The scale of response to proposals for factory farming in the fragile Mackenzie Basin may see decisions on resource consents go back to Environment Minister Nick Smith for a decision.
I am visiting the Mackenzie Basin today to have a look at the proposals. Before driving down I went into Environment Canterbury to have a look at the resource consents. While doing so I discovered a December 23 letter from Ecan’s chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins to Nick Smith. It covers the current resource consent hearings for three corporate dairy farm operations involving 8000 hectares of land housing 17,000 cows.
Jenkins notes the huge debate about factory farming. Of 3000 submissions on the resource consents, indications are 75 percent are against the housing of cows a la Americana feedlot style.
Under questioning in the House last month, Agriculture Minister David Carter said he was seeking urgent advice on the animal welfare issues raised.
Fonterra and others said housing cattle put at risk New Zealand’s reputation for pasture fed meat and dairy products.
Jenkins says Ecan’s legal advice is that it can’t consider animal welfare issues as part of a resource consent hearing. But he has asked if Smith is considering a call-in under Section 142 of the Resource Management Act, which allows the Minister to use call in powers if matters are arousing widespread public concern regarding likely effects on the environment. This is a process where the decision goes back to Government.
I think Smith should give serious consideration to using his call in powers, given all the issues of animal welfare and damage to NZ’s reputation.
He only has a a week to act as the time-frame for a call-in expires for two of the three corporate dairy applications next week.
I hope he does something about this. Will be watching with interest.
I agree. It is potentially very damaging to NZ.
I dare you to walk across the Ruatanawhia flats with out a hat Brendon. All those animals deserve a nice place out of the weather, including the rabbits
Don’t put animals there in the first place, Raymon A Francis.
Brendon, may I suggest you STFU for a bit and learn a bit about farming systems around the world before passing any opinions.
The proposals are most definitely not “the housing of cows a la Americana feedlot style.” and by descibing them as such you are only publicly demonstrating your ignorance.
Unless of course you are only interested in sensationalism at any cost (including compromising inconvenientl truths)
@Raymon – Once upon a time. A long time ago. In a land far far away there lived animals. These animals used to fend for themselves and live outside, they were happy.
Those animals actually deserve to be able to walk around and interact with each other in the fresh air and chew grass, no corn with hormones that will give your kids infertility and man boobs, and to have a reasonable life.
I’m with you, greenfly, BTW I love your profile picture
I’m not going to pretend I know anything more about this than what I have seen on the news – which doesn’t increase my credibility on this any!!
However, what I did see was that for a greater proportion of the year, the animals were house in massive fairly open indoor spaces. The spaces were more generous than the average four meters squared an employee gets in an office! and… they even had scratching posts for them!! Ok, so I don’t know much about it, but a 75% indoor ratio for them with quite open spaces, access to food and drink, out of the sun and snow… seemed a good deal to me. The opposition to it, hadn’t even seen what was being planned and declined an opportunity to visit one of these sites… so, how much of this debate is that well informed?
On the Call-In – as I understand it – it’s the quadrouple bottom line considerations ie. Environmental, Cultural, International and Health issues of significance to New Zealand, there’s also a provision for where ERMA has no expertise in the matter, Ministers can call it in and appoint a panel to assess the issue in question. I’m not sure the powers extend that far do they or were they pushed out further as the government signalled its intention to do?
Does ERMA not have the expertise? Doesn’t calling it in, apply political pressure in a process that should really be looked at by well informed experts in the area? Just askin…
@ DavidW – who cares it’s still cruel.
Why not keep the paddocks and let the cows roam free AND provide shelters that they can go in and out of ANYTIME they want?
Cruelty causes stress in animals right, so if the conditions were upsetting the cow to any degree, wouldn’t the quality and volume of the milk they produce degrade? And if they’re produced for beef, (apart from the hypocracy of keeping them happy until we eat them, aren’t these approaches an improvement to their life by virtue of the quality of the meat we get out of them?
I mean, again, I know nothing about this stuff… but I kinda thing that there is more to be known before we get upset. Afterall, we have been asking primary industry to innovate and develop for 2 or 3 decades now, but when they do… they’re attacked.
Or am I seeing too much into what looked like happy cows on the news?? I am trying to be serious, but when I write “happy cows” it makes me giggle – just a little.
In the wild, my man, animal kill animal, animal eat animal, but the prey is at least allowed some quality of life first. I would encourage anyone to boycott meat that comes from places where animals have to suffer such cruelty. Cows suffer just as much as humans would under the same conditions.
I can hear you singing that song Spud… “Boooooorn freeeee, as free as the wind blows…” ha ha ha.
Brendon
On behalf of applicants
We have learnt today (via the Press who we understand heard from you) that ECan has written to Central Gov’t regarding the applications of Southdown Holdings Ltd, 5 Rivers Ltd and Williamson Holdings Ltd.
Most of our expert team are still on holiday until 11th Jan and would only now as a consequence of this publicity be aware of this development. In the meantime it would not be appropriate to comment until we have sighted the ECan letter to Central Gov’t and had input from our legal representatives.
Unquestionably there has been a lot of interest and some hysteria due, no doubt, to some poorly informed comment from the Green Party and a real lack of understanding around animal health issues regarding housing of cows in stables and the applications to discharge effluent to land.
We are advised that submission numbers are in excess of 3,000 and understand less than 4% (ECan advise 103 parties) have sought to read the evidence contained in the detailed applications prior to lodging their submissions.
The housing of cows in stables in the Mackenzie Basin during the very cold winters is, we believe, in the best interests of animal welfare and is best practice from an environmental sustainability perspective. This practice is wide spread throughout the northern hemisphere and utilised by Fonterra in China where they have determined that animals can best be looked after in a controlled environment and where, we are advised, their cows spend 365 days a year indoors.
The timeframe proposed by the applicants for the cows to be inside the stables is as a consequence of conservative scientific advice regarding limitation of risk of discharge to the streams, rivers and lakes in the catchment. If the science is subsequently confirmed to be too conservative then the cows will spend more time outdoors, subject to approval of ECan via later application.
The risk of pollution of waterways and lakes will be largely eliminated by storing effluent and limiting it’s discharge to the growing season and only then in a highly controlled manner. Uncontrolled effluent discharge and urine patches are amongst the major concerns of regional councils throughout NZ and one only needs to consider the publicity around Lake Taupo, Rotorua Lakes, the Waikato & the Manawatu Rivers and waterways in Canterbury and Southland to understand the increasing scale of the problem. Farmers and Councils are working hard to provide sustainable solutions and the applicants have also recognised the issue as a major concern and sought to develop a management regime to mitigate this risk.
The effluent control model proposed by these applicants offers solutions impossible to achieve under a normal farm grazing regime where cows are outside in all weather and as a consequence deserves to be considered in the appropriate forum where the rigor of the science and methodology can be stress tested by experts.
The matter of a “call in” is one for Central Gov’t to determine and one the applicants would not wish to comment upon. We understand from the Press article today that animal welfare is the major concern of most submitters and this area of activity could be readily investigated and commented on by the press in visiting one of a number of farmers using stable operations in Southland and Canterbury at this time.
It should not be forgotten that the approvals sought by all the applicants to irrigate 25,000 ha in the Mackenzie Basin it is estimated, would provide an additional $100 million into the economy annually, or is this not a consideration.
regards
Richard Peacocke
Southdown Holdings Ltd
Williamson Holdings Ltd
Who are all the people behind these companies? Do they have foreign backers?
I just came thru this part of the country. There are already a lot of cows around. I thought tourism was a bigger income earner than dairying. Surely this is a short term thing as so many other countries including China are getting into dairying.
I can’t believe the previous poster is really so happy about money for the country , there has to be that little issue of money for himself.
@Peacocke – dude – it’s not in the best interests of animals to be couped up bored out of their skulls in sheds. I hope this doesn’t go ahead, but if it does I’ll be there will be a lot of people boycotting products made that way.
If you give these animals an OPTIONAL shelter AND free roaming then I’m sure these animals are smart enough to bring themselves to shelter when they need it and to roam when they need it.
Richard, good to see you contribute to the debate. I have not made animal welfare my major focus. That said, when you have a National Govt Agriculture Minister and Prime Minister expressing concern and calling for an urgent report, then you cannot simply dismiss this as hysteria. Housing 17,000 cattle for months at a time is a far bigger deal than the Southland farm shown on TV One news recently. It does inevitably raised serious concerns about their health and welfare. The US presumably has animal welfare codes but the American writer of The Omniovore’s Dilemma visited a Kansas feedlot and witnessed cows up to their ankles in effluent – and fed a diet of antiobiotics to off-set infection risks.
Little wonder Fonterra went public with its concerns about the potential impact of your operations on our reputation as a producer of grass-fed dairy and meat products. This is the ground that should cause Nick Smith to call in the resource consents. He would in my view be derelict in his duty if he fails to act.
Given the scale of your operation (you would appear to be acting in concert with Five Rivers), I find it hard to accept your brushing aside of the potential impacts on water quality. We already have severe impacts on water quality across the much broader expanse of the Canterbury Plains.
I today visited Lake Ohau and looked across at the proposed site of your combined operation. While storing effluent through winter months may assist, it will still need to be dispersed. Much of that + nitrate will inevitably find its way into the streams feeding Lake Ohau, or towards Lake Benmore.
Add to that the fact that your site has some of the poorest soils and coldest conditions in the South Island; to encourage grass growth you will need vast quantities of both water and nitrate-based fertiliser.
I have today not just met local residents who are opposed to what you propose but Mackenzie Basin farmers as well. There is a view that your plan is to sub-divide the farms if and when you get approval and cash up. Nick Smith should act promptly.
@Brendon – paragraph one – THAT’S the farm I was talking about in my inartiulate comments above. Yes… so this application is nothing like that farm?
Even Spud would like that farm…
I think Richard’s right though… for the strength of opposition (on this issue), you’d expect that opposition to be better informed and better at informing. I’ve only seen what I’ve seen on the news and to be honest, I think the opposition looks typically Snail Protection League crazy styles and wrong. So, what is it we need to know here?
I didn’t see the farm but I’ll take your word for it. It’s nice to see the cows sitting in their paddocks mooing and chewing and coming over to the fence to see you.
In 2005 I visited a Cow Concentration Camp in Arizona. something like 60,000 cattle on a couple of hundred acres. A 24/7 milking operation with cows milked 3 times a day. They only lasted about 3 years before being sent off to become Happy Meals, compared to about 9 years here in NZ. They were fed alfalfa and potatoes and had big fans blowing water spray across them to keep them cool in the Arizona heat. The place stunk. Didn’t think we needed them here because of the abundance of grass and water etc, but I guess it’s all about making money.
There won’t be an abundance of water if they get their way with factory farming in the dry parts of the country.
Brendon I wonder if the reason Smith has acted in such a pathetic manner is that he received advice that indicated that Key’s pre Christmas comments prejudged the issue and therefore made it hard for the Government to to call in the applications.
Not everyone who objects to these application are uninformed, urban-liberal, liberals. Some of us are National supporters, farmers, and very much informed. So in response to to Richard Peacocke’s condescending spin……
In other applications Mr Peacocke describes the companies he represents as “investment vehicles for New Zealanders living in Australia”. That’s the first truth here – this is about making money for people who do not choose to live in the country of their birth.
Secondly, he talks about ’stables’. These are not ’stables’. These are not herd-homes or animal shelters where the cows get to wander in and out at will. These are about keeping the cows inside 24/7 for 8 months of the year, and 12 hours a day for the remaining four months. So this is not ‘happy cows’ this is about using these animals to maximise profits.
Thirdly, he mentions the environmental benefits versus pastoral farming in the rest of the country. His applications are about producing milk on country where you would not otherwise be able to do so. So pushing land to do what it is not supposed to be doing. The result will be environmental degradation in one of our iconic landscapes. Again, making money for a few to the detriment of others.
Fourthly, he talks about Fonterra in China. Two wrongs don’t make a right! He conveniently neglects to point out that Fonterra’s main objection is economic. Pastoral farming remains economically more attractive in most of New Zealand. Fonterra are concerned about these factory farms going ahead because they will be detrimental to their shareholders who have invested in grass.
By the way, in the US feedlots are closing down and farmers are moving back to grass. Why? Because it is more profitable! Why follow a failed model! Again. Mr Peacocke proposes damaging the many for the benefit of the few.
Fifth, he talks with confidence about the projections for effluent discharge and water quality. One of the major objectors to these proposals has cast major doubts on the quality of Mr Peacocke’s ‘experts’ projections.
Where he is right is in pointing out how intensive farming practices are degrading our land, water and air nationally. This is not a justification for approving his applications. This is justification for turning them down and then taking action to clean up the country!
Where he is right is that animal shelters can go a long way towards improving profitability, animal welfare and environmental outcomes on dairy farms. That does not provide an solid argument for allowing factory farming in marginal landscapes. Nor does it apply to his applications – he is proposing cubicle or factory farming NOT animal shelters.
Oh, and Mr Peacocke, call a spade a spade. You are trying to do it by pushing an unsuitable form of farming onto an iconic landscape to make money for yourself and your business partners who mostly live in Australia. You are money grubbers.
Interesting thought Trevor but wasn’t just Key who waded into the issue; David Carter also commented negatively in House about the mega housed dairy farms and called for an urgent report. Suspect Fonterra made its views known to Govt before it went public with its comments about possible impact on NZ’s pastoral farming base. Smith now looking at putting an EPA official into ECAN to assist but surely the welter of issues – potential economic damage/animal welfare/environmental harm – will see Cabinet look at wider intervention at its first meeting on Tuesday week.
Kaine, this is way bigger than the Southland farm where cows are housed in winter – and in a much more fragile environment. Even the local Fed Farmers president in Mackenzie Basin is publicly opposed!
And ‘factory farming” is the phrase used by Ecan in its letter to Nick Smith, DavidW.
Anybody who wants a balanced view might want to get a copy of last week’s Listener. Excellent article.
PS Brendon, I’m not a Labour supporter but I admire the work you’ve done here. As far as I can tell the local MP, Jacqui Dean, has done bugger all on one of the most significant issues her electorate is likely to face on her watch.
@Dobbie – excellent comment!
Yes Dobbie, excellent comment.
To those who denigrate the submitters who have a less than expert view; they have brothers and sisters all over the world who enjoy visiting NZ. Their perception of these cow cubicles on iconic land will result in some unwelcome results for tourism. Strange that Key doesn’t get that?
Also, yet another example of a damaging practice closing down in one country and (probably the same investors) opening it up in dear old NZ. Other – eg. private prisons, e.g. national standards, e.g. voting in a moneyman for pm, e.g. trying to downgrade rail transport and increase road use when overseas the opposite is happening.
It’s almost like the pervs’ bad practises after being found out in their own countries are now setting up here to continue their nasty work.
Who are the investors in the three applications?
Do they live in New Zealand?
Are they New Zealanders?
If they are so proud of their planned caging of cows why aren’t they telling us in person?