70
H. Smale
The study’s aim was to determine the loading of faecal bacteria discharged in
selected creeks and identify the specific activities on each of the seven farms in the
study. At each farm the onsite activities were assessed including:
– All dairy farm effluent discharges to land and water
– regular stock crossings
– the extent of effluent build up on raceways and access the potential for discharge
to waterways
– areas of stream bank crumbling/stock access to streams
– feed/stand off pads and stock management practices
– land drainage works, which may affect water quality
The farm specific results were provided to each of the farmers. A generic report
was presented to the working group and at Dairy industry field days. The stage one
results were so definitive that further study was abandoned and principles to manage
and reduce discharge to the water ways developed and quickly rolled out to all the
farms.
Fonterra developed a “Check List to minimise contamination of water by
effluent” and were very proactive in visiting farms and persuading the farmers.
Farmers were installing weeping walls, fencing off and planting waterways. The
latter saw the marine farming industry contributing several thousands of dollars
to the voluntary plant nursery that propagated and donated the trees planted in
the waterway margins. Peer pressure soon became a powerful tool applied to the
laggards by those farmers who had made the commitment and investment.
Towards the end of this process, the Cawthron Institute in NZ were researching
the use of Microbial Source Tracking with their US partners Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute. Microbial source tracking as described in Cornelisen
et al. (2011) was carried out to identify the source of the faecal contamination.
Even though still in the research phase, the methodology was used to confirm our
assumption that the bacterial source was bovine. This provided the dairy farmers
with the confidence that changing their management practices would have the
sought after benefits.
Outcomes
Beyond the farm discharge cleanup, a cascade of improvements were set in train.
The local Council tightened up on non-compliances. They installed a UV treatment
plant at the Collingwood sewerage plant, and a system of notification to MSQP in
the event of any accidental discharges was developed, implemented and steadfastly
adhered to.
During the process we forged strong relationships with various groups – some
that had been anti marine farming in the past. They came to appreciate that we all
share similar environmental goals. This factor is especially important as additional
water space comes into production in the Golden and Tasman Bay areas.
H. Smale
The study’s aim was to determine the loading of faecal bacteria discharged in
selected creeks and identify the specific activities on each of the seven farms in the
study. At each farm the onsite activities were assessed including:
– All dairy farm effluent discharges to land and water
– regular stock crossings
– the extent of effluent build up on raceways and access the potential for discharge
to waterways
– areas of stream bank crumbling/stock access to streams
– feed/stand off pads and stock management practices
– land drainage works, which may affect water quality
The farm specific results were provided to each of the farmers. A generic report
was presented to the working group and at Dairy industry field days. The stage one
results were so definitive that further study was abandoned and principles to manage
and reduce discharge to the water ways developed and quickly rolled out to all the
farms.
Fonterra developed a “Check List to minimise contamination of water by
effluent” and were very proactive in visiting farms and persuading the farmers.
Farmers were installing weeping walls, fencing off and planting waterways. The
latter saw the marine farming industry contributing several thousands of dollars
to the voluntary plant nursery that propagated and donated the trees planted in
the waterway margins. Peer pressure soon became a powerful tool applied to the
laggards by those farmers who had made the commitment and investment.
Towards the end of this process, the Cawthron Institute in NZ were researching
the use of Microbial Source Tracking with their US partners Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute. Microbial source tracking as described in Cornelisen
et al. (2011) was carried out to identify the source of the faecal contamination.
Even though still in the research phase, the methodology was used to confirm our
assumption that the bacterial source was bovine. This provided the dairy farmers
with the confidence that changing their management practices would have the
sought after benefits.
Outcomes
Beyond the farm discharge cleanup, a cascade of improvements were set in train.
The local Council tightened up on non-compliances. They installed a UV treatment
plant at the Collingwood sewerage plant, and a system of notification to MSQP in
the event of any accidental discharges was developed, implemented and steadfastly
adhered to.
During the process we forged strong relationships with various groups – some
that had been anti marine farming in the past. They came to appreciate that we all
share similar environmental goals. This factor is especially important as additional
water space comes into production in the Golden and Tasman Bay areas.