Posts by Farmer Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here is what Federated Farmers is saying about the One Plan :-
"One PlanThere has been a bit of noise over the financial implications of the One Plan ; unfortunately a variety of people quoted in the media and the media themselves can not tell the difference between a percentage of costs and a percentage of profit.
The MPI report by Landcare, quoted a potential reduction in Profit of 22-43 percent ; the Horizons evidence, presented to the Environment Court, talked about an increase in Farm Operating Costs of around five percent on average, with 16 percent as an extreme.When you actually sit down and do the maths on what a five percent increase in costs would do to your profit, they are pretty much telling the same story.
I guess some people just are not up with the play, and a bit out of touch. Of course a 16 percent increase in costs will be the end of some.As for the statement that the council will not be putting farmers out of business, two comments : firstly what the council is saying is that they will sit down with farmers and work out what they can do.
Was that not what the Commissioners’ decision said :that’s what “Reasonably Practicable” is.I also recall the council saying they did not like that statement because it meant they would have to go and talk to all the farmers.
The reality is that they will now have to, on a practical basis, do what the Commissioners’ decision said, if they do not want to stuff up the regional economy. It is now a lot more complicated than it should have been and going to be far more expensive for the council and all ratepayers.
Why not a bit of honesty here, admit that rule 13.1 is unworkable in its current form; the change to Overseer has made table 13.2 irrelevant and has played further havoc with the whole concept behind the LUC allocation method.My second point is that we must always look at the rules as being the rules. Yes the chairman and staff can promise things and I have do doubt they will try to deliver, but if they happen to get hit by a bus tomorrow, or at next year's election new councillors are demanding the rules are enforced, then we have to treat the situation as if the rules will be enforced to the letter.
So gentle tweaks to the rules are not going to do it, I have said it for five years now that the LUC method is not practical and it needs to go. We need a plan change notified immediately that focuses on that. Targets need to be based on what is actually achievable, looking at the bell curve for leaching in the region and determining a point on that curve that those below it should endeavour to be moved above it. This targets those who actually have room to move."
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Open the other eye.
"Farmer Green is inclined to the view that an immediate redesign of the dairy industry , in particular, limiting the use of nitrogen , irrigation , imported supplements , dairy support etc to lower stocking rates would have a noticeable and desirable effect overnight. The economic impacts need not be fatal, if an added value strategy was adopted at the same time."
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You are preaching to the converted: Farmer Green made the necessary changes 40 years ago.
If you read you will see that Farmer Green has agreed with everything that Joy says about the actual science. -
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
you are equating protection of our waterways with a loss of export earnings
No , I am equating reduced production with reduced GNP, if prices received /unit production do not rise to compensate.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I'm simply saying that there is a limit to the size of the national deficit ; the difference between export receipts and import expenditure.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
reduce the fertiliser runoff (with little or no loss of yield)
Science says that reducing stocking rates in order to reduce nutrient overload will result in decreased production .
Nutrient overload on soils= "fertiliser run-off" (for nitrogen)
Hill country erosion = "fertiliser run-off " (for phosphorus) -
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Perhaps Dr. Joy should be pointing out the economic benefits: it was Massey that published the research on reducing stocking rates.
Sometimes a negative approach is counterproductive. -
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to andin,
There are farmers lowering stocking rates right now , and enjoying greater individual farm profitability from the reduced production.
So what is the populace prepared to forgo in response to the reduced national income? -
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Chris Waugh,
FG:-
“The most important thing is that our exploitation of our environment is sustainable i.e. the resource base is not being depleted. And it is equally important that we residents are comfortable with the compromises that are necessary to maintain the altered environment, economy and society that we all wish to live in.”CW:-
“1: All activity damages the environment. The problem us humans have to figure out is how to limit that damage while maintaining a decent quality of life.”
Yes , clearly there is agreement, and we know , in respect of the dairy industry , how to do that right now.
Reduce stocking rates ; produce less milk at the peak and more in the trough of the season ; realise a higher price for our dairy products by adding more value (more clean green and fresh , and less milk powder). Reduced stocking rates will reduce the need for irrigation, nitrogen fertiliser , imported PKE , and “dairy support”.So :-
stocking rate regulations in order to incentivise the dairy farmers to think about how to add more value?That is a probable outcome of the Horizon’s One Plan. In the short term , a drop in national income as production falls , until the export price received can be raised, returning the national income to its previous level while reducing the overall impact of livestock on ground water ( we are talking about nitrogen in this context).
Regulations to force dairy farmers to spread the effluent over the ENTIRE area that has supported the production of that effluent , thus reducing the loading on the actual “milking platform” where the current nutrient overload is occurring?
Regulations restricting imports until the country is achieving some sort of balance between imports and exports?
Or increase the national deficit/debt and hope it comes right eventually?
-
Farmer Green is inclined to the view that an immediate redesign of the dairy industry , in particular, limiting the use of nitrogen , irrigation , imported supplements , dairy support etc to lower stocking rates would have a noticeable and desirable effect overnight. The economic impacts need not be fatal, if an added value strategy was adopted at the same time.
What we are talking about is the carrying capacity of our soils in their present state i.e. their ability to sequester the effluvia of the livestock carried, so that little is lost to water. Exceed the capacity of the soil , and pollution and economic loss will result.