Friday, March 29, 2024

A load of rubbish

Avatar photo
A lot of waste was generated by the farmers whose milk production accounted for $15.9 billion of export revenue in the year to August – and regional councils are starting to get its measure.
Reading Time: 5 minutes

The waste produced by 69 rural Bay of Plenty and Waikato properties weighed in at an estimated 2564 tonnes a year, an average of 37t a property, a recently published survey showed. It comprised 2199t of inorganic waste, 272t of organic, animal and offal wastes, and 92t of domestic waste.

The Waikato-Bay of Plenty study was funded mainly by the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regional councils, with support from some district councils, and involved several rural sector stakeholders, including Dairy NZ, Fonterra, Federated Farmers, Open Country Dairy and Tatua Dairy. It was done by environmental consultants GHD. 

The 48 dairy farms covered by the survey produced 1002t of inorganic waste, 169t of organic waste and 77t of domestic waste. The average dairy farm (203ha) produced 21t of inorganic waste, 3.5t of organic waste and 1.6t of domestic waste a year.

Whether all materials included in the survey findings should be counted as “waste” is a moot point. The survey found 23,800 stockpiled tyres on dairy farms, an average of 496 a farm, for example.

Adrienne Wilcock, a Waikato dairy farmer and DairyNZ’s representative on Agrecovery Foundation’s board of trustees, said many of those tyres would be used, and reused, to hold down silage pit covers. 

But she welcomed the survey findings’ contribution to a growing awareness of farm waste and the environmental implications of disposal methods.

The waste identified by the survey ranged from various types of plastics, scrap metal, timber and fence posts through to glass, batteries, construction and demolition material, and domestic refuse.

Generally it was buried, burned or bulk-stored. 

Since January 1 Environment Canterbury has banned burning plastic silage wrap in the region and in July the Agrecovery Foundation called for councils to introduce and enforce burning bans after a recycling surge was triggered by the Canterbury ban. 

The potential for pollutants to reach waterways by leaching through the ground over time or by direct run-off and flushing when it rains is another issue.

The report said half the properties surveyed had burn piles or farm dumps less than 40m from a watercourse or field drain.

“Rural waste disposal is creating a potential land and water contamination legacy which may impact on human, animal and ecological health for generations to come,” it warned.

While environmental concerns were raised, there were also recycling opportunities. But the recycling challenge was to find an uncomplicated way of collecting what was a low-value product, Wilcock said.

“If it’s too complicated for farmers, it won’t work.”

How recycling schemes were funded raised questions for farmers, too, she said. 

She didn’t expect a mandatory regime to be imposed on farmers in the foreseeable future. 

Other environmental issues, such as nitrates, were much more pressing and solutions had to be found to let farmers to be more environmentally friendly with waste disposal. 

A Dairy NZ spokeswoman said a long-term solution to managing farm waste was complex. It involved addressing transport distances in rural areas and sites for material processing.

A reliable infrastructure had to be created and guaranteed to present viable options for recycling.

The Waikato Regional Council’s waste minimisation facilitator, Marianna Tyler, said the council was interested in working collaboratively with the rural sector and industry to identify practical, long-term solutions to the issues identified in the report.

The report contributed to similar work done by GHD for Environment Canterbury and was designed to feed into a wider project on the management of rural waste nationally.

It recommended further work on:

  • Raising awareness of disposal and recycling options;
  • Working collaboratively to address issues and gaps;
  • Sharing information about waste disposal best practice;
  • Understanding the risks of onfarm waste management practice.

The survey of 53 Canterbury farms last year found an average of almost 24t of waste produced annually per farm.

More work will be done by the regional councils in consultation with other local authorities, industry and Government.

On dairy farms, the Waikato-Bay of Plenty survey found several inorganic waste streams mostly associated with milk production, such as paper filter socks, rubber gloves, mineral bags and magnesium sacks.

The volume of organic materials included estimations of calf and slink numbers which were being taken off-site, although some animals were dumped in farm pits.

Common inorganic wastes included plastics in the form of wraps, ties, cartons, containers and bags. Large drums and, on some farms, 1000-litre industrial bulk containers were noted. The larger drums were usually used for other purposes, such as seed containers, rubbish bins, or storage bins.

‘Rural waste disposal is creating a potential land and water contamination legacy which may impact on human, animal and ecological health for generations to come.’

The report said the level of environmental awareness was better among younger farmers, although that did not always correlate with better practices.

Both dairy and livestock farms used a large number of animal health treatments, with sharps and vials making up particularly hazardous inorganic waste streams.

Mirroring the Canterbury survey findings, farms participating in schemes such as Farmsafe were organised and well-maintained, suggesting a more proactive approach to waste management. However, that didn’t necessarily translate into reduced amounts of waste being produced or suitable disposal practices, the report said.

Some farms had runoffs where paddocks were used to fatten calves and winter stock. That added to the volume of rural wastes at certain times of the year. In most cases, runoff waste would be transported back to the home farm.

The survey found the barriers to reducing the impacts of rural waste were legacy farmer behaviour, lack of environmental risk awareness, lack of practical waste management options, and cost.

The surveyed rural property holders were reluctant to pay disposal costs when “no cost” solutions could be created on their properties.

Even so, farmers generally were keen for more options and acknowledged that some current practices weren’t ideal.

Nearly 80% of property owners surveyed felt they could manage waste differently and most were keen for more options. 

“There is an opportunity for better information and access to practical solutions to be developed in collaboration with the rural sector,” the report noted.

Taking the next step

The time had come to seriously consider mandatory approaches for some waste management, former Environment Minister Amy Adams said in May. 

Agrichemicals and farm plastics were among four waste streams that could be declared priority products, she said when she released a discussion document on improving the management of waste products, especially those which can cause harm to the environment. The others were electrical and electronic equipment, tyres, and refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases. 

Amy Adams – time for interventions?

The discussion paper said most accredited voluntary product stewardship schemes experienced problems with participation rates, because participation couldn’t be enforced.

It cited the example of a brand of agrichemicals that didn’t take part in a product stewardship scheme, which placed a voluntary levy on products to cover responsible waste product management. Competitors who did participate in the scheme were disadvantaged because they had to charge more for their products or make less profit to cover the levy.

The paper also expressed concern about farmers who stored obsolete agrichemicals on their farm and burned or buried agrichemical containers in their farm pit rather than pay to have the wastes safely collected.

“They risk polluting the environment for future generations and endangering New Zealand’s clean and green reputation which jeopardises selling our products overseas,” it said.

Options included maintaining the status quo, using one or more intervention measures available under the Waste Minimisation Act, such as declaring a priority product or introducing ministerial guidelines or regulations, or intervening under other pieces of legislation.

The Government had encouraged voluntary product stewardship efforts since the legislation took effect five years ago. Eleven voluntary product stewardship schemes have been officially accredited, each requiring responsibility for environmental effects to be shared among all sectors involved with the product.

More than 70,000 tonnes of waste had been diverted from landfills for recycling or safe destruction under the schemes but that accounted for only 1.4% of the total waste stream going to disposal facilities.

The first step in the Government’s review of the issues was consultation, seeking feedback on whether the Government should go further and whether it had picked the right products.

Public submissions on the discussion paper were invited from May 21 to July 2. They have been considered but the election intervened and the next step awaits decisions by the new Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith. 

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading