Cubicle cow applications ‘called in’ by minister
Environment Minister Nick Smith has thrown the Waitaki cubicle cow farming hot potato to a special board of inquiry.
Normally the applications seeking effluent consents would be dealt with by Environment Canterbury. But Mr Smith has agreed with a request from Environment Canterbury’s chief executive Bryan Jenkins that the proposals for the Mackenzie Basin are a matter of national significance.
This is based on the high level of public interest and the scale – 17,000 cows – and the special character of the Mackenzie, which has delicate soils as well as its status as a main tourism drawcard. The farming operations would be located on properties that drain into the pristine mountain lakes around the Aoraki-Mount Cook area.
The proposals attracted more than 5200 submissions from concerned people around the country and overseas. Many local farmers have also expressed unease at the plans and questioned the economics of the proposals, while Prime Minister John Key outlined his concerns for the image of the country.
The farming operations in question are only a portion of the resource consent applications being dealt with by Environment Canterbury, which involve plans for upwards of 30,000 cows.
The applications from Southdown Holdings, Williamson Holdings, and Five Rivers were presented in a piecemeal fashion by the developers who initially sought separate water abstraction and land use consents, planning to seek effluent discharges under further applications.
The original application for one of them stated that the operations were not for dairying. However, the panel looking at land use consents told the applicants their plans should be considered altogether in a holistic manner.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit















Comments and questions2
The media and the public have no idea what these systems entail. The cows are still free to roam, to coin a phrase "free Range Farming" for most of the year but for that part of the year when it is coldest the cows are protected in the wintering barn with feed brought to them. The cows are free to roam the barn (over that cold period) as they want. ECan have strict guidelines to follow with effluent disposal etc and if they are followed there would be no problems. If I was a cow I would prefer this system to free range farming over the winter months in that part of NZ. For goodness sake these barns even have automated back scratches and matresses for the cows. How many New Zealanders have even set foot in these high tech palaces built for cows in Europe. Could you set the Netherlands and germany building something that didn't meet animal rights requirements.
Hi Craig, I'd like to help you get your facts straight.
Just to clarify the difference between herd homes and the MacKenzie farms. Herd homes are about happy cows, kept indoors and off the grass as conditions dictate. They can increase on-farm profitability AND have positive animal welfare and environmental outcomes.
The MacKenzie Applicants propose keeping the cows indoors 24/7 8 months of the year, and inside 12 hours a day for the remaining 4 months. That is about intensive dairy production on marginal land. That's why it's called factory farming.
By the way, E-can's strict effluent guidelines were not enough to stop one of the Applicants breaching not one, not two, but 3 effluent resource consents previously. What happened to three strikes and you're out.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below