Dairying cuts needed on light soils?

Dairy cow numbers might have to be cut on light soils, Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills says.

“We’re losing too much nitrogen. The massive shift to dairy has caught us, and the science hasn’t kept up.”

The “easy yards” of fencing waterways, modern effluent systems and fertiliser application advice had been done, but nitrogen was still leaching into streams, he said.

“It’s a hard conversation, but we have to have it.

“The guys leaching 70, 80, 90kg of nitrogen per hectare per year on the lighter soils will have to get that down to 30-40kg.

“If science won’t deliver the goods, we’re going to have to get these people to change their farming system.

“That’s not easy when a lot of them have borrowed many millions of dollars to get a system going and they’ve got a bit caught with interest payments.”

Regional councils are already imposing lower limits on sensitive soils, particularly those near waterways.

Many farmers had changed already, Wills said. “They’ve read the signals, backed off from four cows per hectare to 3-3.5 cows, and put in less inputs.”

This did not necessarily mean reduced profits, he said. “What we’re finding is that as well as a more relaxed, comfortable farming system, they’re actually making a higher net profit.”

While farmers were prepared to act more responsibly to protect the environment, their businesses had to remain economic, he said. “My worry is the pendulum is going to swing too far in favour of the environment.”

Farming, and dairying in particular is being blamed for problems which have multiple causes and have been building up over many years.

The remedy isn’t always as simples as reducing stock numbers.

Science-based solutions are helping but reversing damage which happened over a long period takes time.

It’s easy to sell the message that economic development shouldn’t come at the cost of the environment.

That shouldn’t be taken to the extreme where standards based on emotion rather than science lead to environmental concerns getting out of balance from the economic and social ones.

He said Labour finance spokesman David Parker was calling for the scrapping of the irrigation investment fund and for charges on water.

“If we had a change of government, we can kiss goodbye to any hope of meeting the ag double of increasing the export value.

 

Labour has made it quite clear it doesn’t understand farming and its importance to the economic and social fabric of the country.

That they’d be in coalition with the Green Party whose carbon tax, water charges and other anti-farming policies makes the prospect of them in government even more dangerous.

The silver lining to this red-green cloud is that persuading farmers to support National gets easier with every utterance from the opposition.

31 Responses to Dairying cuts needed on light soils?

  1. Mr E says:

    I very much disagree with Bruce on this one.

    The science has kept up. And there are plenty of tools available for farmers on light soils to reduce their impact.

    What is needed is education for these farmers. They need to know what tools work, so that they can work out the best option for them.

    The obvious providers of this information, are the councils, with their environmental scientist and rates. Surely they have a role, discussing and delivering tools to farmers. Surely.

    Here in Southland the last public field day the council had on Nitrates…. I can’t think of one. Yet it is identified as the “elephant in the room”

  2. Andrei says:

    Problems are made to be solved

    Naively if nitrogen based fertilizers are leaching into waterways this probably means that they are being overused and instead of the nitrogen going into pasture development as intended it is being wasted….

    Needs work to resolve but resolved it can be

  3. Mr E says:

    The challenge being Andrei –
    Nitrogen loss comes from many factors. Therefore it is hard to give one piece of information that will work for all. Also it is hard to make one rule to stop the loss from all.

    The challenge of a multi factorial problem, is also an opportunity. The solutions are many, and only through education will those many solutions be converted into improvements.

    Some councils want to take the multi factorial problem and create a multifactorial solution, without trying education. I think that is foolish.

  4. Paranormal says:

    Andrei have a look at Taupo Beef – this is a really interesting look at the issue: http://tvnz.co.nz/country-calendar/hyundai-s2013-ep2-video-5382592.
    .
    They have done a lot of work to try and identify where nitrogen leach from their property was coming from. Really interesting to see the lengths they have gone to. From memory the key reason was cow urine concentrated in one spot meant the vegetation only retained a limited amount of the nitrogen, with the rest passing through into groundwater.

  5. TraceyS says:

    I recently studied a river for the purposes of obtaining consents. The nitrogen levels started out low at the headwaters and progressively increased downstream. Dairy cows? No, not a dairy cow in sight. In fact, very lightly stocked properties, hardly a cow -mostly sheep. Not light soils either. No other industries to blame.

    Curious, I did some extra research and found that the explanation for this is the higher carbon levels in headwaters. It know its simplistic, but does the answer lie in increasing the carbon content of water downstream? Hey, we could take some out of the atmosphere where there’s apparently plenty!

  6. Mr E says:

    Interesting Tracey,
    Can you tell me more about the cause and solution?

  7. TraceyS says:

    I don’t know the cause and fortunately didn’t need to find the solution either as the only discharge from the activity was sediment. So got the consents and carried on. It was just an observation from studying the catchment and overlaying knowledge of the area. I assume the cause to be natural. Will see if I can find the article discovered on my tangent.

  8. RBG says:

    If you ‘take’ CO2 out of the atmosphere and dissolve it in water you get carbonic acid. That’s the whole problem of ocean acidification. If there was more carbon in the headwaters, what form was it in and what happened to that carbon downstream? Where did it go? Why did a lessor concentration of carbon downstream result in higher nitrate levels? Been following your advice TraceyS, I’ve been thinking, but need more info to understand how this would work.

  9. TraceyS says:

    I understand. Will try and find the reference material.

    Might still not explain things. But intensive dairy farming doesn’t either. This area has never had any intensive farming that I’m aware of. Not likely to be a river ever studied because levels still low even downstream. However doesn’t mean that it holds no clues! There must be a reason why there’s such a difference.

  10. TraceyS says:

    From Trimmera, et al (2012):

    “The headwaters of rivers are usually supersaturated with carbon dioxide and sometimes with methane, and this subsequently declines with distance downstream as the river water re-equilibrates with the atmosphere (Cole and Caraco, 2001, Hope et al., 2001 and Jones and Mulholland, 1998b).

    “Such supersaturation is a product of respiration in the surrounding catchment, conveyed to the river by lateral exchange, and respiration in the river itself… (Cole et al., 2007, Richey et al., 2002, Tank et al., 2010 and Webster and Meyer, 1997).”

    “Rivers are not simple inert conduits merely piping carbon and nitrogen from catchment to coast. Some 0.35 Pg C y−1 is estimated to be respired to CO2 across the global network of streams and rivers…”

    (The “active pipe” hypothesis)

    “In turn, the availability of that carbon correlates negatively with the accumulation of nitrate along the catchment to coast continuum. This is most likely because, just as some of that carbon is respired via aerobic respiration, it is also available to support denitrification and hence the removal of nitrate. Indeed, in a new synthesis we predict the global total amount of denitrification in rivers as a fraction of the carbon they respire…”

    “Taylor and Townsend (2010) quite clearly demonstrated that nitrate (a dominant form of anthropogenic nitrogen pollution) accumulates as the availability of organic carbon declines right along the hydraulic continuum from catchment to coast. Hence these two key macronutrients are closely cycled, yet they are often studied in isolation.”

    “…the turnover and availability of carbon in rivers do indeed appear to be a good indicator of their denitrification capacity and hence their potential to remove nitrate.”

    The study suggests that fine sediment can create anoxic conditions in the riverbed which promotes “methanogenesis” where carbon is lost to the atmosphere (if methane is produced “in situ, based on reduced inorganic substrates and organic carbon already in the river”).

    There is an indication in the study that this process is facilitated by warming which means less carbon being available to the nitrogen cycle. It makes sense that there will be a greater accumulation of sediment downstream where the river slows and widens and where the water is likely to be warmer as there is less shading from trees. I would therefore speculate that the higher levels of nitrogen measured in this river downstream (compared with the headwaters) will be caused by sedimentation and warming driving respiration of carbon whereby it is removed from the river’s metabolism thus reducing the ability of the river to cycle nitrogen. It seems a more plausible explanation than intensive livestock farming in this case. However, farming and other activities have probably contributed to sedimentation. My father-in-law recalls that other local rivers, now with muddy sediment knee-deep, had gravelly beds when he was a child.

    Trimmera, M., Grey, J., Heppellb, C. M., Hildrewa, A. G., Lansdownb, K., Stahlc, H., Yvon-Durochera, G. River bed carbon and nitrogen cycling: State of play and some new directions. Science of The Total Environment. Volume 434, 15 September 2012, Pages 143–158.

    http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.074

  11. Hi Tracy,
    You’ve got my attention… carbon is my favorite subject (soilcarbon.org.nz) but I am not a scientist. Soils around the world are losing organic carbon… often due to modern farming practices. Biological farming systems are better at building soil carbon. More soil carbon should increase soils ability to hold on to nutrients (getting back to the original issue here about ‘light’ soils). My bet is that biochar could be a great help in nutrient management and water quality issues in NZ (as its been proven around the world).

    I think it could help with urine patching as well…
    http://soilcarbon.org.nz/biochar-as-feed-supplement/

  12. RBG says:

    Interesting, thanks for that TraceyS. It looks like a good reason to fence to keep stock out of rivers because they increase sedimentation.

  13. Mr E says:

    RBG – Stock access to waterways does not always increase sedimentation.

    In many cases grazing helps compact banks and stops them from sloughing off. Here in Southland some council staff have reportedly encouraged bank grazing. And there are many who believe the issues created in the Waituna lagoon were a result of fencing off waterways and sloughing of banks. The significant investment by the council and government into bank stabilisation seems to be an admission of that.

    Trevor – You sell Biochar, yes? Can you provide some independent evidence to support:
    A) The net result of farming is a loss of carbon from the soil
    B) Biochar would improve the sustainability of a farm (economically and environmentally)

  14. TraceyS says:

    The study I cited says that more work is needed to fully appreciate how the nutrients are processed through rivers. It points to a complex river “metabolism”, including plants and animal life, which is not yet that well understood. But it seems clear that nutrients in at one end doesn’t mean the same nutrients out at the other as some of them are digested along the way. I find this fascinating – the prospect that we might be able to positively influence the digestive capacity of a river through developing an understanding of each river’s unique landscape, geology, biology, microbiology and also human impact. The authors refer to this as “biogechemistry”.

    We have fenced most of our waterways but it’s not always practical or sensible to do so. In some places it is impossible or just silly, because they’d be taken out with the next flood. Also the excavation of a fenceline would contribute something to sedimentation in a lot of situations.

    And agree with Mr E that it doesn’t make much sense unless you’re going to plant something there. A neighbouring farmer is quite environmentally minded and is planting flax and toitoi along the banks of fenced sections because gorse is a big problem on fenced off areas and these species can be oversprayed with Tordon to control the gorse. The litter from these plants would build up organic carbon in the river system and this should be beneficial over time. They would also help keep narrow sections of the river cooler and thus slow down the respiration of carbon (also beneficial). You wouldn’t want to add nitrogen-rich gorse litter into the system I’d imagine (this one reason why promoting organic farming across the board is such a nonsense).

    I’m not sure if biochar would assist but it sounds expensive. Not that any of the options are cheap solutions! One of the reasons why we need farmers to be doing well in this country – no one can afford to do this sort of thing otherwise!

    So I agree with Mr E that education, combined with success of the farming enterprise, and nudges from government and concerned communities are they best way forward. Oh, and patience!

  15. Mr E says:

    Some very useful information there Tracey,
    It has me thinking about the impacts of Native forests on our rivers.
    The information I have indicates they are reducing their nutrient contribution to our waterways. Now wonder if that also means they are reducing their carbon contribution too. And by so doing reducing the de nitrification effect. This could confound (to an unknown level) the findings that farmers are responsible for the increased N in lowland/pastoral waterways.

    It also has me wondering about estuary zones and how much carbon now gets to settle there?

    Fascinating stuff. Thanks.

  16. Hi Mr E, I’ve not been based in NZ since 1988 (I hope this does this disqualify me from the discussion). Its very easy to find the evidence for biochar efficacy. The IBI biblio lists ~1700 items. Just search on a term. I’m not selling biochar I’m advocating for some applied research in NZ (we are falling well behind the rest of the world). Future economics? Farmers & farmer co-ops can make their own. Specifically on your Qs:
    A: http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/6629
    But you said ‘farming’… huge amount of evidence for this all around the world. Just look at soil under crop tillage in USA or bombay hills.
    B: with a little searching, you will find that the interest in biochar is not limited to folk trying to sell a new product. Environmental benefits are proven… economics will depend on site specific scenarios. There are many variables (soils, climate, biomass, pyrolysis process conditions, farming scenario, problems to be solved or benefits being sort).

    We could try to steer this back to light soils. Reduced stocking means reduced land values? a big economic driver for a radical solution?

  17. RBG says:

    I would have thought someone who is farming TraceyS, shouldn’t be suprised at the concept of a river as an ecosystem, but good that you have taken that idea on board and for keeping stock out where you can. Mr E, stock IN waterways will increase sedimentation.

  18. farmerbraun says:

    Trevor, I’m interested in the belief that biochar is a more desirable way of increasing soil carbon than simply building topsoil as we have always done.
    I think this is what Mr E is questioning above.
    Landcare research has patchy data on soil carbon, but recently reported that between surveys , it appears that some soils under dairy have lost carbon (amongst other things), while hill country soils under sheep/beef have stable levels at close to their biological optimum.
    It does appear that biochar could raise soil carbon to levels that would otherwise not be attained under pastoral management alone , but would this enhanced level result in increased sequestration of a particular leachable nutrient of interest , say sulphate or nitrate.?

  19. farmerbraun says:

    RBG says:
    June 5, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    “stock IN waterways will increase sedimentation.”

    That is not obviously true. If stock do not carry sediment to a stony waterway , then how could they increase the sediment by drinking from it?

  20. farmerbraun says:

    Mr E says:
    June 4, 2014 at 11:37 am

    “The challenge of a multi factorial problem, is also an opportunity. The solutions are many, and only through education will those many solutions be converted into improvements.”

    Of course , and one of the biggest factors is the price received for milk. It would be nice to see the inflation -adjusted milk price series from about 1950. I suspect that real milk prices are at a fairly low level.
    I suspect also that we would see an inverse correlation between milk price and output/Ha. It wouldn’t prove anything , being just a correlation .

  21. farmerbraun says:

    Another interesting aspect of irrigation is its use on shallow soils to increase the rate of topsoil formation ; surely a very good thing per se.

  22. Mr E says:

    Farmerbraun,

    When stock access water they sometimes can muddy banks. Particularly from larger cloven hooved animals like cattle. Phosphate in NZ rivers has been declining dramatically over the last 10 years, despite the dairy boom. I believe this is because of dairy farmers excluding stock from waterways. I don’t believe the same would happen if we tried to do it with sheep. I believe bank sloughing be increased in this scenario.

    Alastair Metheral has studied carbon build up in soils. From recollection it was reviewed over 3 long term trial sites (50 years +). Most of them showed agriculture either maintained or significantly increased the carbon content of soils. With that said it was recognised that high stock intensity could reduce soil carbon.

    Special mention to a young Dr Stewart who died shortly after the research was completely. Outdoors guru and heck of a nice guy.

    If you wish I can dig up the paper and provide a link.

    Generally our soils are high in carbon which is an inert nutrient from a plant point of view. Carbon is however important in soil structure providing the ‘glue’ which holds it all together improving the storage of N P and S and the cation exchange sites.

    This from Dr Doug Edmeades who has been critical of the use of other carbon containing products, in the below case, Humates.

    “Most of New Zealand’s pastoral soils contain very large amounts of organic matter. Estimates range from 100 to 300 tonnes per hectare to a depth of 18 cm. (the depth of the A horizon in many NZ soil). Remember, about 50% of this SOM is humic acid and 50% fulvic acid. Thus, the normal benefits of SOM have already been conferred on New Zealand soils. The question from the farmer’s perspective is; will adding an additional small amount of humate (typically 25 kg humate/ha) have any additional benefit over and above the 50 to 150 tonnes of humate/ha already present? The answer has to be – most unlikely. Remember too the cost of commercially available humates is about $2500 per
    tonne.”

    SOM = soil organic matter.

    This is his final word from the article cited.

    “So if you believe that adding say 25 kg humate/ha over and above the 1000 kg DM/ha going back to the soil as plant residues then it is likely that you still find Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy interesting. For the rest of you pundits out there trying to make coin, I suggest that humates are not for hue-mate!”

    I do of course recognise that Biochar is a different from Humates.

  23. farmerbraun says:

    My understanding for the Manawatu River (which forms three sides of my farm) is that most of the phosphorus comes from hill country erosion, with a significant contribution from the several municipal outfalls.

    My point was that some rivers (braided, for example ) really don’t have banks as such , and the soil alongside is usually very low in phosphorus anyway. So I was agreeing with you that there is no one solution which can be applied throughout.

    Biochar is interesting but little researched as to its effects in mitigating leaching losses under pasture. I would love to see a trial where several train loads of lignite are deposited on some shallow Lismore sandy loam under irrigation with dairy cows.
    We may have a use for all that lignite yet.

  24. Mr E says:

    If we imagined lignite was $100/ tonne ? And is 70% carbon?

    Lifting the soil by 5% carbon would cost $700 – $2000 per hectare

    Profit = gone. Loss = large.

  25. TraceyS says:

    RBG at 3:04 pm: the idea of a river having a metabolism is slightly different, although related, to that of it being a ecosystem. The word “ecosystem”, to me, means a fishbowl concept with humans on the outside looking in. It’s exclusive. But excluding humans and our influence on waterways is not going to be practical is it?

    In the old days people chucked their stuff into rivers knowing that it would be diluted and washed away. That was the basic level of knowledge at the time. One of our local rivers has a thick and mucky (historically gravel) bottom in lower reaches caused by previous decades’ accumulation of mainly human and some animal discharge, loss of topsoil etc. All that has stopped now but the thick sediment remains. The water quality is fine, but no one would swim there for fear of standing on eels! I think that is a great shame. Further up the river, where we are, you see the natural state which used to go all the way down to where it met the marine environment. Old-timers can confirm this.

    In the old days rivers were treated as waste pipes. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we instead came to treat rivers as stomachs and understood enough to “feed” them the right stuff with a common appreciation of what a healthy river is?

  26. farmerbraun says:

    Mr E says:

    “If we imagined lignite was $100/ tonne ? And is 70% carbon?

    Lifting the soil by 5% carbon would cost $700 – $2000 per hectare

    Profit = gone. Loss = large.”

    No argument with that. But no offsetting benefit? That’s the question, just as it would be with biochar.
    It’s early days in this drive to reduce nutrient losses.

  27. The original article discussed reducing dairy herd size on ‘light’ soils to reduce nutrient leaching. This was not the main thrust of the article, I think. The main focus was on politics between agriculture and the environment. But the interesting stuff for me is the future of nitrogen (nutrient?) capping and its potential effect of pastoral farming economics.

    Capping seems to be happening on sensitive (light?) soils and sites (Taupo, Rotorua) and is probably going to become much more extensive. Maybe all RC’s will soon have rules in place. Should the agriculture industry fight this all the way?

    I think there are alternatives being explored but they may require change to farming systems than a lot of the existing farming demographic is comfortable with.

    @farmerbraun 6:58am
    I’m not say most NZ soils are low in C… They are high in organic carbon on average. But maybe not in our ‘light’ free draining soils where the N cap is impacting stocking rates (such as Taupo). I know they are trying deep rooting crops like Lucerne in Taupo research Not sure how well that has gone. Biochar could capture that N and make it plant available (according to the research) but could it be applied economically. I think it can in the future – land value being a driver. And nailing my colors to the mast here… lets leave that lignite in the ground!

  28. farmerbraun says:

    O.K Here’s what I think. I know of no research which would support what I’m saying.
    It may well be that stocking rate per se is the cause of the nitrate loss problem where the dairy farm has become a “milking platform” or actually a feed-pad which also grows some pasture. Here we find the 5 cows /Ha , quite a bit of nitrogen fertiliser, but also a lot of imported nitrogen in the form of supplements and dairy support. And the effluent produced will not be evenly distributed over the entire area of land which supplied the feed that cows consumed.

    But even in this case, as well as in the case of what might be termed acceptable stocking rates, say 2.5 cows /Ha, the pattern of nitrogen loss over the course of the year is the important thing.

    I’m guessing that most of the loss occurs under conditions of high stock density (high DM/Ha + supplement) ; low soil temperature ; and high rainfall. . . . say the period of July-October in the seasonal dairy situation where you therefore have the perfect storm for maximum leaching losses, with all three factors operating, even without some serious soil/pasture damage from treading.

    A possible remedy then is to have low D.M/Ha covers (and low stock density = cows/Ha/hr. ) at this time of the year.

    Dairy farms which produce roughly the same amount of milk every day , 365 days/year, meet the criteria of low stock density and low D.M cover in the critical period, because the theoretical calving pattern to achieve flat production is to have all the cows calving between January and June.

    And on the economic side , a flat production curve is what is required if the industry is to become largely added value , and to reduce the huge energy bill from the concentration and drying of milk.
    Of course farms which milk all year round have lower stocking rates anyway ; previously the average was 1.6 milking cows /ha when we still had such an industry ( Town milk).

    So I’m saying that the problem is seasonal dairying for commodity production.
    The answer is year- round dairy for added-value production (cultured foods and ice-cream etc.)
    This is the only way to get the high payout needed to allow dairy farming at lower stocking rates with no spring calving i.e. no high stock density during the critical period for nitrogen losses.

    Anyone follow that?

    I didn’t mention the social aspect but there are pluses there too.

  29. Mr E says:

    I have said this before so I am a little reluctant to say it again. But here goes.

    Nutrient loss from farms is a complex interation between many variables.

    I still consider the biggest drivers as an inteaction between soi type, stocking rate and Nitrogen use.

    Despite what Trevor sayes, I still think that improving carbon content in soils by adding artificial carbon is likely to be uneconomic. Regadless if it is lignite for $100/tonne or Biocrhar for a lot more, these are light soils we are discussing and the output is low. Huge capital inputs to make smalll small improvments just does not work when you start form a low base.

    Fundamentally I find myself asking the question- what is the easiest of these vairables to effect. Soil organic matter is the hardest. Some might say stocking rate is easy to affect. But if we decrease stocking rate and increase the output per stock unit we make marginal gains. If we feed the same amount of grass to less animals do we really significantly reduce nitrogen into the environment? Feeding the same amount of grass to less animals is surely only going to make marginal gains because the fewer cows are going to urinate more.

    For me the elephant in the room is Nitrate. 15 years ago Scientists were looking at Europe, saying – we dont want to be like them, over using Nitrate to the point that it affects water quality in a devastating way. Now here we are watching ntrate in rivers gradually increase – blaming intensification.

    Let me be quite frank – I see opportunities to improve the efficiency of nitrogen – and we should not forget this – ever. But I dont believe that is enough.

    In Southland no limits have been put on nitrogen use. No ‘body’ controls this product or is even monitoring its use.

    There has been a silence everywhere when it comes to Nitrogen. Nobody sayes control, or reduce. But is so much easier to control or reduce than something like stocking rate or soil type.

    I think what has happened recently, has been the demonisation of cows.. People say Urine is the cause therefore cows = bad. If we do that, we will simply find limitations on the numbers of cows that we have.

    But lets face it, if we restict cow nmbers there is nothing to stop existing dairy farmers further lifting individual cow production through tools that will increase N loss from soils.

    If we restrict Nitrogen use, it is easy to do, it will limit stock increases and reduce the amount of N in easch urine patch.

    Some might say dairy farmers will use other products like high protein feed to lift production which will allow stocking rate increase and high N content in urine. But the simple fact is, feeds like PKE and grain are over twice the cost of Nitrogen if we consider it a feed.

    Because it is more expensive, marginal gains for using it are a lot lower. Therefore it is a lot more constraining to use.

    For these reasons I think focusing on issues like soil structure and stocking rates are a side show for what is the best opportunity to reduce N loss from NZ farms. Please join me and requesiting the control of N use. Whether it be max application limitations or some form of nitrogen quota, it needs to be controlled.

  30. farmerbraun says:

    ” Please join me in requesting the control of N use. Whether it be max application limitations or some form of nitrogen quota, it needs to be controlled.”

    You are right that this is the easiest first step which will produce the greatest initial gains.

    It would seem straightforward to make all nitrogen fertiliser application a restricted activity subject to a resource consent , or prohibited on grassland.

    There is limited economic downside to such a ban provided that farmers re-learn how to grow clover , and obtain their nitrogen for free from the air.

    This is how it was always done prior to the introduction of urea fertiliser.

    This is the competitive advantage of grassland farming in NZ , and one which Dairy NZ strategists are hammering to the farmers , saying that we would be mad to get into a competition with US feedlot dairies.
    In short I cannot see any downside to what you propose , and the upside is considerable, economically and environmentally.

  31. Mr E says:

    For RBG or any who doubt stock exclusion results in bank sloughing.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/10164810/Landowners-agree-to-spread-Waituna-cost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: