The government has recently released amendments to the intensive winter grazing rules (IWG) which form part of the NES-F 2020 after the consultation that took place on them last year. This consultation occurred because a number of concerns were raised on the practicality of implementing the original rules set out in the NES-F.

The parts of the legislation that remain the same and the parts that have been amended are discussed below. These will all come into effect in November 2022. So, they will be enforced NEXT winter (2023).

What’s remained the same:

• Period of IWG 1st May – 30th September (in the same year).
• 50 ha or 10% whichever is the greater (with exceptions of whichever is the lesser in parts of Canterbury) or the maximum area that was grazed in any winter within the reference period (1st July 2014- 30th June 2019).
• Stock (remember this is all livestock) must be kept at least 5 m away from the bed of any river, lake, wetland, or drain (regardless of whether there is water in it at the time).

Amended IWG rules:

• Critical Source Area (CSA): (this is the new sticking point)
  • Is defined as a landscape feature e.g. gully, swale or depression that accumulates runoff from adjacent land and has the potential to deliver contaminants to rivers, lakes, wetlands, or drains (excluding subsurface). Regardless of whether there is any water in it at the time.
  • Within the IWG period (1st May- 30th September) these areas must not be grazed
  • Also within the IWG period (1st May-30th September) vegetation must be maintained as  ground cover over ALL the CSA and maintaining that vegetation does not include any cultivation or harvesting of annual forage crops.
• Slope: any land under IWG must be 10 degrees or less – this will now be determined by measuring the slope of any land over a 20m distance.
• Pugging: Must take all reasonably practicable steps to minimise the effects to freshwater from pugging.
• Resowing dates have been replaced with Ground cover standards which state that
  • Ground cover is established as soon as practicable after livestock have finished grazing the land.
• The definition of a drain in relation to the winter grazing regulations is no longer inclusive of subsurface drains.

These amendments will mean that farmers that are winter grazing on rolling hill country will need to start thinking about applying for a consent as the majority of them will fall within the 10 degree slope threshold. The consent is a way of demonstrating that plans are in place to manage winter grazing and as the vast majority of farmers will already have good management practices in place, these just need to be articulated and further developed to ensure any impacts on the receiving environments are mitigated.

Any questions or scenarios that you have please feel free to sing out.it.

Regenerative agriculture is a term being thrown around a lot in rural circles currently.  I would estimate it has come up in conversation in 90% of the farm visits I have had over the last 12 months, with varied views from the passionate advocate to the sceptic.    ‘Regen Ag’ is not a new concept, but it has received increased attention internationally, with some hailing it as a solution to climate change, biodiversity loss, declining water quality and freshwater ecosystem health. The increased attention is primarily due to widely publicised recent successes in the North American and Canadian prairies restoring depleted soils through what’s being referred to as regenerative practices.

Through a combination of regenerative principles (e.g., re-introducing livestock, rotational grazing, minimum tillage cultivation, use of multi-species crops), many farmers on the North American prairies were able to increase the organic matter (and carbon) stored in their soils, which also increased water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil.  This enabled more plant species to be supported which in turn led to an increase in soil microbial populations.  The microbial population is vital for many processes, in particular nutrient cycling/breakdown, and an increase in the number and activity of these microbes generally leads to more resilient soils.  

Ensuring we are comparing apples with apples; we should consider the changes on the land in this example overtime. The North American prairies once supported millions of bison and other livestock.  Through reduction in livestock and the introduction of huge areas of monoculture cropping programs, they faced soil organic matter depletion, loss of topsoil and associated decrease in yield and stocking rates.  The land was in trouble and heading for collapse if management changes weren’t made.  By using the regenerative principles, farmers on the prairies were able to restore soil health and the microbial and plant species that those soils can support.  We have seen these great stories of restoration picked up and told throughout the agricultural world and we now see many large international corporates requiring regenerative practices to be used as part of their supply chain.

In many of these areas, the significant improvements were possible because those soil depleting practices had been employed for a significant amount of time.  The North American prairies store approximately 12T CO2/ha (carbon) whereas New Zealand pastoral farms store, on average, considerably more than this at around 100T CO2/ha, so we have very different starting points.  It is also worth keeping in mind there is a maximum limit on the organic matter that can be built up in soils (dependent on climate, soil type, topography and land management.) 

The white paper ‘Regenerative Agriculture in Aotearoa New Zealand’ was published in February 2021 to quantify similarities in the NZ farming system and regenerative farming.  The eleven principles identified behind the farmgate, by practitioners themselves, are: 

(1) The farm is a living system; (2) Make context-specific decisions; (3) Question everything; (4) Learn together; (5) Failure is part of the journey; (6) Open and flexible toolbox; (7) Plan for what you want; start with what you have; (8) Maximise photosynthesis (year-round); (9) Minimise disturbance; (10) Harness diversity; and (11) Manage livestock strategically.

Collectively these principles embody a ‘regenerative mindset’ and the report goes on further to identify which of these principles it believes has similarities to NZ farming systems, but it doesn’t give our current farming practices enough credit.  We have long adopted minimum tillage cultivation practices where soil moisture and carbon need to be preserved.  We already practice rotational grazing to ensure our pastures have time to recover and our impacts on the land are spread.  We use multi-species pastures to get the most from our soils with many NZ pastures based on a symbiotic grass/clover sward with the leguminous clover fixing nitrogen from the air and adding it to the system, meaning less fertiliser is needed.  We use multiple stock classes for weed and disease control and (generally) consider the whole system before big changes are made.  A system change is no easy feat in agriculture requiring significant planning and expert advice…perhaps as an industry in NZ we need to calm down, control the narrative around this word and how it applies to our current systems before looking at big system changes.

There is, however, something to be said about increasing focus on soil microbial health across conventional farming systems in NZ, as Nicole Masters puts it, focusing on our “underground livestock”.  It’s not that NZ farmers haven’t cared about their soil, I have seen many of them stop and pull it apart, smelling it and counting the worms as we walk paddocks.  But, with the dairy explosion we saw more of a reliance on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides with quick turn arounds and perhaps a loss of farm synergy in some more intensive systems (e.g., more nitrogen fertiliser = less biologically fixed nitrogen in most NZ farm systems).  This doesn’t mean every dairy system in NZ has experienced these issues nor does it mean that every farmer needs to change their system significantly.  But small changes such as the addition of beneficial soil microbes where we have cultivated/cropped/sprayed with insecticides as part of our crop protection programme, have the ability to make huge differences to our soil health without needing huge system changes.

Many of the issues regenerative farming aims to solve around soil and freshwater ecosystem health are currently being addressed in New Zealand through freshwater policy initiatives (e.g., sediment loss, nutrient and cropping limits).  While these policies have faced push back and evolved through the consultation process, there is some robust science feeding into many of these and, as daunting as they seem, understanding the risk factors on your property and how to mitigate them will go a long way to preserving soil and water health on farm and should be the first step.

So, what’s in a word?  In this world where perception is often mistaken for reality, a lot it seems, which is why when I now write cropping rotations or farm environment plans, I identify paddocks that need to be ‘regenerated’ rather than ‘re-grassed’.  This simple word change can have very different effects on the person reading the plans, although none of the principles or farm systems have changed with its inclusion. Regenerative agriculture is the ‘it’ word to describe much of what NZ has been doing for years – I suggest we need to claim the word back, ensure we keep a focus on our full system health, constantly questioning and researching what we hear.  Remember, if we were able to produce the food the world needs without fertiliser, chemicals, tractors (and diesel) then we wouldn’t have introduced these costs to our systems in the first place. 

I implore any farmer considering a system change to work through it with their agronomist, environmental policy advisor and farm systems consultant before making any changes – having a plan is the key to success.

Words by
​Jenna Sutton
Resource Management Advisor - Lumen
Phone 027 297 0962

EnviroPro – Takes measurements every 10 cm down the profile (can choose max depth from 40 to 160 cm), they compensate for salinity and the field of influence is said to be up to 55 cm from the probe itself which is impressive for a capacitance sensor.

Aqua Check – Takes measurements every 10 cm down the profile (max of 40 or 60 cm) which helps especially on cropping farms determine what the soil moisture is lower in the profile. If installed in a crop then they will need to be moved before harvest and redrilled into another paddock the following year.

Decagon 10HS and Terros – Decagon (now known as the Meter group) have a number of probe varieties but these are two of the most common. The company is very good at testing and refining their sensors, these would be some of the most reputable on the market. They have prongs and need to be inserted at the desired depth in the soil (generally one at 10 cm and another at 30 cm). They need to be inserted into the side of a hole and then filled back in so they are best used in pasture settings where they can stay in the ground for multiple years and the soil has time to settle around them and give accurate readings.

Wild Eye – Another classic two prong probe which is inserted at the desired depth in the soil (generally one at 10 cm and another at 30 cm). Installation and settling is the same as for the Decagon/ Meter group sensors above. This probe will be a lot cheaper than the decagon sensors and as a result appears to have had a lot less testing and supporting information available but could mean it is affordable to put more sensors in on one farm.

The Aquaflex is the most well known time domain transmission sensor in NZ, designed in the country and well suited to NZ soils. The time taken for an electrical pulse to travel down the length of the Aquaflex and back again is measured. The time taken is used to determine how much water is in the soil. These sensors are very useful where the average soil moisture over a large sampling area is required, they are not overly expensive and are a good permanent solution. The downfall is that they need contact with the soil to work and must be dug into the soil at the required depth which is invasive, and the soil takes some time (length of time depends on the installation) to settle again and give an accurate reading.

Neutron Probe
A probe is lowered into a tube installed in the soil and high speed neutrons are emitted. They collide with hydrogen atoms in soil water and slow down, the number of slow neutrons returning to the source detector are counted and the soil moisture content is determined. This process is repeated at various depths down the tube to give moisture content down the profile.

It is highly accurate across a range of soil types and crops, the length of tube can be installed to suit the crop. A good option for cropping farmers who have high value crops and want to have their soil moisture decisions looked after by someone else. Pitfall is there is only one reading a week instead of continual real time monitoring.

Version 1
19/11/2021
Prepared by Nicole Mesman