Reference no: EM131489970

You need to prepare presentation for case study, firstly give brief explanation about topic such as dirty dairying and than company mentioned in case study followed by case study and and please make sure you attach some pictures as well and make it colour full, just make 6 to 7 slides.

Case- Dirty Dairying

Deborah Russell, Massey University, New Zealand

From the mid-1980s, the number of dairy (milking) cows in New Zealand started to increase rapidly, doubling from about 2.25 million cows in 1985 to a national herd of about 4.5 million cows in 2011.1 Some of the increase came about through converting grazing and forestry land into dairy farms, and some of it was supported by changing land and stock management practices so that more cows could be farmed on each hectare of land, and so that each of those cows produced more milk. This meant that land use intensified as the number of dairy cows grazed per hectare increased.

By the mid-2000s, New Zealand had become the largest dairy-exporting country in the world.2 The increase in dairying led to substantial financial gains for farmers. Although farmers tended to remain cash poor, the value of their farms increased significantly. Many farmers made large capital gains when they sold their farms, and under New Zealand law these gains are tax free. Most farming in New Zealand is carried out by owner-operators, or by family owned companies, so these gains stayed in private hands.

The increase in the number of cows lead to increased pollution of waterways, due to cow effluent and increased use of fertiliser. There were two places where cows deposited effluent: (i) in milking sheds (known as milking parlours in the USA and Europe) during twice-daily milking; and (ii) in paddocks (virtually all dairy cows in New Zealand are free- range farmed).

Farmers traditionally washed out milking sheds after each daily milking by hosing the sheds down, and letting the water and effluent run out to nearby streams, which in turn flowed into larger waterways. While this was undesirable, it was not regarded as a significant problem until the national dairy herd started to increase. Most farmers responded to the increase in milking shed effluent run-off by constructing effluent ponds for the run-off.

However, dairy cows in paddocks have unrestricted access to waterways. This leads to them depositing effluent directly in streams. As land use intensifies, more effluent is deposited in paddocks, where it is washed into streams during rainfall.

Water quality is also affected by fertiliser run-off. New Zealand has high grass growth rates due to fertile soil and high rainfall, especially in the main dairying areas such as Waikato, Northland, Manawatu, Taranaki and Southland. Despite this, more feed is needed for the increased number of cows grazed on each hectare of land. Extra grass growth is achieved by increasing the amount of fertiliser applied. Although most of the fertiliser is absorbed into the soil, a large amount is washed off into waterways by rain. This leads to higher nitrogen levels in waterways, which affect plant and fish life and decrease water quality.

Once streams became noticeably polluted due to increased dairying, farmers were pressured to take action to reduce effluent run-off. They were urged to fence off waterways to prevent cows from depositing effluent directly in the water, and to plant riparian vegetation strips alongside streams to help to purify rainwater before it reached streams.

However, many farmers resisted doing anything. They argued that it was expensive, especially for small business operators. They had to bear all the costs of fencing and planting themselves, even though the benefits would flow to the whole community. They would also have to bear the additional expense of installing water reticulation systems in all their paddocks. It was simply too big a cost to impose on private land owners. Furthermore, what they did on their land was their own business. Their land was owned outright, and no one else ought to be able to tell them what to do with their private property.

In addition, fencing off waterways and planting stream margins represented a significant change in farming practice. When farmers had bought their land, they had not factored these extra costs into their business decision-making. Some claimed it was unreasonable to impose new costs on a business. On top of all this, farmers saw the pressure to clean up waterways as yet another imposition by townies who just didn't understand rural living and rural businesses. In any case, some farmers argued that towns and cities generated just as much, if not more, pollution as rural areas, and it wasn't fair to hold farmers to higher standards. Finally, many farmers argued that they would not pollute the environment, because they depended on having good-quality water and pasture in order to earn incomes. They were stewards of the land, and could be trusted to look after it.

Some farmers did start to take action to preserve waterways. However, most did not, and the quality of water in streams and rivers and lakes declined noticeably. It was no longer possible to swim in streams, which had long been a popular summer activity for country and city dwellers alike. In 2009, one New Zealand river, the Manawatu, was at the top of a list of the 300 most polluted rivers in the developed world.

Local body authorities started to impose fines, but the response from farmers was varied. Many farmers accepted that local authorities could impose fines, but others tried to elect more farmers to seats on local authority councils, to try to minimise the action taken against non-compliant farmers. Most dairy farmers only really started to take action when the major buyer of milk, Fonterra, announced that it would impose penalties on dairy suppliers (farmers) whose farms did not meet a minimum standard for water cleanliness. If farmers still did not improve their practices, ultimately Fonterra would refuse to buy milk from them.4 Fonterra is the dominant milk purchaser in New Zealand, and many dairy farmers do not have a viable alternative to selling to Fonterra. This finally led to an improvement in farming practices. Now most dairy farmers have fenced off waterways and have planted stream margins.

However, there are still farmers whose farming practices do not meet the standards imposed by Fonterra. Activists are quick to report and publicise such breaches of environmental standards. They argue that issues such as ‘dirty dairying' mean that New Zealand's image as a clean, green country is false, and that New Zealand shouldn't promote itself as an environmental haven.5 This has upset the government, with a government minister describing activists who report pollution from farms as internal enemies who are undermining New Zealand's ‘100% Pure' tourism marketing strategy.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1 Farmers have argued that meeting environmental standards imposes significant costs on them, which is unfair because they are small businesses which cannot meet the costs. Is it reasonable for small businesses to be asked to pay environmental costs?

2 Towns and cities pollute waterways. Does this mean that farms should also be able to pollute waterways?

3 Most farmland in New Zealand is privately owned. Does this mean that farmers ought to be able to do what they want on their land?

4 Many farmers only started meeting fencing and planting standards when the alternative was to not be able to sell the milk their cows produced. Should they be regarded as behaving ethically now that they are meeting the standards?