The issue is that whenever irrigation is mentioned all the lunatic fringe go hysterical about the fact that irrigation means dairy.
It’s that same fringe that insists we get animals out of agriculture and grow mung beans instead. The irony is that mung beans need water as much as cows do.
As I’ve mentioned previously, I spent a week at the massive Ord River irrigation scheme in North West Australia. It’s far bigger than anything we have and there isn’t a farm animal in sight. It is all cropping.
It’s also a long way from the markets but it is still a profitable enterprise.
To get a local perspective, I went to the Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) website which contains a heap of pertinent information about crops and irrigation. Knowing little about cropping I rang them up and spoke to the chief executive Alison Stewart. To say she is impressive would be an understatement.
She started by telling me that cropping under irrigation has both economic and environmental benefits. I knew about the first, not the second.
FAR has done considerable research on crops under irrigation.
There are crops in Canterbury you can’t grow without water. Additionally, the climate changing parts of New Zealand will have huge potential growing different crops with irrigation.
Hawke’s Bay is a good example because of its benign climate. Beans, soya, specialty greens and vegetables were the examples given.
The issue is that to grow those crops you need irrigation and we know the aversion of the Hawke’s Bayers to water storage, as witnessed by the Ruataniwha Dam debacle.
What I hadn’t realised was that sediment runoff and fertiliser pollution were considerably less with irrigated crops.
“With nitrogen (N) there isn’t an issue. We measure the N currently in the soil, we estimate what the plant needs and apply the difference. With cropping an N cap makes no sense at all. We only apply what the crop needs. Our growers are very good,” she said.
FAR has also completed a 15-year trial that considered irrigated and non-irrigated areas and the impact on the soil.
“There was an increase in soil carbon and reduction in N runoff under irrigation,” she said.
The increase in soil carbon with intensive cropping appealed to me far more than trying to achieve the same result with the unproven regenerative agriculture.
With good irrigation practices for cropping, you increase the yield which means a better financial return. You have a more diversified farming system with increased environmental benefits. You don’t have runoff and you don’t have N problems.
“It’s a win for the farmer, a win for New Zealand,” it said.
Many overseas countries are green with envy over NZ’s abundant water supply, water we can use. It’s a major competitive advantage for NZ but one that we’re largely ignoring in no small part to an army of uninformed Luddites.
Add to that the vagaries that a changing climate will bring and the regular supply of water becomes a necessity, not a luxury. It’s a total no-brainer.
It will allow us to grow different crops in a warmer climate, increase returns, increase carbon in the topsoil and reduce pollution.
It begs the question as to why we’re not doing it now.
What was also interesting was that talking to Stewart changed my views of the arable industry. I was aware of it as we all are but not the intricacies of it or the potential it holds.
It is a $1.6 billion industry that is mainly commodity driven and aimed at the local market. It has massive export potential.
It has little public profile although that will definitely change.
“The public doesn’t know about us and politicians don’t understand the complexity of our industry. Some of our farming leaders are more interested in the status quo than being innovative,” she said.
“The livestock sector largely ignores arable. A combination of the two provides the best for animals and for plants. Diversification is the way forward.”
A lot of that needs to change and I believe it will.
Through Stewart’s influence, the profile of the arable sector will certainly increase and with it, public understanding.
I certainly accept that politicians don’t accept the complexity of the arable industry and really the only people that can change that is FAR itself.
Currently, it is just a domestically focused industry, albeit at $1.7 billion. I would sincerely hope that if FAR could demonstrate the export potential of crops then politicians would become enthusiastic.
Finally, I was most impressed with FAR, the people I dealt with there. It was a bright ray of light amongst all the criticism and negativity.
