.  But consents are a valuable asset to a farm, and having the right consents is critical.  The three questions that need to be asked is:

1. Are they correct?  For example, is my rate of take correct, is my effluent discharge area actually right, are my cow numbers to be milked right?
2. Could they be better?  For example, does my effluent consent cover my whole farm to give me flexibility?  
3. Are they even needed?   With Canterbury having changed its plan twice in the last 10 years, there are now consents that were needed under the old plan that are not needed under the new plan, for example consents to store dairy effluent.  

As an example, a consent audit was undertaken on a farm which had six consents to take and use water, and a dairy effluent consent.  This means:

• Seven lots of monitoring charges.
• Old take consents that no longer reflected what was happening on farm, including that none of the consents specified whole of farm for irrigation or effluent, and had horrible 14 day volumes that didn’t fit with newly installed pivot irrigation.  

The six take consents were merged into one consent, 14 day volumes removed and replaced with one annual volume for the farm, and the whole farm was also be irrigated with any source.  This means:

• Better use of the water – the farm was no longer restricted by horrible 14 day volumes, so is able to irrigate when needed.
• Easier to comply with – One consent versus six…..
• Flexibility – The water can be used anywhere it’s needed, rather than from a certain point on a certain area.  

The paperwork is now sorted, so next it’s time to look on farm.

Is your infrastructure up to scratch?  This can encompass all types of things, but common examples include having effluent storage that’s big enough, or your control box says that the pivot is putting on 10mm, but how do you know that’s what actually coming out the sprinklers?  Right the way through to the question “is your pump and mainline adequate and not costing you more to run than they need to be?”  Has it been looked after?  Things like sprinklers broken or not turning, or missing altogether!  Remember that an irrigator has moving parts – how often are these checked and serviced?
And finally, how do you make the decision to start irrigating or when to discharge effluent?  The neighbor is not generally the most reliable tool to use, and if it’s too early, then its water wasted, effluent and therefore nutrient wasted, and production lost.

Now let’s take a look at lost production due to infrastructure.  We’ve got a farm with an intake that required frequent rehabilitation, and cleaning and clearing of weed despite it having a screen which resulted in reductions in flow.  It also had a mainline configuration resulting in substantial system losses, and pumps not performing at their optimum efficiency.  The farm needed 4.5 mm per hectare per day for optimal growth.  Because of the intake and mainline issues, it was constantly only getting 2.5 mm per hectare per day.  This resulted in a shortfall for the farm of 2650 cubic metres per hectare.  The impact on production from this shortfall is 10% or 1.5 tonnes of dry matter per hectare of average annual growth loss.  If this additional growth is worth 28 cents per kg of dry matter, this this is $420 per hectare.  And all this because the infrastructure was not doing what is supposed to be doing!

Now let’s compare a farm with soil moisture monitoring to one without it, both located within 1km of each other, of similar area, lay of the land, and irrigation systems.  For the 2013/14 irrigation season, the farm with soil moisture monitoring used 3213 cubic metres per hectare.  The farm without soil moisture monitoring used 5389 cubic metres per hectare.

• Energy Cost to farm with soil moisture monitoring = $321.30 per hectare
• Energy Cost to farm without soil moisture monitoring = $538.90 per hectare

And let’s not forget that less water applied = less nutrient loss.

So why look at all of this stuff I hear you ask?  The reality is that the use of resources on farm cost money:  Water, energy, fertiliser and/or effluent…. Increased production tends to not only cost money, but it is also considered to have environmental impacts.    In my view, it is really important that farmers don’t view the two as being incompatible.  A Farm Environment Plan and the process involved in preparing one, is a place to assess the risk of your farming business to the environment.  But you should take it as an opportunity to look at your business as a whole, and use it as a way to not only achieve good environmental management, but good “full stop”.    Don’t view the process as a hindrance, and just another regulation box to tick. Take the positive approach.

So, my final comments!

This has been a snapshot of the opportunities that exist on farm where being environmentally responsible can also be financially beneficial. So, use what’s coming from a regulation point of view to take a look at your whole business.  You might be just pleasantly surprised at what you find, and be able to make positive changes to your business all round.

Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions Limited.
Phone: (027) 2202425
E-mail: keri@irricon.co.nz

Keri’s expertise is in the field of natural resources engineering and resource management, primarily in water resources, irrigation and nutrient management. As well as doing this, she farms with her husband and two girls at Geraldine.  

Nutrients - Why do we care?

WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT NUTRIENT LOSSES FROM FARMS ANYWAY?  
AND HOW DO THEY GET INTO OUR WATERWAYS? 
AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

Now that we have had a quick look at Overseer and Farm Environmental Plans, it is timely to take a step back and ask the question “why do we care about nutrient losses from farms anyway?”  But you also need to know how they get into our waterways, and where they come from in the first place.   This is my simple take on a number of complex and interactive cycles, but at the end of the day, we’re not all scientists, so I hope this helps put some context around why we are where we are today.

What do we care about?

Farming contributes four main pollutants to the environment: the nutrients nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), sediment, and faecal matter. So why do we care about these?

• Nutrient (N and P) enrichment of rivers, streams and other waterways can lead to unwanted growth of plants (waterweeds and algae), and this can be toxic to fish, but also other animals (think back to articles about dogs drinking river water and dying), and it’s not so good for humans either.   
• Excess sediment may cause siltation (which means that fish and aquatic plants get smothered), and degrade water clarity (makes it look dirty all the time!). 
• Faecal matter and its associated pathogens pose a risk to human and animal health through waterborne infectious diseases. 

How do they end up in our waterways?

N enters our rivers, streams and other waterways via leaching to groundwater.  Whereas sediment, faecal matter and P enter streams mostly in surface runoff. These two distinctions are important.

What are the on farm sources of these nutrients?

N comes primarily from urine patches.  P is primarily from P based fertilizer, solid animal excrement or stock having direct access to stream and other waterways.

Sediment and faecal matter is also from stock having direct access to streams, and run-off straight into waterways.

So, let’s put some context around this.  

We will take a farm which does dairy support from May to May.  Using Overseer, N and P losses can be determined.  The following table shows the outputs from this farm, using exactly the same inputs, but for varying topography and soil type.

Soil Type and Topography	N lost to water (leaching into groundwater) (kg per ha per year)	P lost to water (runoff)(kg per ha per year)
Light, free draining Lismore soil, flat land	27	0.3
Light, free draining Lismore soil, steep hill	27	0.1
Heavy, poorly drained Timaru soil, flat land	18	0.1
Heavy, poorly drained Timaru soil, steep hill	18	0.3

Thinking about how nutrients get into our waterways, the Overseer results confirm two things:  The first is that P losses are higher on steep land as opposed to the same farm on flat land.  The second is that N is more affected by soil type than topography – you get more leaching to groundwater in free draining soils as opposed to heavy, poorly drained soils.

The other thing you will notice is that N losses are much bigger numbers than P losses, but any small increase in either number can have a big impact on waterways – it is generally many small increases that create a big problem – death by 1,000 cuts!

Therefore, when we are looking at how we manage nutrient losses on our farms, understanding the source of the nutrients, and how nutrients get into our waterways is critical.  Looking at possible mitigation options will be next time’s topic.

By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions Limited.

Keri’s expertise is in the field of natural resources engineering and resource management, primarily in water resources, irrigation and nutrient management. As well as doing this, she farms with her husband and two girls at Geraldine.

Phone: (027) 2202425
E-mail: keri@irricon.co.nz