The Mackenzie Country dairying consent applications were originally for outdoor operations but switched indoors to protect the environment, a director of two of the three companies involved has revealed.

Speaking exclusively to Rural News, Southdown Holdings’ and Williamson Holdings’ director Richard Peacocke says the expected environment outcome from cubicle stables is “exceptional”.

“The use of cubicle stables significantly reduces the amount of nutrient losses to waterways. Annual modelled N losses from the cubicle stables proposed in the Mackenzie Basin are approximately 15-18kgN loss/ha, compared with average losses from New Zealand dairy farms ranging from 30-50kgN loss/ha.”

Meanwhile, typical phosphorus loss from New Zealand dairy farms is 0.3-4.5kgP/ha and typically 1.2kg/ha averaged across catchments.

“Average modelled losses under the proposed cubicle stables [system] are 0.58kgP/ha.”

Peacocke slams the term factory farming as “emotive” and suggestive of cows in crates.

“The reality is far from that suggested by the term… cows free range within a barn environment, having access to grass/balage/silage on demand and sleep on rubber mats.”

Cow’s come and go from stalls as they please, with each stall separated from the next by pipe frames. Barns are open at the sides with alternating steel clear roofing so there is plenty of light and air.

“Screens can be lowered to block out cold winds and rain as required.”

Peacocke is sceptical about whether housing will damage New Zealand dairying’s reputation, as 70% of world production comes from such systems already.

There’s also “the elephant in the corner that no one wishes to disturb” with outdoor dairying, in terms of run-off, leaching, and animal welfare, notably in winter, he points out.

Indoor cows produce more per kg of drymatter consumed, are healthier with better body condition, and do not need to be induced to “catch up” as the system is designed to run year round.

“Cows do not produce if they are ill treated and that is in no one’s interest, especially the farmer/owner. Staff are happier also as they don’t need to venture out to feed on brassica crops in winter with cows up to their knees in mud.”

He also defends the proposed farms’ impact on the eye and tourist industry.

“The bulk of flat land in the Mackenzie Basin is not pristine tussock land as promoted by some. Rather it is land that has been overgrazed by wintering of Merinos being fed hay and grain for 150 years when they are brought down from the mountains to avoid being caught in snow. They grazed the tussock to the ground and the rabbits killed it off.”

Most of the Basin now only has browntop and hieracium to protect it from soil eroding winds, other than where wilding pines are taking over.

“We do not accept that dairying in the Mackenzie Basin will have a negative effect on tourism. The iconic mountains and lakes will remain clearly visible and the impact of the irrigated area, when seen in context, is not significant.”

Besides, the combined economic effect of irrigating 25,000ha in the basin is estimated at $100 million/year with extra jobs and development opportunities for local contractors.