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?

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.

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.

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.

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?