28 minute read
Special Report
Dairying has a future
IT CAN BE DONE: Winton dairy farmer John van Hout says farming is possible with lower application of synthetic nitrogen. Photo: Natwick
THE NZ dairy herd increased 82% between 1990 and 2019, with some of the largest increases in Canterbury and Southland. In hand with that land-use change came greater use of water, fertiliser and issues with nutrient loss, prompting a response from regional councils. In this series, Neal Wallace investigates the future of dairying in those regions and talks to some innovators who are confident that with the use of technology and management changes, dairying has a future.
CHANGE: There are forecasts the number of dairy cows in Canterbury could decline by up to 20% over the next 20 years, depending on how regional councils implement National Policy Statement For Freshwater (NPS-FW) limits on the use of synthetic nitrogen and controls on leaching.
Concern over new freshwater rules
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
THE impact of the Government’s new freshwater regulations could invariably end dairying in Southland or result in a 20% decline over 20 years, depending on who you talk to.
Similarly, there are forecasts the number of dairy cows in Canterbury could decline by up to 20% over that period, depending on how regional councils implement National Policy Statement For Freshwater (NPS-FW) limits on the use of synthetic nitrogen and controls on leaching.
New regulations limiting nitrogen use will require changes, worrying farmers, especially in Canterbury and Southland, where dairy expansion has made nutrient loss to waterways an issue.
Existing management and new technology is already available to halve nitrate and nitrogen losses, lessening the impact of living with annual synthetic nitrogen limits of 190kg/N/ha.
Councils are consulting on the degree of reduction required.
Environment Southland has started consulting on proposals that will mean an average 70% reduction in each of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) over all catchments, targets labelled unrealistic by Ivan Lines, an Invercargill dairy adviser with AgriBusiness Consultants.
“At a minimum it will mean massive change. At worst, it will bring a complete end to farming in Southland,” Lines said.
He said those targets equate to a pre-human state and will make even sheep farming impossible.
A regional forum is to report back later this year on limits and implementation, but a 25-year phase in for new nutrient limits and technology will temper any decline in Southland cow numbers, Environment Southland chair Nicol Horrell said.
He estimates numbers could fall by 20% over the next 20 years, the decline primarily driven by improved per cow production and management decisions rather than by new nutrient limits.
Acknowledging some requirements are confronting, Horrell said technology will assist, citing an analogy where sheep numbers more than halved but meat production has been maintained.
The degree of the herd decline depends on the response of farmers and input from the industry-funded Southland Dairy Hub, which he said will provide specific advice for southern conditions.
Environment Canterbury (ECan) planning manager Andrew Parish says the NPS-FW will be incorporated by council by December 2024 and new limits are still being discussed.
In the Waimakariri catchment, for example, it is looking at a 30% reduction in nutrient loss by 2040 and 36% in the Hinds catchment by 2033.
By setting parameters in an output-based regulatory system, Parish said farmers can continue to farm.
“We are not specifying any land-use change if they can pursue a line that will lead to lower output streams from good management practices,” Parish said.
Canterbury consultant Charlotte Glass from AgriMagic said the expectation the milk price will stay elevated for several years will ease the transition.
Similarly, the soaring price of urea will dampen demand and force farmers to look at other options, including using supplementary feed.
“Thirty years ago, we learnt how to use nitrogen fertiliser. Reducing its use is not the end of the world,” Glass said.
She said dairy farmers have repeatedly shown they can adapt quickly, and there is no reason that will not happen with this challenge.
“I think dairying is quite wellpositioned into the future and there is no reason for it not to be,” she said.
Ministry for the Environment’s director of policy implementation and delivery Sara Clarke said limits on nitrogen use will mean fewer dairy cows.
“Southland, Otago and Canterbury will look different, but it was different 20 years previously,” Clarke said.
It will be up to communities to determine the extent of those changes.
“The people of Southland are the best people to think about how they will transition,” she said.
The environmental impact of dairying has become politicised and Clarke said the views of critics have to be balanced by those of rural communities, which will not please everyone.
DairyNZ strategy and investment leader Dr David Burger said one strategy showing promise is the organisation-led $22 million Plantain Potency and Practice Programme (PPP), which research has shown use of plantain pastures has the potential to reduce losses by 37%.
“Modelling by DairyNZ forecasts a potential reduction of 15,000 tonnes a year in nitratenitrogen leached on 4200 NZ dairy farms in nitrogen-sensitive catchments per year by 2035,” Burger said.
Jeremy Savage, a farm consultant with McFarlane Rural Business and also the demonstration lead at the South Island Dairying Demonstration Centre at Lincoln, said DairyNZ and AgResearch research implemented on the Lincoln University Dairy Farm shows nitrogen losses can be halved.
Nitrogen losses have reduced from 72 to 36kg/N/ha a year through lower stocking rates, using less bought in supplementary feed, applying less nitrogen and culling cows in early autumn before the weather and ground conditions heighten the risk of leaching from cow urine.
The stocking rate on the Lincoln farm has been cut by 0.4 cows/ha and synthetic nitrogen application reduced from an average of 300 to 160kg/ha/a year, but Savage said production per cow has actually increased, from 430 to 500kg/MS/cow.
He attributed that increase to more careful pasture and stock management to compensate for less synthetic nitrogen and supplementary feed.
Charlotte Glass AgriMagic
Special report FEPs best tool to track nitrate loss
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
ENVIRONMENTAL degradation from nitrate loss is not a national issue and DairyNZ does not support blanket input controls such as on applying synthetic nitrogen.
DairyNZ strategy and investment leader David Burger says Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) are a better tool as they are tailored to each farm and local conditions and can be reviewed to ensure they meet regulatory needs and catchment outcomes.
“Around half of all dairy farms already have a FEP,” Burger said.
Dairy farming will continue to have a key role in Southland and Canterbury economies and communities, even though those regions will be hit hard by the 190kg/ha/ a year cap on the use of synthetic nitrogen.
He said those farmers are responding by reducing their environmental footprint through riparian planting, reducing sediment and stabilising stream banks.
“While dairying does contribute to elevated nitrate levels, it’s important to note nitrate levels were high in shallow groundwater and spring-fed streams and drains in Canterbury long before dairy arrived,” he said.
In 2020-21, dairy contributed $3.27 billion directly to Canterbury’s local economy and $1.95b into Southland.
In Southland it was the top economic contributor and a top three economic contributor in Canterbury.
While farmers in those provinces must make significant changes to achieve the Government’s new national bottom line for nitrates, Burger said the issue is when and how?
He said DairyNZ will work closely with regional councils over the next four years as they develop catchment limits, but he wants the focus on action that restores natural habitats.
“A great example of this has been in Taranaki, where habitat restoration of riparian areas has been shown by NIWA to have resulted in improved ecosystem health, despite some catchments recording increasing nitrate concentrations,” he said.
In Southland, DairyNZ has provided analysis, research and a technical review of water quality and catchment science and in Canterbury it has been working with farmers in Selwyn and Hinds for three years through the Meeting a Sustainable Future project, to help them reduce nitrogen loss.
It also led research for new solutions in a Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching programme, which ran from 2013-19.
“This cross-sector approach provided new scientific knowledge, tools and technologies for forage production that can amount to more than 20% reduction of nitrate leaching from dairy, arable, sheep and beef and mixed-farming systems,” he said.
DairyNZ is also leading a seven-year research programme aiming at breeding cows with a lower nitrate leaching footprint that will enable farmers to meet environmental targets by identifying cows with urine excretion characteristics that reduce the risk of nitrate leaching.
Further research aims to determine the genetic basis of those characteristics and the scope for selecting sires that produce ‘low N’ daughters, while also developing the breeding and management strategies required to implement ‘low N’ cows in farm systems.
FOUNDATION: DairyNZ strategy and investment leader David Burger says because many farms already have FEPs in place, tailored to their specific needs, it provides a good foundation for meeting regulatory requirements.
Get Milking
POWERED BY
Special report Act sooner not later on nutrient loss, farmers told
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
THE sooner farmers start addressing nutrient loss, the easier the transition and the less likely Environment Southland will need to implement punitive measures, chair Nicol Horrell says.
The council requires more action from farmers to improve water quality and to achieve that, ES is considering setting an extremely high bar.
“It is clear that just to meet national bottom lines for key contaminants, nitrogen and phosphorus, our region has to achieve significant reductions to the amount of contamination in our waterbodies,” says Horrell.
Final standards are still to be confirmed, but three nutrient reduction models are being circulated by ES: the NPS-FW; the ES proposed water and land plan; and Murihiku Southland freshwater objectives, which focuses on the health and wellbeing of water bodies.
“We have modelled three different sets of outcomes, so the three reductions represent different levels that might be required to achieve a specific outcome in our waterways.
“These objectives represent the level required to achieve hauora, or a healthy resilience in our waterways.”
ES calculates a 47% reduction in nitrogen is required to meet NPS-FW national bottom lines, but to achieve the council’s proposed water and land plan standard, the required reduction increases to 66%.
To meet the Murihiku Southland freshwater objectives, the reduction required is 70%.
Similarly for phosphorus, a 21% reduction will comply with national bottom line standards, but ES is considering a 69% target to comply with its land and water plan and 70% for provincial freshwater objectives.
For E.coli the council’s plan requires an 82% reduction, but 90% to meet freshwater standards. That standard will also require a 24% decline in suspended sediment in rivers and 32% decline for visual clarity.
According to the council’s proposed land and water plan, catchments such as Waituna require a reduction of 96% in total nitrogen (TN) and 62% in total phosphorus (TP), Mataura 79% and 58%, Aparima-Pourakino 64% and 34% and in Oreti-Invercargill 62% and 75%.
Over the whole province, the average reduction required by the council’s plan for both TN and TP is 70%.
Ivan Lines, a dairy adviser with Invercagill-based Agribusiness Consultants, said farmers acknowledge water quality must improve, but the proposed targets are idealistic and will return the provincial waterways to a pre-human state.
Lines warns that based on Overseer data, meeting those levels will make dairying and sheep farming, Southland’s largest industries, impossible as neither will be able to reduce contaminants to ES’ levels.
“A sheep farm can’t achieve it, but trees might or we could revert the province to tussock, its natural state,” Lines said.
Human activity impacts the environment.
“ES says these limits can be achieved, but that have not said how to achieve that in practice or what the cost will be to achieve that,” he said.
He has seen DairyNZ studies that dispute ES analysis of periphyton levels and water quality, which he says the council analysis has been overstated.
He said technology and management techniques are currently available to achieve a 30-35% reduction in contaminants, but 90% could be a struggle over the 25 years the land and water plan will be implemented.
“I think over time we should be able to get that to improve further, and most farmers are striving to achieve that already,” he said.
A deluge of large, scientific documents has made it difficult for land-users to understand let alone keep track of proposed changes.
“I think the whole process ES has been going through has been pretty average to date,” he said.
“To get waterways back to their natural state in a humanmodified environment will be incredibly hard to achieve.”
Given the size of the changes ES is requiring, Lines said it needed a more critical analysis than the council has given it.
A regional forum will recommend methods to achieve draft freshwater objectives which will only be formalised once ES considers recommendations and other information and formalises the plan change to the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan.
Horrell rejects claims ES standards will take Southland water back to a pre-human state and that the economic cost will decimate the Southland community.
“The economic impacts of the limit setting plan change will continue to be assessed as we move through the formal process.
“We have not yet made any decisions and we have more information to gather, including more information that combines science and economic modelling,” says Horrell.
He accepts the size of nutrient loss decline could be confronting, but the 25-year implementation timeframe and new technology such as nitrogen inhibitors, new nitrogen products or application methods will temper any impact.
He predicts a 20% decline in cow numbers in the province over the next 20 years, but says that decline will be driven by commercial factors rather than just the new regulations.
For example, the Southland Dairy Hub, an industry-funded research farm near Winton, will be crucial in finding specific solutions to specific southern conditions, Horrell said.
The best way to get farmer buyin is to provide a map, set interim targets and let industry decide the best way to get there, he said, which is what the council intends to do.
“I believe we need to put out ambitious but practical targets over 10 years,” Horrell said.
“The cumulative effect will be significant.”
No fan of the ability to grandparent nutrient losses, he said he favours a situation where two neighbouring farms have the same lower nutrient loss targets.
Dairying has expanded into some areas of Southland where soils are not suitable, and he said the market could enable that issue to take care of itself or it may require some persuasion, but that is not an issue the council has addressed.
The council’s water and land plan is before the Environment Court but Horrell said within the next year it will be matched to the Government’s National Policy Statement (NPS) for freshwater, which has to be implemented by 2025.
A 2019 nutrient loss study of 90 livestock, horticulture and arable farms reveals the vast majority of dairy farms were losing between 25kg and 55kg/ha/year of nitrogen and 0.5kg and 1.5 kg/ha/ year of phosphorus.
Modelling of mitigation measures show nutrient losses can be reduced by between 10% and 40% within the existing farm production systems, but it did impact profitability.
“Some dairy farms had relatively high baseline nutrient losses for the industry and few mitigations,’’ an ES report states.
“For these farms to achieve relatively low nutrient losses, they will need to consider other options, such as retiring land or a change in farm production system.”
Farms with low nutrient losses had less ability to mitigate those losses.
Charlotte Glass AgriMagic
ACT NOW: Environment Southland chair Nicol Horrell is urging dairy farmers to implement management changes that reduce nitrogen loss.
Special report Farming with flexibility and control
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
JOHN van Hout has always been innovative with his nutrient management on his Southland dairy farm, an approach that is about to pay further dividends as regulations on nitrogen use are enforced.
Policies adopted by the Winton farmer have enabled him to halve the volume of synthetic nitrogen used to 100 units a year, which underpins an approach of running fewer cows but feeding them better.
The nitrogen he does use, along with other fertilisers and agents, is applied in a liquid form at low rates over six applications throughout the year.
“Everything we put on is in a diluted form, so it sits on the leaf and the plant takes it up as soon as it dries,” Van Hout said.
An eco-bag is being installed to meet the extra storage required by the new regulations, which will capture shed and barn effluent and be used to fertilise an area of the farm which has not previously had it applied.
The new system will also allow for methane capture, which could be used as an energy source in the future.
“It’s fertiliser and it is worth a lot of money,” he said.
Average pasture growth across his two farms is 16-17 tonnes DM/ ha and his stocking rate is about 2.8 cows/ha, about 0.7 cows/ha below the district average.
Van Hout has a wintering barn on one property, capable of housing 660 cows, and he runs 340 cows on a second farm, where cows are kept outside.
The wintering barn gives him flexibility and control, allowing cows to be taken off paddocks when it is wet, effluent to be captured and it helps stretch out his milking season to 305 days.
Production from his 660-cow herd is 625kg/MS/cow and from the 340-cow herd it is 525kg/MS/ cow.
He said it is possible to farm in a low nutrient environment, but it requires a different approach to herd management.
“You just need to think outside the square,” he said.
“You feed the cows and get high production per cow by having less mouths to feed.”
John van Hout Farmer
CUTTING DOWN: John van Hout says the nitrogen he does use, along with other fertilisers and agents, is applied in a liquid form at low rates over six applications throughout the year. Photo: Natwick
DairyNZ challenges Southland water limits
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
A STUDY of Environment Southland water quality standards has concluded alternative but acceptable water quality targets can be achieved at a much reduced cost to farming and the regional economy.
DairyNZ has reviewed the science that underpins Environment Southland’s water quality limit setting process and says proposed nutrient reductions are not achievable and could force people out of farming.
DairyNZ strategy and investment leader for dairy and water quality scientist David Burger says at the request of farmers, it is developing an alternative perspective on how to achieve council freshwater targets.
These findings will be shared with Southland farmers and Environment Southland and he says it follows repeated requests for the council to review its targets.
“We have been looking at Environment Southland’s data and modelling closely and we believe improvements could be achieved with nutrient loss targets much lower than what Environment Southland is proposing,” Burger said.
For six months DairyNZ has unsuccessfully urged Environment Southland to review its water quality monitoring modelling, assumptions and detail of the impact on the community.
“When targets have such major impacts on the community, they need to be robust and reflect what the community wants,” he said.
“Having an alternative perspective on what targets may be needed, and the implications of these targets, will help start a discussion.”
DairyNZ joined Federated Farmers in expressing disappointment at a recent council report suggesting a 90% reduction in nutrient loss is required in some catchments.
“This is causing enormous stress for farmers who want to understand how the proposed targets came about,” he said.
He said this is why the council needs to review its modelling and the economic impact of its proposed policy.
Earlier this month council chair Nicol Horrell responded to that data.
“We’ve taken our current assessment of environmental health and compared it to our draft freshwater objectives, or goals,” Horrell said.
“A significant improvement on the current state of waterbodies is signalled, rather than any return to a pre-European state.
“Recently we’ve modelled the reductions in contaminants from waterways that could be required to meet these draft objectives.
“The numbers from this modelling provide a sense of the scale of change needed, but they are not limits or targets.”
While the council is required to develop limits and targets, which will be included in the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan to be notified at the end of next year, there will be opportunities for public input.
ALTERNATIVE VIEW: DairyNZ water quality scientist David Burger says at the request of farmers, it is developing an alternative perspective on how to achieve council freshwater targets.
David Burger DairyNZ
LUDF cuts N loss by 50%
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
IT REQUIRED a new approach to management, but researchers at the Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF) have halved nitrogen losses as they adjust to farming within a synthetic nitrogen limit of 190kg/ha.
Jeremy Savage, a farm consultant with McFarlane Rural Business and also the demonstration lead at the South Island Dairying Demonstration Centre at Lincoln, says research by DairyNZ and AgResearch has reduced nitrogen loss on the property from 72 to 36kg/N/ha a year.
It has achieved this through lower stocking rates, using less bought-in supplementary feed, applying less nitrogen and culling cows earlier.
Culling starts on April 1, before the weather and ground conditions heighten the risk of leaching rates from cow urine.
He said Lincoln is also finetuning its irrigation use and embarking on a plan to plant a third of the farm in plantain at the rate of 10% a year.
The nitrogen capturing characteristic of the plant is expected to further reduce annual losses from 36kg/ha to 26kg/ha, but he said there will be challenges integrating the management of plantain into general pasture rotation.
“We are getting to the high hanging fruit here,” Savage said.
The farm’s stocking rate has been reduced from 3.9 to 3.5 cows/ha, a reduction of 70 cows to 580.
Synthetic nitrogen use has been lowered from an average of 300 to 160kg/ha/a year, but Savage said production per cow has actually increased from 430 to 500kg/MS/ cow.
He attributed that increase to more careful pasture and stock management to compensate.
Achieving lower nitrogen losses will prove challenging for some farmers, especially those who have high cost production systems that produce marginal cost milk.
The cost of marginal milk, where a high stocking rate is supported by all year round grain feeding, comes with production costs of $8-plus kg/MS.
“They will have to make substantial system changes if they are to achieve lower nutrient losses,” he said.
Some have made changes with the average supplement use among his clients falling from 800kg/cow to 580kg/cow in the past five years.
Research is also looking at the impact on nitrogen losses of variable milking on production and land-use intensity.
At LUDF, Savage said they are specifically looking at milking 10 times in seven days: twice on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and once on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.
Initial findings are that production per cow is about 5% lower.
“The idea is that this milking pattern lowers energy demand so less feed is required, but there will be savings in fuel and electricity, winter feed, cleaning and staff,” he said.
Fonterra is forecasting a 2% reduction in future milk production, but Savage said while a portion will be from fewer cows, especially in Canterbury and Southland, there are other factors.
It will also be driven by landuse change, small farmers exiting the industry and urban encroachment as dairy farms are subdivided.
While winter grazing regulations will reduce nitrogen loss, he said it will also reduce phosphate washing into waterways by encouraging farmers to protect critical sources and risky areas when sowing winter crops.
But the provision in the regulations, which restrict the area cattle can be wintered, removes flexibility and restricts winter grazing to where it is at present.
For example, drier areas of northern Southland are suited to wintering grazing, but unless areas are designated for wintering cattle, to get approval requires a resource consent process.
Savage said there has been a reduction in the number of graziers for next year which could create a supply problem.
He is optimistic research will continue to find solutions, such as the joint Ravensdown and Lincoln University developed EcoPond, which has reduced methane emissions from effluent ponds by 99.9%.
He is hopeful a nitrogen inhibitor will follow.
“Investing in science has meant we are able to resolve a lot of issues and I am sure we will into the future,” he said.
Jeremy Savage Farm consultant
RESULTS: McFarlane Rural Business farm consultant Jeremy Savage says research by DairyNZ and AgResearch has reduced nitrogen loss on the Lincoln University Dairy Farm from 72 to 36kg/N/ha a year.
Special report ECan footprint project on track
Neal Wallace neal.wallace@globalhq.co.nz
A FIVE-YEAR project to help Canterbury dairy farmers reduce their environmental footprint is paying early dividends, with 70% of those in the Selwyn catchment already meeting initial nitrogen loss targets of 30%.
DairyNZ solutions and development lead advisor Virginia Serra says preliminary results reveal that after three years of its Meeting a Sustainable Future project, most Selwyn farmers are ahead of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) preliminary contaminant reduction targets.
“Another 20% are well on track to achieving it and are receiving support to get there,” Serra said.
Nationwide regulations introduced last July capped synthetic nitrogen fertiliser applications at 190kg N/ha/year.
ECan targets for dairy farmers in the Selwyn catchment require that by 2022 farmers must lower nitrogen losses by 30% compared to a baseline figure averaged over the 2009-2013 period.
In Hinds, nitrogen losses must be 15% lower by 2025, 25% by 2030 and 36% by 2035.
A recent survey of 234 of the 450 farmers in the Selwyn and Hinds catchments revealed all were reporting positive environmental changes from shrinking their environmental footprint.
The survey revealed 81% have improved irrigation systems or effluent management, some have altered stocking rates or are using plantain to capture nitrogen.
Dairying has grown rapidly in Canterbury, with the number of dairy farms almost doubling from 632 to 1149 in the 10 years to 2015.
The average herd size is 912 compared to the national average of 413.
Last November ECan extended its Land and Water Regional Plan throughout the province, setting new quality limits for ground and surface water, meaning lower nitrogen-loss limits, higher minimum flows, a cap on water extraction and the exclusion of livestock from a broader range of waterways.
“The plan change introduces requirements for some farms in these areas to further reduce their nitrogen losses and to exclude stock from more water bodies,” Councillor John Sunckell said in a statement at the time.
The synthetic nitrogen fertiliser cap applies to all grazed land, except for grazing of livestock on arable crops.
Farm managers are required to record nitrogen purchases, use and type and application rates, including the percentage of nitrogen component by dry weight in other fertiliser mixes and the rate at which it was applied.
All dairy farm managers must supply an annual report on their use to their regional council starting from July 31 next year.
Selwyn catchment data sourced from dairy and irrigation companies alongside a DairyNZ survey shows farmers were using Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) to reduce their footprint and improve water quality by managing nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and E.coli.
Trials are being held with 40 farmers on how to adjust, and that knowledge is shared with local farmers.
“Achieving these results is not easy and farmers are working hard to deliver,” Serra said.
Further change is coming for Canterbury farmers, with a new integrated plan for Canterbury to be notified by ECan by 2024 under the Essential Freshwater package.
It will introduce new rules and regulations for freshwater, coastal areas and Regional Policy Statements.
How that will impact dairy farming, ECan says it is too early to judge.
In the 2019-20 summer, ECan sampled 55 freshwater and 46 coastal sites, of which 76% of freshwater sites and 91% of coastal sites are considered as being generally suitable for contact recreation.
All lake sites were graded as fair or better compared to 64% of river sites.
Primary contact recreation was suitable in every coastal beach and all but one harbour.
A third of all estuary sites are unsuitable for bathing.
Four freshwater and two coastal bathing sites improved a grade, while four sites (three freshwater and one coastal) decreased a grade.
Half of monitored shellfish gathering sites are considered suitable for collecting and consuming shellfish safely.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION: A DairyNZ field day in Mid Canterbury, showing farmers how to farm in a low nutrient era.
The Northland dairy farmer using regen ag practices
Concern for the soil structure led Adam Cullen to introduce multi-species cover crops and use direct drilling where possible on his Northland dairy farm. This change of mindset prioritises improving the environment and the farm resources rather than constantly driving for production. Watch the video now at
youtube.com/OnFarmStory
This episode was made possible with support from Rabobank
These days, water tank monitors are affordable and easy to set up. Having frequent live updates on your water supply straight to your phone removes the need for daily water runs and reduces stress on hot summer days.
Leak detection is the number one benefit of monitoring farm water tanks. It is estimated that more than 26% of stock water is lost every year to leaking infrastructure. Tank monitors can alert users of abnormal usage much faster than can be picked up on the daily rounds.
Whether it is a damaged ballcock or a break in a line, leak detection alarms will quickly notify you when tank levels drop, giving you a headstart in fixing the problem. Not only will this save water, but it will also reduce the chances of trough damage from stressed animals.
Another benefit of tank monitoring is picking up slow leaks. A hole in a tank or trough, the size of a small nail, could lose approximately 14,000L in one day - that’s roughly half a tank.
In a stock water system, you generally expect to see no consumption throughout the night when the animals are sleeping. Having 24/7 water level monitors on your tanks, you can quickly identify small level changes throughout the night and track down the leaks you didn’t even know you had.
At the dairy shed, ensuring cooler tanks and washdown tanks are operating smoothly before heading out for milking saves significant time and hassle. Most water level monitors can identify leaks and low levels in tanks before significant water is lost, and can give frequent water level updates throughout the day.
Using a remote tank monitoring system can give visibility to water tanks that are far away or on another property. These will jump onto local wifi or cellular networks to send tank readings to your phone, no matter where you are. This will bring a huge time and travel saving for owners of multiple farms and runoff blocks, a reliable and cost effective solution for reducing visits while maintaining the confidence that animals have access to water all year round.
When upgrading infrastructure or moving to a new farm, water tank monitoring is a quick and cost effective way to get to know your water system. Finding water consumption trends throughout different seasons lets you know exactly how much storage capacity you require and where it is most needed.
Adding tanks and upgrading troughs can be very expensive. Knowing exactly how much water your farm uses will give you confidence in your decisions and let you hold off until it is absolutely necessary.
Training new staff or handing over responsibility to workers is no easy task. Nothing beats years of experience with your farm water systems and conveying it all to new workers can be difficult. Tank monitoring can provide a good head start for workers, helping them learn the trends of critical tanks and giving you confidence in their ability. With the whole team able to access tank level information and leak detection alerts, not much can slip through the cracks.
Overall, tank monitoring gives you peace of mind, knowing with confidence that your stock has access to water when they need it. Spend less time chasing leaks and more time with family, having your tank levels right in the palm of your hand, no matter where you are.
