Feedlots and intensive winter grazing

Transcription

1 Feedlots and intensive winter grazing Review of literature and regional plans Jesse Brennan Rural Advice Horizons Regional Council Version 1 - August 2017

2 Contents Glossary... ii Problem statement... 1 Introduction... 1 Farmers and winter management... 1 Defining a feedlot... 2 Defining winter grazing... 3 Environmental impacts... 4 Feedlots... 4 Intensive winter grazing... 6 Regional rules... 7 Feedlots... 7 Land use activity... 8 Use of land for the collection, storage and treatment of animal effluent... 9 Discharge Intensive winter grazing Employment of good management practice Feedlotting Intensive winter grazing Establishing paddocks Once stock are on the paddock Recommendations Appendix 1: Differences between a feedlot and winter grazing Reference list i

3 Glossary EC ES GDC HBRC N NZ P SS WCRC Environment Canterbury Environment Southland Gisborne District Council Hawke s Bay Regional Council Nitrogen New Zealand Phosphorus Suspended Sediment West Coast Regional Council ii

4 Feedlots and winter cropping Review of regional plans and literature Problem statement Feedlots and winter cropping are intensive tools used for productive stock and pasture management on farm. Such practices result in increased stocking densities, thus they can act as a key source of nutrient leaching through effluent and sediment runoff. The nature and impact of activities is dependent on land use, farm management practices and soil types. Creating tangibility in the effects of feedlots and winter cropping, and reviewing regional approaches will enable considerations for potential inclusion in the Horizons Regional Council One Plan, through the plan review process. Introduction Farmers and winter management The use of feedlots and intensive grazing practices by farmers as tools for winter management of cattle has historical roots, as well as being common place by many farmers today. Typically, farmers would often identify areas of stony soils, or river gravels which have minimal soil development that could be used as alternative feeding areas. It was advisable to use these areas, which would enable vulnerable areas of the farm to avoid pugging and damage (Powell, 2016). In some cases where stony soils are not prevalent, some farmers view these practices as an alternative to damaging a higher number paddocks by sacrificing a few for winter management. With science progression, it has been discovered that the use of shallow and/or stony, free draining soils for feedlotting or intensive winter grazing can present environmental risk if it is not managed well. While these surfaces provide high drainage, and thus minimise overland flow transfers of phosphorus, sediment and faecal microorganisms, this characteristic has the negative result of high soluble nutrient loss, such as nitrate-n (Monaghan, 2012). Farmers have identified benefits of Feedlotting, which include (Powell, 2016): Less sediment runoff Reduced pugging Utilisation of areas that often have limited productivity Less mess 1

5 Protection of vulnerable soils on other parts of the farm Minimal use of paddocks allows the build up organic matter, thus soil improvement Defining a feedlot In order to determine the context in which feedlots and winter grazing operate, it is preliminary to investigate how these activities are defined. It is apparent that there is a lack of national literature on feedlot definitions, environmental impacts, and good management practices (GMP). At a regional level, significant variation exists in defining and regulating the activity in terms of land use, discharges, and management practices, or inclusion at all in regulation. At a national level, codes of welfare for various types of animals are administered by Ministry for Primary Industries. These form the basis for compliance by owners and people in charge of animals with the Animal Welfare Act The New Zealand (NZ) Government (2016) code of welfare for sheep and beef cattle defines feedpads as specially built areas where, to minimise pasture damage animals can be temporarily held as provided with supplementary feed, while being withheld from grazing. Feedlots build on this definition, being classified as a more intensive system of sheep and beef farming, requiring high standards of husbandry and constant surveillance to safeguard animal health and welfare. At a regional level, four councils define feedlots in the glossary of their regional plans: Hawke s Bay Regional Council (HBRC, 2015) define a feed lot as an area of land upon which animals are kept and fed, for more than 15 days in any 30 day period, where the stocking density or feed lot structure (e.g. concrete pad) precludes the maintenance of pasture or ground cover West Coast Regional Council (WCRC, 2014) defines a feed lot and a wintering/stand-off pad, as an area where stock are confined in order to avoid pasture damage and for feeding out during periods when soils are saturated. The definition encompasses both indoor and outdoor areas, and includes sacrifice lots Environment Canterbury (ECan, 2016) takes a more general approach, with the term stock holding areas being used. Such definitions refer to an area of land in which the construction of the holding area or stocking density precludes maintenance of pasture or vegetative groundcover, used to confine livestock more than 30 days in any 12 month period, or more than 10 consecutive 24-hour days at any time. 2

6 Environment Southland (ES, 2010) state that located on production land, a feedlot is a confined site predominantly used all year round for the purpose of intensive controlled feeding of stock for high weight gains or lactation with feed concentrates and supplements, which can be located either indoors or outdoors, but excludes piggeries It is clear that variation exists between definitions, particularly in how broad and specific definitions are, and the time periods for use and confinement periods. Building on NZ definitions, Australia as a country in which feedlots are common practice, define feedlots as an intensive form of animal production where groups of animals are placed in yards or enclosures of a minimum size consistent with animal health and comfort, where animals are feed high quality feed rations to achieve optimal rates of live weight gain (Meat & Livestock Australia, 2016). It is clear that there is difference in feedlot definitions from simply defining the confined area, and what the area is actually used for. Defining winter grazing Winter grazing is a common tool employed by farmers to combat reduced pasture growth while maintaining stock production during the cooler winter months. Winter grazing or cropping is less evident in regional plans, with three authorities having it included in regulation including Gisborne District Council (GDC), ES, and ECan, who list the activity as intensive winter grazing as compared to winter cropping as a commonly used term. At a national level, literature is relatively minimal. However, winter grazing is defined as a common practice to satisfy feed requirements of animals in winter when pasture growth is limited (McDowell & Houlbrooke, 2009). Scope can be extended to animal wintering, which is defined as a cost effective management approach undertaken over a 12-week period from late May to late August to provide required amounts of feed, and avoid extensive animal treading damage to soil and pasture (Monaghan, 2012). At a regional level ES (2010), GDC (2015) and ECan (2016) all refer to intensive winter grazing as the grazing of stock on fodder crops or pasture between May and September that results in significant de-vegetation (ES and GDC state that it takes place between the 1 st of May and 30 th of September). EC elaborates further by including exposure of the bare ground, and significant 3

7 pugging resulting from the practice. Also associated with the activity is break feeding behind temporary electric fencing (ES, 2010; ECan, 2016). Environmental impacts In acknowledging the need to include feedlots and intensive winter grazing in the next One Plan review process, it is important to discover some of the environmental impacts these activities have, thus the need for them to be regulated. The issue arises here with perceived versus actual environmental effects, which will require further research. Feedlots The environmental impacts of feedlots are not widely researched in New Zealand (NZ) with regards to potential environmental effects. The effects from feedlots are dependent on the scale of effluent management practices employed by farmers, feedlot location on farm, and soil types. Ultimately, unmanaged effluent accumulation on feedlot surfaces has the potential to negatively impact the environment through: 1. Nutrient leaching 2. Runoff, and: 3. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (Eigenberg, Woodbury, Auvermann, Parker & Spiehs, 2012) Unsealed feedlots have a higher potential for seepage of faecal nutrients (specifically P and N) and micro-organisms into waterways. Monaghan (2012) estimates that in the case of N loss, the escape of 15% of excretal N deposited on an unsealed lot would represent an overall loss greater than estimated excretal N deposited onto a winter forage crop. For P, 5% of excretal P deposited on an unsealed lot would represent an overall loss greater than estimated excretal P deposited onto a winter forage crop (Monaghan, 2012). Soil type also impacts the extent of feedlot environmental impacts. Shallow, stony, free draining soils used for feedlot areas present high environmental risks. While these types of free draining soils minimise overland flow transfers of P, faecal micro-organisms and sediment, conversely relatively high losses of soluble nutrients such as nitrate-n can occur. 4

8 While research focussing directly on the conditions of feedlots is fairly minimal, the operation of unsealed feedlots are expected to have cumulative effects based on previous research in Canterbury, looking at nitrate-n leached from urine applied to shallow, stony soils in lysimeter studies (Di & Cameron, 2002a,b; Di et al., 2002; Di & Cameron, 2007 as cited by Monaghan, 2012). Such research highlight that as the underlying soil becomes saturated, it is less able to bind N and proportionately more nitrate is lost from the soil profile, which is exacerbated by a lack of pasture cover. In a typical paddock situation, pasture would act as a sink for recovering N from urine (Monaghan, 2012). A hypothetical case study in the Manawatu region investigated beef farming system intensification through two methods: feeding maize silage (MS), or applying N fertiliser. Furthermore off-pasture intensification was examined by incorporating a feedlot into each farm type. Two hypothetical 400 effective ha farms were developed, with one being 25% hill country and 75% flat land (H25), and the other being 75% hill country and 25% flat (H75). These systems were used as reasonable representations of typical NZ sheep and beef farms. Models used to simulate intensification included Farmax Pro to determine whole-farm feed supply, Be$tFeed to determine what supplementary feed was needed for animal requirements, and OVERSEER to give a nutrient budget model of the environmental impacts (White, Snow & King, 2010). In the context of the study, MS was bought in, and assumed it could only be fed to finishing animals, and restricted to cool season months between April and September. Best practice was employed by placing it in troughs in paddocks. The application of N fertiliser was applied to flat land first, and if the feed deficit was not met, it was then applied to hill land at a industry recommended best practice rate not exceeding 50kg of N per hectare, per application (N/ha/application), although the yearly recommendation of 200kg of N per hectare, per year (N/ha/year) was exceeded at the highest level of intensification. The level of intensification for the incorporation of a feedlot was set by limiting the capacity to which could be supported by the amount of pasture silage that could be produced on the flat land of the base farm. A 300 animal capacity feedlot was simulated including fencing, bunks, effluent disposal and storage system, and feed wagon. Two groups of beef steers were fed on the feedlot, one group of nine month olds transferred in the 1 st of June, and transferred back to the farm on the 1 st of October. The second group were 20 month old steers that were purchased on the 1 st of May and went straight to the feedlot and were finished till slaughter on 5

9 the 30 th of September. Best management practice was employed by collecting feedlot effluent and spraying it on the flat land at medium application rates (White, Snow & King, 2010). Figure 1 White, Snow & King. (2010). Annual (a) nitrate leaching, (b) nitrate leaching relative to beef production, (c) GHG production, and (d) GHG production relative to beef production for the modelled farm scenarios. Graph key abbreviations: beef cc, beef carcass; H25, 25% hill farm; H75, 75% hill farm; +MS, maize silage fed; +N, nitrogen fertiliser applied; +FL, feedlot incorporated into farm. Retrieved from As evidenced in figure 1, feedlot farms had lower (H75) or the same (H25) nitrate leaching compared to on pasture intensifications, and both feedlot farms achieved lower GHG emissions per kilogram of beef production. Even at higher beef prices, at no point were feedlot farms profitable (White, Snow & King, 2010). Intensive winter grazing The environmental impact of intensive winter grazing is dependent on factors including soil moisture, topography, stocking densities, animal type, and vegetation cover, which can lead to much phosphorus (P) and suspended sediment (SS) loss (McDowell & Houlbrooke, 2009). Broadly speaking, the primary concerns associated with intensive winter grazing surround four main issues (Monaghan, 2012): 6

10 1. Water quality 2. Soil quality 3. Erosion control 4. Greenhouse gas emissions particularly Nitrous Oxide (N 2O) P and SS from land to surface waters are associated with poor water quality, particularly in downstream receiving environments such as aquifers, lakes, estuaries, streams, and rivers. Contaminant loss through surface runoff and subsurface drainage pathways is directly related to physical soil damage, as winter grazing coincides with periods where the soil water content, and therefore the risk of nutrient loss is high (Dalley, 2011; Little et al., 2015). Animal treading can result in long term soil compaction, exacerbated N loss, reduced air and water exchange, pugging, and consequences on plant growth (Monaghan, 2012; Cichota et al., 2016). Nitrogen (N) is also a key concern in intensive winter grazing. Based on case studies in the Southland region, current knowledge infers that on a per hectare basis, the amount of N lost in subsurface drainage from winter forage crops grazed by cattle can be 3 to 5 times higher than grazed pasture (Monaghan, 2012). The scale of impact is largely dependent on management and practice at a farm scale. Regional rules Feedlots A range of regional plans include rules for feedlots surrounding land use activities, the use of land for the collection, storage an treatment of animal effluent, and discharges. With regards to the use of land for a feedlot, it is acknowledged as a permitted activity in two regional plans throughout NZ, where both HBRC and ECan employ rules to operate a feedlot/feedpad, or stockholding area. A preliminary finding here is a lack of land use activity rules to regulate feedlots, which raises questions about whether it is necessary if the environmental effects from effluent generated are managed through discharge rules. 7

11 Land use activity HBRC (2015) state that the use of land to operate a feedlot/feedpad is a permitted activity, subject to the following conditions: Managing the area in a manner that prevents seepage of contaminants into groundwater, needing to be sealed with a permeability no greater than 10-9 m/s, and able to confirm compliance to council at any time Preventing runoff from the surrounding catchment entering the feedlot/feedpad Feedlot located no less than: 20 metres (m) away from surface water bodies 150m away from a place of assembly or residential building 50m from a property boundary 20m from a public road Feedpads and feedlots that do not comply as permitted are a restricted discretionary activity. Matters for control and discretion include the duration and lapsing of consent, conditions the activity cannot comply with and their related environmental effects, and a review of conditions and compliance monitoring. ECan (2016) states that the use of land for a stock holding area is a permitted activity. Stock holding areas that do not comply as permitted are a discretionary activity. Conditions that need to be met include: The feedlot being located no less than: 20m away from surface water bodies, a bore used for water abstraction or the Coastal Marine Area 100m from residential buildings, places of assembly, or pre-existing dwellings All animal effluent, wash-down water or storm water containing effluent is collected and disposed of to an animal effluent collection and storage system, or under an existing discharge permit The base of any stock holding area located on land over an unconfined or semiconfined aquifer shall be sealed so seepage into land does not exceed one millimetre per day Comparing HBRC and ECan, there are multiple similarities with the inclusion of minimum distances, and by requiring sealing to ensure that effluent seepage into groundwater does not 8

12 occur. Differences are apparent where ECan has stated the need for effluent to be disposed of to an effluent storage facility, and HBRC does not. It is evident that two very different approaches have been taken by these councils. On the one hand, HBRC includes both feed pads and feedlots in the same rule despite the fact feed pads are typically for dairy farm systems and are used more regularly, compared to feedlots which are more prevalent on sheep and beef farming systems, and are used more intensively for a fixed period of time. On the other hand, ECan take a more general approach in defining stock holding areas, which technically could include feedlots alongside stand off pads, or wintering pads and barns. While minimum distances vary between the councils, it is clear that distance rules for surface water bodies, places of assembly, residential buildings, bores and roads are necessary. Points for consideration for adopting feedlots potentially into land use rules include: Can feedlots be incorporated into existing rules with some adaption, e.g. vegetation clearance, land disturbance, or feedpads? Is it necessary to have feedlots as a land use activity? (Are they that common, what is their environmental impact, and are they classified as a concern for council presently, or in the future?) If so, what conditions are necessary to minimise environmental risks? Use of land for the collection, storage and treatment of animal effluent ECan (2016) state that the use of land for the collection, storage and treatment of animal effluent is a permitted activity. The use of land for the collection, storage and treatment of animal effluent that does not meet on or more of the conditions is a discretionary activity. Conditions that need to be met include: The land being used for the collection, storage and treatment of effluent is not: Within 20m of a surface water body, a bore being used for water abstraction, or the coastal marine area Within 50m of a property boundary Within a drinking water protection zone The collection, storage and treatment system is sealed, such that seepage into land does not exceed one millimetre per day 9

13 Discharge Five regional councils include rules on the discharge of contaminants from animal effluent management, including effluent associated with feedlots. It is evident that councils such as ES include it in general agricultural discharges, whereas councils such as WCRC have a separate rule for discharges from feedlots. Permitted activity NRC (2004) outline that the discharge of animal effluent, water containing animal effluent and/or farm waste water (which includes effluent from feedlots) onto or into land as a permitted activity. Conditions detail that: Storage and treatment facilities should be sealed or lined with low permeability material, and effluent should not be discharged in a manner that results in ponding on the land surface for longer than 3 hours following application Discharge should result in a no more than minor contamination of groundwater and surface water beyond a 20m separation distance measured from the outer edge of the application area. Written records must be kept to demonstrate compliance No runoff of any contaminant into any surface water, coastal marine area, indigenous wetland, or directly into groundwater No discharge to land within 20m from any stream, river, lake, marine area or wetland 20m of an artificial water course, and 10m when not containing any water 20m from a bore head 20m from any neighbouring property, and 50m from any occupied dwelling The discharge does not cause offensive or objectionable odour to the extend it affects boundary properties The consent holder must be able to provide to council information surrounding frequency, dates and times of discharges, rates, contingency and maintenance records, and the land application area. WCRC (2014) state that the discharge of contaminants into or onto land from any feedlot, standoff pad, or wintering pad is a permitted activity, subject to the conditions that: 10

14 Discharges are not within: 50m of any surface or coastal water body 50m from any bore or well used for potable drinking water or stock supply water to ensure that there are no adverse effects on any water take for human consumption, and; Not withstanding the first condition, there is no contamination of water bodies, coastal water or groundwater ES (1998) state that the discharge of agricultural effluent onto or into production land from feedlots and wintering pads servicing no more than 100 adult cattle or 250 adult deer is a permitted activity, pending that: The effluent discharge, including spray drift, is not within: 20m from any listed sensitive water or wetlands, excluding groundwater 100m from any potable water abstraction point 20m from any property boundary 100m from any school, marae, or residential dwellings other than those on the property 50m from the coastal marine area The rate of discharge does not result in any ponding, with a maximum rate of 7 millimetres per hour The maximum rate of effluent loading does not exceed 150 N /ha/year No discharge of effluent directly to water, groundwater or the coastal marine area via: Tile drainage Overland flow Pipes or storm water drains Artificial drain areas The minimum period between consecutive effluent applications into or onto land is 28 days The effluent discharge system is operated so that there is no odour or spray drift nuisance beyond the property boundary, and; All pipelines, drains, reservoirs and pumps associated with the effluent management system to avoid any noxious dangerous, offensive or objectionable effect 11

15 Discretionary activity HBRC (2015) address the discharge of contaminants into air, and onto or into production land from animal effluent management in sensitive catchments as a discretionary activity. Restricted discretionary ECan (2016) states that the discharge of animal effluent, or water containing effluent, originating from a stock holding area or effluent storage facility onto or into land where a contaminant may enter water is a restricted discretionary activity. Conditions state that: The discharge of animal effluent or water containing animal effluent and other contaminants: Is not within 20 m of a surface water body (other than a wetland constructed primarily to treat animal effluent), a bore used for water abstraction or the coastal marine area Does not occur beyond the boundary of the property on which the animal effluent is generated unless the written approval from the property owner where the discharge occurs has been obtained Is not within a group or community drinking-water protection zone Has backflow prevention installed if the animal effluent or water containing animal effluent is applied with irrigation water; and Is not to contaminated or potentially contaminated land Discharge is the subject of a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Matters for discretion include: Measures to avoid, mitigate or remedy adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and human/animal drinking water Effluent and water application rates and consequent nutrient load Effectiveness of methods to store effluent Application rates in times of adverse weather conditions or equipment failure Proximity of discharges to, and any actual or potential effects on, any identified site of significant indigenous biodiversity on biodiversity 12

16 Adequacy of design, construction, systems and management processes to minimise fugitive discharges from the system including mitigation in case of equipment breakage or failure Quality, compliance and auditing of the FEP (ECan, 2016) Controlled activity HBRC (2015) state that the discharge of contaminants (including contaminants associated with the operation of a feedlot/feedpad, such as the disposal of bedding material, or the runoff manure during heavy rainfall) into air, and onto or into production land from animal effluent management is a controlled activity. Conditions include: Management of areas used for storing effluent to prevent contamination through seepage No odour, gases or airborne liquid contaminants No runoff of any contaminant into any surface waterbody No visible discharge of any material beyond the property boundary without written condition from any affected property owner No discharge within 30m of any bore or well Effluent discharged onto grazed pasture shall not exceed a nitrogen loading rate of 150kg/ha/year Effluent discharged onto land covered by a crop or to be used for cropping purposes, application rates shall not exceed the rate of nitrogen uptake by the crop Matters for control include: Buffer zone requirements Maintenance of vegetation cover Amount and frequency of effluent discharge Duration of consent Compliance monitoring Measures to avoid breaching environmental guidelines for surface and ground water quality Buffer zone requirements Review of consent conditions, and Management of cumulative adverse effects 13

17 It is apparent that discharges from the operation of a feedlot can interlink with existing discharge consents for intensive farming operations, or can be included when attaining a discharge consent. With regards to effluent associated directly with feedlots, there are significant variations in classifications of similar rules, with NRC permitting the discharge of animal effluent and ECan classifying it as a restricted discretionary activity. Key considerations in classifications and developing rules for the Manawatu-Wanganui region include: Do we need separate rule classifications for target catchments? What minimum distances do we want, or need for our region? Should the discharge of effluent from feedlots be included in existing discharge rules, or should it be a separate rule? Intensive winter grazing The choices that farmers make in winter management methods of sheep and cattle can have a significant impact on pasture growth for feed supply in the early spring, and on longer term pasture growth success (Little et al., 2015). These decisions can also have significant environmental impacts if they are not made with good management practices (GMP) in mind. Two regional authorities regulate intensive winter grazing, which includes GDC and ES. GDC (2015) state that discharges from stock access or grazing when winter intensive grazing being undertaken is a permitted activity under the following conditions: From July 2017, stock are excluded from within five metres of the top of the bank or edge of any permanently flowing or intermittent stream, lake or wetland, and within 10m of the top of the bank or edge of any Outstanding Waterbody or Regionally Significant Wetland for the period 1 May to 30 September on all winter intensive grazing land of less than a 15 degree slope, and; From 1 July 2017, stock are excluded from 10 metres from the wetted bed of all permanent and intermittent streams and rivers, lakes and the edge of all wetlands for the period 1 May to 30 September on all winter intensive grazing land of a 15 degree slope or greater ES (2010) include stock grazing and access to surface water as a land use activity. Grazing or stock access within three metres horizontally of water including a lake, river, stream, or 14

18 modified and artificial water courses when intensive winter grazing is being undertaken is a non-complying activity. While intensive winter grazing is not classified under rules in the Canterbury Region, ECan (2016) include a schedule on farm practices. For all intensive winter grazing adjacent to any river, lake or artificial watercourse (excluding irrigation canals or stock water races) or a wetland, a five metre vegetative strip measured from the edge of the watercourse from which stock are excluded needs to be maintained around the water body. GDC has relatively comprehensive geographical triggers for intensive winter grazing activities including distances from waterways, and the slope of land. Key questions to consider are: Do we need to take a detailed approach in conditions for the permitted activity like GDC, or is a GMP factsheet sufficient? What are the environmental impacts? To what extent does such a common winter practice on farm need regulation? How do we ensure GMP in intensive winter grazing? Employment of good management practice A key finding both nationally and regionally is a lack of GMP for feedlots. Factsheets for GMP in intensive winter grazing are becoming more common as industry bodies and regional councils work together on guidelines. Ultimately, the implementation of GMP will lead to decreases in nutrient losses from both wintering systems, and feedlots. Thus, it is necessary to first determine the environmental effects, and secondly establish what management practices should be asked of farmers, in order to minimise those environmental impacts. Feedlotting Environmental best practice in the operation of feedlots is not well documented, however with regards to animal welfare, NZ Government (2016) in the Code of Welfare for sheep and beef cattle include both minimum standards and recommended best practice for operators of feedlots in NZ. Feedlotting is more common in use for intensive systems in sheep and beef 15

19 farming, and the Code of Welfare for dairy cattle has no information on feedlots. At a minimum, operators must ensure that: All animals are able to lie down and rest comfortably for sufficient periods to meet their behavioural needs Stock are inspected by experienced stock handlers at least once daily for signs of ill health or failure to adapt to feed, or the environment Animals failing to adapt must immediately be removed and provided with alternate feed Sufficient space must be provided to prevent undue competition for feed and water Horned and aggressive animals must be penned separately if there is insufficient space for fellow animals to escape injury. The Code of Welfare for sheep and beef cattle also covers recommended best practice, which includes (NZ Government, 2016): Keeping food in dry, clean troughs and supplying food at least once daily Removing spoiled or stale food and rationing changes to the diet to allow Locating feedlots in sheltered areas with good drainage Removing excess build up of manure Using surfaces safe for stock e.g. non slippery, with comfortable bedding Having isolation pens for sick animals Keeping food in dry, clean troughs and providing fresh food daily Grouping new arrivals according to size, age and class Many of these best practices apply to larger scale feedlot operations. While animal welfare concerns are not a council discretion, such factors are important to consider. Animal needs and minimum standards will ultimately correlate to the size of the feedlot, and therefore effluent and sediment loss predictions. One straightforward GMP to reduce the environmental impact of feedlots is to assess and remove the nutrient concentrations directly from the feedlot surface. Steps taken early in the management of effluent increases the effectiveness of treatment later in the process, and ultimately leads to reductions in leaching rates, nutrient loading in liquid runoff, and decreased greenhouse gases and odour (Eigenberg et al., 2012). Feedlots can be used as an alternative off-paddock alternative to winter cropping. In order for feedlots to be environmentally efficient, systems need to be well designed and managed to 16

20 mitigate the loss of animal effluent. Therefore, GMP should largely relate to design and management objectives that ultimately mitigate risks associated with effluent increases. The collection and storage of resulting effluent and sludges from feedlots in an animal effluent collection system follows similar principles used dairy production, allowing containment until times are suitable for land application. Pasture growth rates and soil conditions allow nutrients to be taken up through plants or retained in soil. Feedlots are also a suitable option to prevent animal treading during soil saturation periods (Monaghan, 2012). Ideally, regional council would implement standards that ensure the majority of effluent generated from feedlots would be captured as practically possible. Assessing and removing nutrient concentrations directly from feedlot surfaces presents another option for minimising environmental impacts. Key engineering considerations to minimise the environmental impacts of feedlots would require lot structures to be managed and constructed to a standard where (Monaghan, 2012): The structure is sealed to a permeability standard of 1 x 10-9 m/s Surplus rainfall on the pad is captured through under drainage There is sufficient storage capacity for solid and liquid material until suitable for soil and pasture application. This removes the need to apply during winter. The application of stored liquid and residual solid manure (for example feedlot saw dust/bark) to land occurs at a suitable rate for crop and pasture requirements to avoid effluent ponding, and enhance saturation at the root zone. This will require the extension or employment of nutrient budgeting tools All drains are linked to an effluent system The edges of the pad and feeding areas are bunded Intensive winter grazing It was found that two councils and two industry groups had thorough GMP factsheets or risk management guides for farmers in helping to prepare for intensive winter grazing. One GMP document was done in collaboration with both ECan and industry groups, including Beef and Lamb NZ and Dairy NZ (ECan, 2015). For example, the Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) (n.d) have a risk management guide for intensive winter grazing on arable farms, which contains risk factors and risk management practices to address them. Referencing this guide, in 17

21 addition to creating a regional set of GMP would prove useful to environmental management on farm. Ultimately, literature and factsheets on GMP have informed the following recommendations for the formation of a factsheet, which can be adapted to the Manawatu- Wanganui region. Establishing paddocks Selection and set up Where possible, choose paddocks that are located away from waterways to reduce nitrate losses, and soil types that are structurally unsuitable for intensive stocking densities. This will reduce the risk of compaction, pugging and sediment runoff to waterways (NZ Landcare Trust, n.d; GDC, 2017) Provide moveable water troughs for stock drinking water as an alternative to direct cattle access to waterways (ES, 2016; GDC, 2017) Portable feed racks are also a smart option for supplementary feeding (NZ Landcare Trust, n.d) Locate and size areas on a site by site basis to allow for a wide, ungrazed buffer strip along waterways to capture P and sediment runoff (NZ Landcare Trust, n.d). It is important to consider what risks the landscape poses, and place larger buffers around critical source zones such as swales and gullies, where runoff commonly flows and originates from (ECan, 2015; ES, 2016) Put baleage in the paddock before soils become too wet to prevent heavy vehicles and machinery from damaging the ground (ES, 2016; GDC, 2017) Cultivation Cultivate crops along the contour lines on sloping land to slow runoff, and reduce down-slope soil loss and erosion (ECan, 2015) Keep plough lines at least 3m from critical source areas on flat land (ES, 2016), and 10 to 15m back on sloping land greater than 7 degrees (ES, 2016; GDC, 2017). Keep plough lines at least 5m back from streams on flat land (GDC, 2017) Incorporate winter grazing into nutrient management by adapting established plans to understand how nutrients are lost from the farming system, and soil test potential 18

22 crop paddocks to ensure that fertiliser usage is correctly calculated for crop and soil requirements (ES, 2016; GDC, 2017) Once stock are on the paddock Strategic grazing Graze slopes from top to the bottom if sloping (ES, 2016). Graze lower lying areas, and areas closest to waterways last. Avoid leaving stock on the crop during wet periods, concentrated on small breaks of the crop, or for long periods of time (NZ Landcare Trust, n.d; ES, 2016). Graze less risky areas first, and work towards more risky areas. For example, this may mean break feeding towards a waterway (ECan, 2015; ES, 2016) Protect critical source areas for as long as possible to help reduce runoff from winter forage crops, for example save critical source areas for the last feed of winter (ES, 2016) Back fence stock off land that has already been grazed to protect bare land (ES, 2015; GDC, 2017) As soon as possible, replant the grazed area with pasture or another crop to use up residual N in the soil (NZ Landcare trust, n.d). The use of nitrification inhibitors can also help to reduce N loss (Monaghan, 2012). Recommendations It is evident that significant variation exists in the definition of feedlots, and factors such as the livestock confinement period, size, impacts on pasture growth and infrastructure are important to consider. Given regional and national definitions, a proposed definition for a feedlot in the Manawatu-Wanganui region is: A purposefully confined area of a minimum size consistent with animal health and comfort on production land to hold stock, where the feed lot structure (e.g. concrete pad) or stocking density precludes the maintenance of groundcover. As an intensive farming practice, animals are held in the area to be finished and given supplementary feed for more than 50 consecutive days in any 12 month period 19

23 Establishing rules for these types of intensive farming presents a challenge in itself, with what classification activities should be given, and what conditions should be included. It can be inferred that the use of land for a feedlot should be included as a rule, but the extent to which they need to be regulated in the region depends on their prevalence presently, considerations of future use, and quantifications of their environmental impacts. It is evident that including time periods in a definition for feedlots as an activity proves difficult in trying not to capture intensive winter grazing under it. That is why the time suggestion made is significantly high which would capture finishing practices that operate as feedlots, while not capturing winter grazing operations. Another key distinction that could be used in defining differences between feedlots and intensive winter grazing is the cattle feed purpose cattle on a feedlot are often given supplementary feed, whereas intensive winter grazing includes cattle being put on a crop to graze it, with supplementary feed sometimes provided. These two activities need to be treated differently, and therefore defined and regulated separately. A key definition of feedlots to avoid is the one used by HBRC, which uses a 15 day period rule within 30 days where stocking density precludes the maintenance of pasture. This is too short of a time frame, and captures intensive winter grazing practices which may very well be operating under best practice. Intensive winter grazing is common practice in farming systems, and always has been as a wintering strategy. Both dairying, and sheep and beef intensive winter grazing practices can present environmental risks in SS, N, P, and microbial contamination in surface waterways. It is timely to include it in regulation for the region in light of recent concerns surrounding water quality nationally, however, managed in the correct ways environmental risks can be significantly reduced. The way in which intensive winter grazing is defined should follow suit of other regional councils as there is consistency in their definitions. Ideally, GMP documents for farmers operating feed lots or carrying out intensive winter grazing would compose a range of resources and recommendations for enhancing sustainability, while ensuring on farm productivity and profitability. These types of fact sheets need to be developed and incorporated into council information through the plan review process, and informed from farmer and industry perspectives. 20

24 Appendix 1: Differences between a feedlot and winter grazing Dairy cattle feedlot setting Figure 2 Above: Dairy cattle in a feedlot setting. Retrieved from Figure 3 to the right: Dairy cattle eating from a feeder in a feedlot. Retrieved from documents/second%20grade/technology/intel%20units/dairyfarms_deangelo_jennifer/images_sounds/ Cattle break-fed: poor practice evident due to having waterway access Figure 2 Cattle grazing the edge of a waterway. Retrieved from Cattle break-fed pugged paddock with no back-fence evident Figure 3 Cows standing in a heavily pugged paddock. Retrieved from 21

25 Beef cattle feedlots. Figure 4 Five Star Beef - largest feedlot in New Zealand. Located in Wakanui, Canterbury. Retrieved from Google Maps Figure 5 Five star beef retrieved from Figure 6 Picture of a feedlot in the Tukituki Catchment, Hawkes Bay. Retrieved from 22

26 Reference list Cichota, R., Vogeler, I., Trolove, S., Malcolm, B., Thomas, S., & Beare, M. (2016). Describing the effect of grazing on nitrogen leaching in winter forage rye-grass rotations (Report No. 29). Retrieved from Dalley, D.E. (2011). The challenges of animal wintering from a sustainability perspective. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 71, Retrieved from tering_from_a_sustaina.pdf Eigenberg, R.A., Woodbury B.L., Auvermann, B.W., Parker D.B., & Spiehs, M.J.(2012). Energy and nutrient recovery from cattle feedlots. International Scholarly Research Network Renewable Energy, 2012, 1-5. doi: Environment Canterbury. (2015). Industry-agreed good management practices relating to water quality. Environment Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand. Environment Canterbury. (2016). Canterbury land and water regional plan (Volume 1). Retrieved from Environment Southland. (1998). Regional effluent land application plan (Report No. 92). Retrieved from Regional%20plans/Effluent%20Land%20Application%20Plan/effluent_plan_updated_ may_2014.pdf Environment Southland. (2010). Regional water plan for Southland (No. 2014/09). Retrieved from Regional%20plans/Regional%20Water%20Plan/regional_water_plan.pdf Environment Southland. (2016).Wintering advice. Retrieved from Foundation of Arable Research. (n.d). Risk management guide for intensive winter grazing on arable farms. Retrieved from 23

27 d-4ae0-9b09-261e7dd73a02.docx&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjZt8jnuvXSAhVM9mMKHeIXAvUQFggEMAA &client=internal-uds-cse&usg=afqjcneoyrwrwmwvj_q2nopkrfrhh54gow Gisborne District Council. (2015). Proposed Gisborne regional freshwater plan (Version 2). Retrieved from Gisborne-Regional-Freshwater-Plan-Oct-2015v2.pdf Gisborne District Council. (2017). Winter intensive grazing. Retrieved from Hawke s Bay Regional Council. (2015). Hawke s Bay regional resource management plan. Resource-Management-Plan/View-RRMP/New-Chapter-6.pdf Little, C.L., Hickson, R.E., Martin, N.P., Beausoleil, N.J., Cockrem, J.F., Kenyon, P.R.,... Morris, S.T. (2015). Beef cattle wintering systems: effects on cattle and pasture. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 75, Retrieved from %20wintering.pdf Meat & Livestock Australia. (2016). Lot feeding and intensive finishing. Retrieved from Retrieved from Monaghan, R.M. (2012). The impacts of animal wintering on water and soil quality (Report No. RE500/2012/029). Retrieved from nd%20soil%20reports/agresearch_client_report_wintering_impacts_ver6_final.pdf New Zealand Government. (2016). Code of welfare: sheep and beef cattle. Retrieved from Northland Regional Council. (2004). Regional soil and water plan. Retrieved from d%20soil%20plan%20as%20at%202014%20-%20updated%202016%20(web).pdf NZ Landcare Trust. (n.d). The Upper Buller good management practices for meeting production and water quality standards. Retrieved from 24

28 20LR.pdf Powell, B. (2016). Treatments and side effects: substituting one loss for another. In L.D. Currie & R. Singh (Eds.), Occasional Report No. 29 Integrated nutrient and water management for sustainable farming (pp. 1-4). West Coast Regional Council. (2014). Land and water plan. Retrieved from White, T.A., Snow, V.O., & King, W. McG. (2010). Intensification of New Zealand beef farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 103, Retrieved from 25