1Demand for food will rise faster than population 2Food production must rise by 70% to feed 10b 3Meat production is set to double within this 4Linear growth.

1 Demand for food will rise faster than population2 Food production must rise by 70% to feed 10b3 Meat production is set to double within this4 Linear growth will fall short of target5 90% of growth must come from improved yields6 This calls for substantial changes to systems

7 Arable land per person is falling; 0.38ha in 1970,0.23ha in 2000 to est.0.15ha in 2050

8 Even after another 70 million ha is brought into production by 2050

9 Of which 50 million ha less in developed worldand 120 million ha more in developing world

The size of the prize

1 We will not influence global demand for food or global pollution2 These “events” will influence us3 Calorifically we produce enough food for c.20 million people4 In a world of 7 billion people, that is one person in 350. Insignificant.5 But we do supply dairy products for the diets of c.100 million people6 Aspirations to diversify the economy are attractive, even wise7 However, dairying alone can double its output without adding a single cow8 By feeding cows to their full potential 9 At a $6.25 payout/ kg ms that’s +$7 billion at the farm gate – every year10 And +$13 billion at the combined farm and factory gates11 Do we want to turn that down?12 Will we turn that down?

If the prize in dairying alone is $13billion, annually, just for more milk at a realistic payout, what are the trade offs?

1 New Zealand is purportedly the 2nd fastest-changing landmass on the planet2 Being located as it is on a highly active plate boundary3 And with many rocks and soils ‘susceptible’ to erosion (non-metamorphic)4 Causing naturally-abrupt changes to “baseline” ecology & water “quality”5 Lakes and lagoons are ephemeral features in geological timescales6 What is the definition of “pristine” in a massively modified NZ ecosystem?7 What “baseline” will NZ Inc. choose and why?8 How many water bodies in New Zealand should be “pristine”?

Can we have it all? Possibly.It depends on who pays. We have the technology nowDepending on how we define “good” or “pristine”

1 Human consumption and the rights of other species are NOT win:win2 Dairy farming directly exploits three species (cow, grass, clover)3 On an area of land that used to sustain hundreds if not thousands of species4 A house is typically even worse – its aim is to sustain just one species5 Technologies exist to increase the productivity of farming 6 Whilst reducing the second-tier impact of farming on the environment7 Humanity simply must intensify farming and reduce its consumption of land8 If it has a genuine and meaningful concern for the survival of other species9 The question is, do New Zealanders genuinely want to be part of that?10 Is it our moral obligation?

Do we need a national debate on: what is ecologically rational and what is notwhat the definition is of pristine and why it is that what the definition is of good and why it is that which water bodies should be returned to pristinewhether all others should be returned to goodwhether polluters should always pay alonewhether the community should contribute too

E.g., Waituna is special and probably special globally. But the Waikato Basin is special to its local community and that community may feel as passionately.

Neither community, however, is en masse going to stop consuming dairy products, including fresh milk.

How can we farm intensively and reduce pollution?By managing soils, water, pastures and effluent.

How can we do this? By:1 protecting pastures from overgrazing and trampling of plants2 protecting soils from compaction 3 feeding cows with far less wastage of feed4 capturing significant amounts of dung and urine 5 returning them intelligently to the soil…6 always thinking of the soil microbial biomass and its vitality7 and thus balancing the loading of C, N and P returned to the soil8 avoiding the capture of unneeded and unwanted rainwater

Yes, this is possible.Here’s one way to do it:

It goes like this:

1 Manage when to let the cows graze2 Stand off at vulnerable periods for soils 3 Supplement the cow’s diet with other feeds4 Feed these other feeds to cows in a home5 Capture dung and urine at stand off 4 And in the milking yard 5 Roof all vulnerable areas6 Precisely spread dried effluent on paddocks7 And separately stored, liquid effluent tooA dry cow will often eat her daily requirement in three hours

A lactating cow will usually eat 70-80% of her daily requirement in 3 hours

Leaving a cow in a paddock for <4 hours will often do minimal damage to soil

Roofing working areas will avoid collecting 1-1.8 metres of annual rainfall

The opportunity here is to ..........

reduce fertiliser applications by >80-95%reduce run off of N and P by >50%reduce soil compaction between 60-100%improve pasture production by up to 100%improve milk production by 100% (if fed fully)improve profitability by >100%

We can all win

The upfront capital cost of pollution control can be high

After sheep retreated and before dairy surged,Otago and Southland struggled.

We enjoy banking the economic benefits from dairying

So, will the ratepayer or the taxpayer or the SuperFund (investing in green technologies) help farmers make the transition to a new, lower impact/ higher profit system of farming?

We can and should immediately introduce technologies and systems that greatly reduce dairying’s impact.

If they have significant upfront capital costs then perhaps the community should help ease the burden.

And as a country shouldn’t what we do now be to show humanity how we can help meet human nutritional needs whilst containing our footprint to ever smaller areas?

A small yet valuable global contribution; low impact, pasture plus, partially housed, dairy farming.