Franklin Sustainability Project - Continuation
SFF Project Final Report
Sustainable Farming Fund Search Results
I am sorry, but your search for "grant number = ^00/171" matched no projects in the database , please try again.
Updated: 11 October 2006
August 2004 Franklin Sustainability Project - Continuation
Objective:
To promote and extend the uptake of best management practices by vegetable growers in the Franklin District through utilising 'Doing it Right' (DIR) and other relevant tools and programmes.
Approach:
The project involved a multi-stakeholder group interested in enhancing the sustainability of outdoor vegetable production in the Franklin District. The financial stakeholders included the grower community (represented by Vegfed and the Pukekohe Vegetable Growers Association PVGA), MAF Sustainable Farming Fund, Auckland Regional Council (ARC), Environment Waikato (EW) and Franklin District Council (FDC).
A full time field representative, Glenys Pellow, was employed. Her role was to ensure that the "Doing it Right" guidelines that had been launched in 2000 did not simply sit around collecting dust. This was an education and advocacy extension service to approximately 250 outdoor vegetable growers.
Project Management
A project management team was established. This included a representative from each of the three councils, five growers from the PVGA environment sub-committee, the field representative and the project manager Andrew Barber from AgriLINK NZ.
The project team meet once a month for an hour. Day to day management and budget control was the responsibility of the project manager.
Activities
Project activities were based around one on one grower visits. On average 50 visits a quarter were conducted. In addition to the grower visits a series of workshops were held, newsletters were prepared and material published on the web.
Despite the projects objective to disseminate the Doing it Right guidelines and ensure their uptake it was essential for retaining grower interest that new ideas were also injected into the mix of messages. In order to do this research was conducted to develop new material for the Doing it Right guidelines and new presenters were used in the workshops.
Two significant additions were made to the guideline. In response to the need for more specific information on silt trap volumes and construction a new guideline was developed. In 2000 silt traps were starting to be built however most were inadequate so a guide was produced that stipulated recommended volumes, spillway dimensions and snorkel requirements. Emphasis was also placed on using a number of different techniques to minimise soil movement within the paddock to prevent the soil even reaching the trap. These techniques included planting cover crops, wheel track ripping, short row lengths and interception drains at the top of paddocks. This guide was distributed to all growers and is downloadable from www.agrilink.co.nz
The second update was on the use of cover crops. This guide includes 17 cover crops including information on climate requirements, variety characteristics, pest and disease susceptibility, sowing rate and depth, seed bed preparation, dry matter production, nutrient uptake, fertiliser requirements and any additional comments.
A number of field trials were conducted. These were not scientifically defendable however they were practical field scale trials that advanced growers new ideas and conducted initial investigations that could be followed up later with a more scientific approach. One trial investigated the effectiveness of different silt trap volumes. Results showed that traps that were undersized where quickly overwhelmed in rain events as low as 20mm in 2 hours.
Workshops ranged from catchment group meetings that involved up to a dozen growers and focused on agreeing to solutions for a specific issue like soil erosion or stream water availability, through to evening seminars on topics that affected the whole district. Experts were brought in to discuss such topics as nitrogen losses, soil organic matter, environmental monitoring systems, water availability, and predicting weather based on the moon.
Outcomes & Information Dissemination:
All milestones were achieved or exceeded
Workshops 6 Catchment workshops focused on local erosion and water issues 1 Research identification meeting 2 Minimum tillage/no tillage workshop 1 Seminar in Environmental Management Systems (EMS) 1 Weather prediction seminar presented by Ken Ring 1 Future direction meeting 1 Council conducted tour of the projects activities 1 Irrigation and vetiver grass seminar 2 Field walks through the cover crop trial
Newsletters 14 Newsletters on seasonal topics and research results 6 Media articles 2 Updates to the guideline to Doing it Right - Erosion Management and Cover Crops 1 Article in the Commercial Grower on Soil Erosion 1 Film production, No.8 Wired 1 Article in the Franklin District Council newsletter
Websites General information is shown on the Vegfed website www.vegfed.co.nz and the Regional Council websites www.ew.govt.nz and www.arc.govt.nz . The AgriLINK NZ web site www.agrilink.co.nz has a downloadable copy of the erosion guidelines.
Benchmarking survey
A grower survey was conducted at the beginning of the project and then followed up with a survey at the projects conclusion. Two thirds of the respondents said they had made changes to their growing practices as a result of FSP. 77% of respondents said they used silt traps in 2004 which was a slight drop from 88% in 2002. However anecdotally looking around the district the number of silt traps has increased and a small scoop in the corner of a paddock which use to be thought of as a suitable measure is now considered a waste of time and completely inadequate.
Two quantitative paddock surveys were conducted in late 2003 and mid 2004 of 20 paddocks each. These surveys gave a score based on the measures that they were being used in each paddock such as the use of silt traps, raised accessways, wheel track ripping, cover crops, row length etc. Two findings were that 9 of the 20 paddocks in the first survey had silt traps however 6 of these were considered inadequate, and that 60% of the paddocks had adequately sized interception drains. Drains over topping during storm events is one of the leading causes of soil loss on cultivated properties. These surveys will form a good base on which to quantitatively track performance in the future.
Grower visits Between August 2003 and June 2004 171 grower visits were conducted (numbers are not easy to retrieve prior to August 2003).
Path to Implementation:
Environmental education does not result in significant widespread immediate changes. It is a cooperative, self empowering process that needs to be given an opportunity to work. FSP strived to develop solutions that were practical and could be championed by the growers themselves. However, human nature means that this approach does not induce change in everyone and that those people that do not change will need to be approached in a different manner.
Minimising soil erosion, while not the only issue that FSP was established to address, was the catalyst for the project and remained the key issue uniting the stakeholders. How this problem was addressed highlights the need for a multi-pronged approach.
Councils could strictly enforce the RMA that makes it illegal to discharge soil, which is classified as a contaminant. This approach would leave growers in isolation to individually devise a solution, and consequently there would be an enormous range of different solutions and results. The stage would then be set for confrontation which is ultimately extremely unproductive, costly and simply unpleasant for everyone involved.
The alternative adopted by FSP was to bring councils, growers and soil experts together to prepare a detailed guideline and then disseminate that information through a range of channels. With this cooperative multi-stakeholder approach there is general agreement on the solution. However the disadvantage is that this approach can take significantly longer and there is a ceiling on adoption, not everyone will respond to this approach.
The speed of voluntary adoption has a lot to do with the recognition of the problem and then where that places it among a list of priorities. In the case of soil erosion most growers recognised it as a problem however in the low margin generally under resourced family growing operations the solution keeps slipping well down the priority list. Soil loss can also be an extremely difficult thing to see, unless it is the result of a major storm. This is highlighted by the often touted Grower perception that soil loss really only occurs in large storms and then how can you be reasonably expected to do anything about it? The reality is that soil loss occurs throughout the season but that unless it is captured it is lost to the downstream environment and never seen by the grower.
A study in 2000 highlighted this point where the role of wheel track ripping was investigated. In half of the paddock a silt fence captured any soil loss. Half of the protected area was wheel track ripped and the rest of the paddock was left unripped. The results were staggering, ripping reduced erosion from 21 t/ha down to just 1 t/ha. The silt cloth in the unripped plot was full to overflowing. But just as staggering was where the soil had not been captured but was obviously still being lost at the unripped 21 t/ha rate there was no sign of the loss, it had simply disappeared. Where is the problem?
In reflection the project was never able to place a true believable value on the soil resource. As a consequence when soil conservation measures are considered they are seen as a cost because these affect this years bank balance, whereas soil loss does not have an immediate impact on profits or impacts like reduced production are unseen and difficult to quantify. In addition the impacts could be masked or incorrectly identified, for example reduced production could be attributed to lack of nutrient availability so fertiliser applications are increased. While this solves the short term production problem it does not fix the actual underlying problem and can cause other environmental issues. We may also not know the best solution to sustainably improve soil quality that also takes into account short term business profitability. Growers need the confidence and knowledge to tackle the longer term solutions while still maintaining short term profitability.
The best model for effective change is to get buy-in to the problem, then cooperatively develop a solution, disseminate that information and allow sufficient time for the practices to be implemented before finally following up with enforcement where changes are not occurring. Enforcement without education is confrontational, the problem is not recognised and the solutions are disjointed and often inadequate. Likewise voluntary measures without enforcement after an appropriate time do not achieve widespread adoption and ultimately penalises the early adopters and creates an uneven playing field.
FSP has tried to follow the path of:
- problem recognition cooperative solution development
- time for adoption multi-pronged dissemination
- enforcement
Where to From Here?
A facilitated workshop was held in September 2003 to develop possible future activities, research and direction for F.S.P. beyond June 2004. The focus was to know what would motivate and excite the stakeholders enough to get real value out of being involved in F.S.P.?
Three key areas for further discussion were highlighted: 1. Erosion management 2. Soil health, organic matter, cover crops, soil cultivation and reduced tillage 3. Nitrate contamination of ground water and nutrient management
One identified opportunity for improvement was to put more focus on the financial impacts of measures being advocated by FSP.
Out of these discussions two projects were developed to the funding proposal stage on soil health and business management. Both were unsuccessful for funding and new avenues will continue to be investigated.
FSP has become extremely well know in the industry and has developed capacity for participatory research and effectively delivering information to the commercial outdoor vegetable industry. FSP remains a vehicle that can be used by councils, researchers and industry to build projects around and deliver the results direct to growers.
