Managing Farm Dairy Effluent - Case Study Example

Managing Farm Dairy Effluent Name: Institution: Date: Managing Farm Dairy Effluent That water is one of the essential needs in the life of all living things is a fact we cannot deny. This is to say the survival of man and other living organisms entirely depend on water. There is, therefore, a need to avoid any unnecessary wastage of water by all means. This task seeks to discuss the management of water in rural sectors over the past years and subsequently how changes can be accommodated in this contemporary with regards to water conservation. It seeks to draw its reference from both regional and national levels in New Zealand. Since dairy farming is considered one of the major contributors to the decline of water quality, the task will heavily link it in this discussion. Also accompanied will be the conditions of consents which ultimately led to the freshwater management solution. a. performance requirements of consent conditions To commence with, it is important to consider what a farmer needs to do in order to achieve compliance and of course what he will do with the achievement of the said agreement. The conditions are carefully channeled towards ensuring the pollution is minimized, and this allays fear of losing quality water in the event of its need. The first condition is that the liquid effluent must be diluted with wash down water. It should be solid affluent and also the odour from both robust and liquid effluent which emanate from sheds. A scraper may be used to remove this solid effluent (Clay, 2013). These shades are always compartmentalized into smaller parcels. This is in accordance with the legal description in PT RS 2803, and Pt Lot 1 DP6070A farmer must know that these are the major pollutants from dairy animals and for him to make the work easier, this effluent should not accumulate as managing with be hectic (Monaghan et al. 2008). While these affluent are considered pollutants, they should not be left to stay in the shades where animals graze for long since that will be tantamount to risking the animals’ lives as well. It should also be considered these effluent occupy an ambivalent position as they have very high content of fertilizer as well. Nevertheless, both liquid and solid effluent should only be discharged in a restricted area which bears a label inscribed Discharge area A. The other one bears a name which is written as landfill space B. this forms a very essential constituent of the consent, and it is found in plan CRC 143396. It is of great importance that the effluent is discharged into an area which is designated for it as this helps in mitigating the entire farm from being messed up. With the provision of plan CRC, 143396 guarantees that the ultimate goal of management of water is taken care of because this will significantly reduce the risk of overflow. Storm water should also be prevented from entering these areas through digging drains around them. With the inevitability pollution, a farmer should always ensure that he observes all the recommendations and guidelines as this is not only good for the health of the dairy animals but to human beings as well. Healthy dairy cattle will, in turn, provide excellent quality and quantity of milk, which is the ultimate wish of all farmers (Clark et al. 2007). Another condition is that a number of cows not exceeding nine hundred and thirty-eight should be milked in a day and their shades. This is a very crucial aspect in dairy keeping since it is the only way a farmer can know the feedback of his labor. While milking the cows, it is important to note the milk content of every cow so that a farmer can know where to improve on with regards to service delivery (Clay, 2013). It is also good to take into consideration the prevailing conditions which may affect the productivity. That entails factors like climate change which directly impacts on the level of milk produced. Milking these cows in the shade is a condition which benefits the owner of the cow more than the cow itself because in as much as it reduces the risks of getting affected with diseases, it also helps the farmer in minimizing the cost he would have used in seeking medication for the animals. Another condition is that at any given time, the diluted discharge should only be conducted through a spray irrigation system. This is important because of a number of reasons, for instance; we should be concerned with the lives of other things as well for example pasture. Spray irrigation system is a friendly way which minimizes the risk of destroying field life and also causing damage to the soil as well. It should be considered that irrigating during the periods when soil moisture is low is an ideal way of preventing ponding and for that matter, a farmer should consider doing it at that period. This is because we are concerned with pastures life, and we do not want to pollute the underground water which provides a habitat for other living things. The irrigation equipment should correspond with the AS2845.1, which is an 1898 model and has a one-year installation. In the case of any backflow, AS 2845.3 model of 1993 standard would be ideal. The dilute discharge should be applied within twenty-four hours after releasing. This application involves a dilute discharge which is below twenty-four millimeters which should be charged into discharge area An in a day. Another ten millimeters should be released into area B within the same span of time. The farmer should ensure there is no any runoff past the property boundary (Clay, 2013). Due to that, a producer should make sure there is no water collected around the discharge area which might eventually find its way into the discharge area. The depths should be ideal since if it is too deep it becomes problematic when discharging and when it is too shallow it can quickly overflow. The later is even worse since it results in severe pollution of the environment. The next condition is that at any given time, the application depth of dilute discharge should not culminate into ponding. This can be achieved through a number of ways. For instance, a farmer should ensure that there is a regular discharge of effluent into its designated area. The weeds and vegetation should also be controlled regularly as this may prevent the dilute flow discharge which may eventually result into ponding (Monaghan et al. 2007). The pipes running inside and outside should also be checked regularly as a way of staying alert in the event of ponding. The surface liquid is also advisable to be removed before dilute discharge is set free. These are some of the paramount conditions which a farmer should meet for him to know whether he has achieved the compliance. b. what the RMA requires of farmers The producers are now required to complete the following by RMA, and they include ensuring that they all comply with the resource consents and regional plans. This is a serious issue because up to date, just two out of five have complied with the consents. This shows laxity on the side of these farmers and these delays the realization of the ultimate dream (Clay, 2013). Despite the earnest appeal by the Primary Water Sector Partnership to Fonterra farmers to have management systems since 2007. However, so far just 28 percent of the farmers in question have reportedly complied. This is a big reason to worry considering that ninety percent were expected to have met by then. The farmers should, therefore, come out and act on this as soon as possible as this would enable the government to plan well for the activity. In the event of keeping more cows in a single hectare with an intention of maximizing the milk production, the farmers will always be disappointed as it has always been. Farmers should soldier on together for the betterment of the country as they are key stakeholders in the economy of New Zealand. When others comply with consents while others are adamant with complying, then they are trailing the economy and their development as farmers. Going as per the report which was released in 2007, Taranaki was the only regional council which had met the target of fencing ninety percent of all regions which are significant water lands which boarder dairies (Collins et al. 2007). There is a need for all local councils to increase their speed so that the target can be met. With growing level of technology, facilitating the process of fencing these regions has been made easier, and the councils should utilize the opportunity if they have to make the best out of the contemporary. Besides, the RMA requires the farmers to report an actual progress with regards to Accord’s target. The dairying and cleans Stream Accord Snapshot Report has been vehemently accused of being inaccurate and misguiding, and this has made it difficult to monitor the impact of agriculture on New Zealand’s waterways. The figures they give are not accurate and therefore cannot be accounted for whatsoever. An instance is the 1200 dairy farms which were put in the public domain to have fully complied with the consents only to realize that the report uses just a mere 750. This insinuates that the difference so big to come up with a report which can be trusted (Clay, 2013). Another controversial story was that Southland had lost over one hundred dairy farms between the year 2006 and 2008 only for the Environmental Southland to release a report revealing a significant improvement in the number of dairy farms day in day out. The farmers should, therefore, ensure they give sincere reports to avoid these controversies. Another issue yet too sensitive to be assumed is the report which said that there were four regions which were completely adamant to comply with the consent and in the report, the areas mentioned were Horizons, Wellington, Canterbury, and Northland(Monaghan et al. 2007). When we take an example of Wellington where the number of those who are adamant to comply rose steadily from two percent. This was put in the public domain and this year it was 28 percent which was released. This difference is so big to trust whatsoever, and therefore, it is evident there is more than meets the eye. It is, therefore, a widespread appeal to farmers and all stakeholders involved to ensure the reports they give are not cooked since it is out of the reports that the performance of dairy farming can be evaluated. Another appeal by the RMA is that several wetlands have not been fenced either have they been fenced. With a target of wetlands set at ninety percent to have been surrounded by the year 2007, it is still disappointing to agree that this has remained a nightmare (Collins et al. 2007). When farmers are determined to have an improved produce in the level of milk production, they have to start it from outside. It is the immediate environment which profoundly impact on the final production of the market (Clay, 2013). While it is agreeable that dairy farming indeed is among the leading pollutants, the farmers must always comply with the set standards which mitigate pollution. They should, therefore, come out and identify wetlands so that they can be put to use. Failure to fence these wetlands is a crime and these farmers also profoundly affect the quality of lakes, rivers, and streams. The RMA further wants the farmers to show seriousness concerning the compliance with the consents and on a serious tone, they have ordered the council to apprehend those farmers who are adamant to comply with the concurrence to be arrested and arraigned in court so that they serve as examples. It is through that treatment that other unserious lot can learn to respond to such crucial issues. With the guidelines clear to them, the farmers must lead by example and put an end to irresponsible behaviors. When there is one part of the country responding very positively while their counterparts act as if they are half interested in an endeavor which ultimately benefits all, it is important that they are constrained to do it. All farmers are required to do is to cope with the situation and work hand in hand with the council. This is the message the board is sending to all farmers, and when they comply, the council always has no bone of contention with them. That the Fonterra’s goal has doubled the production of dairy in the past seventeen years at four percent means the environment has been majorly degraded as well. As it had earlier been mentioned, dairy farming is one of the leading pollutants of the environment. This means the number of dairy in a given area is proportional to the condition of the environment in that particular field. When the rate of production is high, the level of pollution also increases (Monaghan et al. 2007). Farmers should, therefore, upgrade their sanity when there are many dairy farms around so that they do not interfere so much with the lives of other people who also rely on water for survival. When there are few dairy farms, it becomes easy to manage, but when the farmers have many dairy farms- which is also good in terms of milk production, it becomes a very demanding task which requires total engagement, or else the process leaves the water bodies completely messed up. c. Changes in farming practices that are required in order to comply with recent policy changes (since 2011). In order to comply with the recent policy changes, it is important that some changes be made. This will enable the farmers to adapt quickly to the demands of the systems and realize the real production of milk as well. When milk production is good, it does not only benefit the farmers but the entire country as well since its exportation will significantly increase leading to the rise in the economy (Clay, 2013). Therefore, the first change which should be made is in the management of dairy farming. In as much as I agree that dairy farming is among the leaders in water pollution, I must say that dairy farming must be treated with proper decorum because it is not only important in producing one of the countries’ leading exports but also a source4 of protein for many citizens. Therefore, the leadership should include grass root leaders who fully understand the possible challenges ordinary farmers may be undergoing. If dairy farming is going to be managed at the national level, then the sector is running a risk of leaving out some critical information which could be very vital when analyzing a problem affecting dairy farming. The management should also focus more on the provision of possible solutions to the problem of water pollution and not one which over exercises on the consequences of water pollution. This is a sure way of convincing farmers that the management is indeed concerned with their welfare and their business at all. When the administration puts the interest of farmers ahead, it motivates them and the results become useful. The initial management is one type which, in as much as it supports and protects farmers, is not very friendly because most decisions are made from the top and this does not allow farmers to give their insight even concerning issues which are affecting them directly (Clark et al. 20070. The management should, therefore, be approachable by farmers and always work within a consultative framework since this is the only surest way that workers’ grievances can be aired out. This will improve the relationship between farmers and the management and ultimately lead to increase in production. Another change which should be made is on the effluent storage ponds. Since it is a way controlling pollution, several changes should be made in order for it to perfectly fit its purpose. The pipes should be relatively larger to allow the passage of large particles which usually cause backflow when they cannot pass through the tubes. Still on the pond, instead of treating its water as a waste, it should be processed to be used again (Clay, 2013). By so doing, no water shall be called a waste since it will be in continuous use. A Larger percentage of animal wastes in the pond should also be put to better use rather than treating them as wastes. This is because people already know that they can be used to improve the fertility of the soil. To ensure this is put into practice, strict rules should be passed which prevent people from treating animal wastes as pollutants as this will encourage people to put it into better use which will, in turn, reduce its level of pollution. In addition, a section of farmers should be entrusted with the task of giving reports concerning the progress in their field. As it has been witnessed that the council presents controversial reports, it is crystal clear that they do not have enough idea concerning whatever they are saying. It is, therefore, important to entrust the farmers with the responsibility of giving the report because they undoubtedly have some insight in the field (Collins et al. 2007). Hiring an expert from outside may have led to the controversies surrounding the statements because of a number of reasons. These experts may have vast knowledge about data collection but they may as well lack several information concerning dairy farming. These experts may also be doing job purely for commercial services rather than farmers who would do it with passion and thirst for knowing how their counterparts are fairing on in the other parts of the country (Clay, 2013). This means that they will be conducting the report both for the government and for themselves with an intention of improving their production with whatever the idea they will have outsourced from elsewhere. Nevertheless, the number of dairy cows a farmer has should be limited to his capability as this will help in reducing pollution. When a farmer keeps a number of dairy cows more than he can manage then, he becomes a nuisance to the rest. The government should, therefore, come up with rules which govern the ownership of dairy cattle and strict by- laws be set to ensure the farmer comply with the conditions. This is under consideration that it is these dairy cows which pollute water which is used by several people for survival. The lot who can take care of a large herd should be permitted to do so while those whose financial conditions cannot allow them to take good care of their cows should be constrained to own a number they can manage. While dairy cows rely on for milk, they cannot risk the lives of millions who also have the same right to live just as the owner of the cow (Monaghan et al. 2008). The level of production of milk cannot be equated with people’s lives, and this is an issue the government should take very seriously. Another change which is required is for farmers to have their effluent storage ponds. This will make all farmers responsible unlike where several heads are using same effluent storage pond. When several people are involved there is likely to be laxity because one will always assume another person will take care of the lake unlike when the pond is his. Farmers should, therefore, be instructed to have their ponds as a condition for anyone who wishes to start fish farming. This will be a great stride towards finding the solution to the problem of water pollution which for several years has not been able to be solved. Conclusion In conclusion, farmers should comply with consent conditions as a way of meeting the standards of dairy farming if they have to benefit from the contemporary and its opportunities. Dairy farming should also be accorded some proper decorum as it helps the government in solving the problem of joblessness and also contributes to the economy of the county as well. Dairy farming, although regarded as one of the chief water pollutants, is very crucial for the growth of economy. Reference Clark, D. A., Caradus, J. R., Monaghan, R. M., Sharp, P., & Thorrold, B. S. (2007). Issues and options for future dairy farming in New Zealand. New Zealand journal of agricultural research, 50(2), 203-221. Clay, J. (2013). World agriculture and the environment: a commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices. Island Press. Collins, R., McLeod, M., Hedley, M., Donnison, A., Close, M., Hanly, J., ... & Matthews, L. (2007). Best management practices to mitigate faecal contamination by livestock of New Zealand waters. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 50(2), 267-278. Monaghan, R. M., Hedley, M. J., Di, H. J., McDowell, R. W., Cameron, K. C., & Ledgard, S. F. (2007). Nutrient management in New Zealand pastures—recent developments and future issues. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 50(2), 181-201. Monaghan, R. M., De Klein, C. A. M., & Muirhead, R. W. (2008). Prioritisation of farm scale remediation efforts for reducing losses of nutrients and faecal indicator organisms to waterways: A case study of New Zealand dairy farming. Journal of environmental management, 87(4), 609-622. Monaghan, R. M., Wilcock, R. J., Smith, L. C., Tikkisetty, B., Thorrold, B. S., & Costall, D. (2007). Linkages between land management activities and water quality in an intensively farmed catchment in southern New Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118(1), 211-222. Read More