Ban 1080 protestors lie to make their point & can DoC & Forest & Bird please get off their arses?

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
43
60

So the Ban 1080 protestors lied to try and make their point about 1080…

Some dead birds used in Parliament 1080 demonstration were road-kill, protester says
Some of the dead native birds laid on the steps of Parliament in a protest against 1080 were actually road-kill, an organiser says.

Protesters laid the dead birds on the steps of Parliament this week along with fake 1080 pellets. They claimed the birds, including two kererū, two weka and a red-billed gull were killed by 1080 poisoning.

Poisoned nation co-organiser Alan Gurden told Newshub this morning some of the dead birds used were actually road-kill.

Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard had laid a complaint with police after discovering the cause of death was blunt force trauma.

…first the protestors tried to claim they were killed by 1080, now they are trying to claim they were road kill, Trevor Mallard has made a complaint because it could be the birds were killed by the bloody protestors themselves.

Not exactly the best way to try and gain the moral high ground now is it comrades?

I’m already on record saying I think this fear over 1080 borders on the conspiracy theory level of anti-fluoridation fanatics and anti-vaxx nutters, but let me also throw some shade at DoC & Forest & Bird.

I reached out to Forest & Bird this week to ask them for some clear rebuttal to the concerns many protestors have because you know, these issues are best sorted with dialogue and debate not fear and shutting down.

Forest & Bird amazingly responded that they didn’t have time to do that, which had an air of arrogance to it that was pretty shitty. It reminded me of the arrogance environmental groups 10 years ago had when they refused to debate climate deniers.

You have to being people with you and you have to make an attempt to respond to the community’s concerns.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

So I make this offer to DoC + Forest & Bird –  The Daily Blog will live stream a debate between themselves and any 1080 protestors which I will moderate and host so that we can get some clear responses to the fears many protestors have in a safe environment where DoC and Forest & Bird have the opportunity to counter argue 1080 protestor claims.

Stop hiding and engage, that’s the only way to ensure this issue gets fairly discussed.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  1. ‘Forest and Bird’ is arrogant and egotistical , has been for a long time…just as the Greens are arrogant and stupid

    …and they prefer to speak on RNZ… State funded media

    …and of course their 1080 protagonists /advocates are former employees of government (bias?)

    …also how do you know that the person(s) who threw the road kill dead birds represent the broad anti- 1080 coalition/movement / sympathisers as a whole ?

    ….it is very easy to subvert a demonstration/movement /cause by the stupid actions of one or two…either deliberately( agent provocateur )… or by misguided actions and trickery and enthusiasm for the justified cause

    • @ LOLBAGZ…yes think I get your point.

      Given the horror of 1080 poisoning and killing and extermination of invertebrates, insects, birds, wildlife, domestic animals, farm animals , and anecdotally innocent New Zealanders and tourists ( shockingly there don’t seem to be any statistics or records or diagnoses or protocols for diagnosis!)

      … and the utterly disgraceful irony of those so-called ‘environmentalists’ who are supporting blanket coverage of large parts of NZ in 1080 poison (DOC , Greens, ‘Forest and Bird’ and the governments and their advisers past and present)

      … throwing a few ‘road kill’ at parliament in an anti-1080 protest is not a big deal.

      imo questions need to be asked in Parliament :

      Given that most other governments around the world have banned 1080 on the scientific evidence from experts and the revulsion of their citizens :-

      1. ) Are there hidden ulterior motives for manufacturing large amounts of 1080 in New Zealand?

      2.) For example is 1080 being bought up by foreign governments ? (while it is banned in their own countries) If so which foreign governments?

      3.) What is NZ made 1080 being used for outside New Zealand?

      4.) Is the 1080 blanket poisoning of large parts of NZ a cover for something more sinister?

      5.) Does NZ export 1080? If so, which countries and to whom, and what purpose?

      6.) Is NZ ‘environmental need’ being used as a spurious pretext for manufacturing large amounts of 1080?

      7.) Is so -called ‘environmentalism’ being used as a bogus cover excuse for large 1080 production, foisted on trusting, unsuspecting and naive NZ citizens?

      8.) What are the 1080 manufacturing details?

      9.)What are the auditing processes?

      10).What are the profits?

      11.) Where do the profits go ?

      12.) Where lies the accountability ?

      13.) Is the NZ government in total control of manufacturing 1080 in New Zealand ? If not , why not and who else is involved?

      14.) Can the NZ government account for all the 1080 being manufactured in New Zealand ?

      New Zealanders deserve to know the answers to these questions out in the open.

      ( then we need to hold Forest and Bird, DOC, and the Greens accountable…as well as government advisers and the governments past and present)

  5. http://1080science.co.nz/
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/522882861475656/?hc_ref=ARR0cazFb7keHXV0nHkptgTlnnOv3EM2gGch_iArJwnj7d9jpJiKXApmTxWeUNxaPzA&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDnvVQn7sqBIoJgd5zPvNe1_7xrbMUxiFvhBD_4lu3T467oVYX29tEq3I9LBfxYnIWWLtn1tq0c1pXdqpeN1GFxyN27zYugjpmmgER1drMlCsilEtg2qIiymI92pOzm3-b1zBOUBGqtCu4kShR_7__7_05nq3QfKjXYRRKi9wxxHgy4e8gs2g&__tn__=CH-R
    Diane’s story: My daughter in law died after West Coast 1080 drop, coroners report says unknown cause

    we both went up into the forest behind xxxxxxx. After coming home from our adventure the first thing i noticed was that my muscles became very tight, a couple of days later I couldn’t stand bright sunlight, though i struggled to take a horse out for a ride and only made it to the bottom of the road, felt very sick, vomiting decided to go straight home.. 2 days later i took my self to the dr; blood tests were done he said I had polymyalgia I never believed him and refused the medicine he wanted to give me, he then asked if i would see a rheumatologist i said I would. the rheumatologist told me i didn’t have polymyalgia but they didn’t know what was wrong with me, but I was making white blood cells, I have been having lots of muscle problems legs and back, but the sunlight is not a problem any more.. but still feel not a hundred percent, been over a yr now..

    My daughter in law died 3mths later, at her funeral we heard that 4 or 5 other young mums had died that week.. all from unknown causes. I have been very sick since that time and after dozens of blood tests the Drs; still don’t know whats causing all the white blood cells..

    My daughter in law just complained about feeling tired and that she nearly fell asleep while driving, then 3 mths later she died in her sleep nothing showed in the autopsy, its only while i write this down i realize i stopped driving because i kept falling asleep going half an hr down the road with my husband.
    Someones story never published nor investergated

    • I too have heard anecdotal stories secondhand by experienced rural people …there needs to be a place where they can be recorded by those nearest and dearest so that ill health …and sudden deaths passed off as strokes or epileptic seizures or heart attacks in fit youngish people are listed as suspicious…there does not seem to be testing for 1080 poisoning at hospitals

  6. I’ve got a situation in the region where I live where I am defending an initiative to protect and improve the waterways there by a council initiative when the council itself doesn’t bother to argue why its initiative is a good thing against its detractors. I’m thinking exactly the same thing.

  7. When the information is quite clear, and a pretense of balance (as the good old BBC has just clicked to) simply gives a distorted idea of “balance” demands to answer points quite often become just a ghish gallop, a concerted effort to make the other side waste time, answering points already made

  8. I heard on RNZ on the way home that one of those bad protesters is going to take Trevor Mallard to court over his statement about the death of those birds. We may not know the truth of the situation yet.
    D J S

    • I heard one of those “protestors” on Morning Report ADMIT that some of the birds were killed as roadkill. I look forward to a court case. Lets get the facts out in the open instead of relying on emotive hystrionics, misinformation, and outright lies from a bunch of misguided fanatics.

      I view anti1080 ‘activists” as just as much threat to our forests as possums, stoats, rats, etc.

  9. Not the smartest move by the protesters as presented by the media. I saw claimed elsewhere that the protesters told media at the time that the pellets were fake and most birds roadkill.
    Yet they let themselves get played, if true.

    Also consider that the “facts” presented by F and B or DoC are completely spun and devoid of details relating to negative effects, so they can’t complain of untruths, thus the debate gets more extreme at both ends.
    Wasn’t it last week when DOC claimed Iwi were on board with a poison drop and they hadn’t even consulted them?

    A DoC or F and B response to specific issues will be generic with lots of unprovable assertions of “nett benefit” despite the fact the vast majority of animals and birds aren’t monitored, and the methods used for those that are (eg bird counts) are “ less than reliable”

  10. the headline says that the protestors at parliament lied.
    i read the article that this post links to.
    this is what is said:
    ” Gurden said some of the birds, including two weka, a quail, and one of the kererū, were road-kill. The rest he said believed to have been killed by 1080, though he was not certain.

    “I didn’t watch them die, but the person who supplied them to me assured me they were from a 1080 drop zone on the West Coast from 2014.

    “He is a scientist and had been keeping them in his freezer. He wanted to test them for 1080, but he couldn’t afford it.”

    The group had not tried to mislead the public into thinking the birds had been poisoned by 1080, he said.”

    where is the lie Martyn?

    as you are on record as associating ban 1080 folk with anti-vaxx nutters and anti-flouridation fanatics, what makes you think you should be a moderator for any debate designed to shed light about 1080 use?

    • I am an anti-fluoridation fanatic and an anti-vax nutter.[ I object not to vaccination per se, but the over vaccination of small children caused by big pharma hijacking vaccination to maximise profits]. Before a few days ago I have never taken a position on 1080.However I have read all in the debate on the Daily Blog, the posts and the links. I have come away with a profound unease regarding the 1080 poisoning program.I would like to see a complete moratorium on the dropping of 1080, and an independent enquiry not conducted and arbitrated by vested interests.I understand that my views on fluoridation and vaccination will make me a deploreable to some, with the inference that my views should be disregarded on everything.That is not my problem. It is a problem for those who are unable to put forward an intellectual debate, but must resort to argumentum ad hominen [arguing at the person rather than the subject]!!!

      • Well said Pete, kinda lines up with my thinking.
        Vaccines are a case by case basis for me.
        My son, now 16, has grown up with tank water and a good teeth brushing discipline. Not a filling. He is not too dim a bulb either.

        • Meh, asking people in the comments section can be like saying “Beatle Juice” 3 times.

          The possum.

          Like its 1980’s movie counterpart this murdering bastard kills everything. For fun.
          Introduced by the fur industry, this animal has become a pest, devastating the populations of every animal smaller than it is. It’s one of the very few land animals in New Zealand that are legal to hunt all year, by everyone. Your methods of hunting are still subject to laws, of course. Sorry not sorry.

          • I think you are confusing possums with stoats Sam but never mind DoC thanks you very much.
            Actual facts not necessary to drop poison any more it seems.

            • New Zealand is a natural rainforest that took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve to the point where it could sustain itself with out the need for predictors to protect it from the hords of vegetarian animals munching all the greenery. Now only 15% of recorded bird life remains and rainforests have this wierd tree herpes. And that’s not even including farm land. In talking about the conservation estate. Of that don’t get your dick hard then nothing will.

        • The elimination of polio in this country (and elsewhere in the developed world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc) certainly testifies to the efficacy of vaccines. Same goes for a multitude of other diseases that, once upon a time, killed many infabnts, toddlers, and older children.

          It would be a travesty if we had to await a resurgence of these diseases before folks understood the value of vaccination against certain strains of bacteria and virii…

          • +1 Frank

            Its ironic that half the people posting aganst vaccinations wouldnt be here today. Theyd be dead from whooping cough, polio, rubella, measles, and a dozen other nasty childhood diseases.

      • “[ I object not to vaccination per se, but the over vaccination of small children caused by big pharma hijacking vaccination to maximise profits]. ”

        I’m surprised youre still alive, Pete. Dont be visiting any tropical third world countries any time soon, eh?

        Also watch the gardening thing. Cutting your finger on a rusty, dirty nail could have unpleasant consequences. Tetanus is a nasty way to die.

      • Very well said. Sadly it is almost impossibly to have rational debate with the pro poison people. They don’t do rational, they can’t, they don’t have a rational position to support.

        “Look, trust us, we want to drop hundreds of tonnes of a deadly toxin out of helicopters all over the country, including into waterways. It will kill pretty much anything that eats it, either on its own or as secondary by kill. We will leave the dead bodies of animals to rot in the bush or in waterways, against all internationally recognised instructions on the use of this product which clearly state that dead animals should be collected and safely disposed of. We will repeat this process for 60 years and when it hasn’t worked, we’ll increase the dosage and the amount of money thrown at this “industry”.

        Trust us, what could go wrong???”

        Yeah, that sounds totally plausible and rational doesn’t it?

    • “associating ban 1080 folk with anti-vaxx nutters and anti-flouridation fanatics, what makes you think you should be a moderator for any debate designed to shed light about 1080 use”

      Because we see time and again the same emotive hystrionics and misinformation from all these groups. They are belief-based, not fact-based. They seem to resort to manipulation of emotion and misrepresentation of “evidence” to push their cause. I do not trust them one little bit.

      • That’s DOC you’re talking about. And they’ve got all the “science”, money and the ear and mouth of the media. Good grief, considering all that they are doing a spectacularly bad job of getting their message across!!!
        Time for some new PR people at DOC and some increased budget for press releases. Could be time to get in touch with Crosby Textor possibly.

    • The problem would be for our native birds if we failed to control rats, stoats, and possums. All were introduced by our fellow homo sapiens. All would threaten our native birdlife and denude our forests. Then we really would have SILENT FORESTS if anti1080 fanatics got their way.

      Is that what you want Lolbagz?

      • Every country has introduced species. EVERY single one. What is your plan? Eco purity genocide followed by a chain link fence and closure of the country?
        Maybe we could put up cameras and viewers could subscribe? They certainly won’t be able to come here if the Predator Free 2050 crew get their way!!!
        Eugenie the Greenie’s latest plan, 11 million taxpayer dollars for a predator free Waiheke!
        2 million visitors a year, thousands of unannounced boats, commuter vessels traveling back and forward to Auckland every 30 minutes. Sorry sir/madam, need to check your bag/briefcase/lunchbox.

        Anyone who supports this should be instantly removed from any position of responsibility and their knife and fork replaced with a plastic spoon.
        I would say lunatics, but they are very well funded. Maybe that’s more to the point than their stupidity.

  15. Why have most countries worldwide ceased the use of 1080 ?

    Why are we one of the major users of the material worldwide ?

    Is there a case for an Integrated Pest Management Program where pests/rodents are out of control ?

    Is there any publicly available information on the actual effectiveness of 1080 in the drop zones, ie reliable statistical information on b4 and after populations of target and non target species ?

  16. Why have most countries worldwide ceased the use of 1080 ?

    Why are we one of the major users of the material worldwide ?

    Is there a case for an Integrated Pest Management Program where pests/rodents are out of control ?

    Is there any publicly available information on the actual effectiveness of 1080 in the drop zones, ie reliable statistical information on b4 and after populations of target and non target species ?

    • What are Forest & Bird doing about this?????.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/105093180/The-big-fertiliser-companies-are-accused-of-quashing-a-more-environmentally-friendly-way-of-applying-nitrogen

      The big fertiliser companies are accused of quashing a more environmentally friendly way of applying nitrogen

      TOM LEE/STUFF.

      A new fertiliser system

      Bert Quin talks about the new fertiliser spreading system he has created.

      The two big fertiliser companies are accused of quashing a more environmentally friendly method of applying nitrogen, in order to protect profits. Tony Wall investigates for ‘Growing Pain’ a Stuff series examining New Zealand’s dangerous addiction to fertiliser.

      Taupo helicopter operator Mark Williams thought he’d hit on the holy grail – a system of applying nitrogen that meant up to three times the grass growth and less leaching.

      It was a simple method that had been around for years – instead of applying fertiliser such as urea in a solid, granular form, the product is ground up, water is added to create a slurry, and it’s sprayed on pasture from the air or ground.

      Known as fine particle application, proponents of the system say it’s a far more efficient way of applying fertiliser because more nutrients are taken up by the plant and less is lost to the atmosphere and through leaching.

      Advocates of fine particle application say the mixture can be sprayed right up to the edge of streams and rivers, without leaching into the water.

      But scientists working for the big-two farmer-owned co-operatives, Ballance Agri-Nutrients and Ravensdown, rubbish the claims and say there’s no science to back it up.

      Williams, whose Lakeview Helicopters does fertiliser spreading, didn’t need convincing though.

      A couple of years ago, when the “arse fell out of dairy prices”, he says, “a farmer said to me ‘we’re going to have to get nitrogen to work more efficiently'”.

      Williams had already been googling fine particle application and decided to give it a go himself, mixing up some urea in a blender in his kitchen until it looked like “a kid’s slushy”, then spraying it on his lawn next to a patch treated with granular urea.

      “The difference in grass growth was phenomenal.”

      The big challenge was finding the equipment to grind up and apply the fertiliser – he spent about $200,000 developing a machine that could do it.

      Then he started some free trials, including spraying 100ha of a farm near Taupo owned by Landcorp’s Pāmu Farms.

      Williams says the results were impressive, with three times the grass growth of standard urea.

      Even taking into account the added cost of spreading the fertiliser in fine particle form, the method works out far cheaper for the farmer, he says.

      “Within 16 days, you could graze the paddock again. If they did that with granular [urea] they’d be waiting six to seven weeks. It’s bloody amazing.”

      Prilled urea in wetted form and treated with urease inhibitor is applied to a farm in Waikato.

      The farm manager, Richard McNae, confirmed the trial “worked really well” but he wasn’t authorised to speak to the media.

      Williams says he hoped to do the rest of the farm, and others in the area which had shown interest, but reps from the fertiliser companies convinced them not to proceed.

      “The fertiliser companies discredited it. They were saying [the result] was because it’s such a great growing year. That’s bulls….

      “The fert companies don’t want it because if it really took off farmers would buy a quarter of the amount of urea.

      “Environmentally, it’s the right thing we should all be doing.”

      Simon King, Pāmu’s head of communications, says the state-owned company is regularly approached by suppliers who use the fine particle method and it’s been observed on some farms.

      “However, at this stage Pāmu has not been presented with consistent data … that provides the confidence we need to conclusively use it as a substitute for other application methods for nitrogen fertilisers.”

      Pāmu is committed to lowering its use of synthetic fertiliser on its more than 120 farms, King says, and will continue to assess the fine particle method.

      Williams has given up, and sold his machine to another helicopter operator.

      “I’m sick of banging my head against the wall. If they want to keep pouring [granular] urea on their ground, so be it – let them do what they want, not what they should be doing.”

      Matt Newton, owner of Precision Helicopters in Taranaki, bought Williams’ machinery.

      He treats about 30,000ha a year, around 15 to 20 farms, using the fine particle application method.

      “In a nutshell, it’s just a way of distributing the nutrient perfectly evenly and that’s where it shines. There’s less waste and it’s way better for the environment. You can’t beat it really.”

      But, Newton says, even though you only have to use about half the amount of urea, the costs of spreading it are much higher and he thinks for that reason it hasn’t taken off like it could have.

      “If I’ve got to do a [fine particle] job I’ve got to turn up with a fertiliser factory – I’m carting around mixing tanks and quite a bit of complex equipment.”

      Brett Emeny, the doyen of fine particle application whose company FPA NZ has won environmental awards, says it’s been an uphill battle over many years to convince the industry to get on board.

      “That’s the crazy thing, it’s not new to us but it’s new to everybody we introduce it to, every new farming group or consultancy firm, Landcorp – they say ‘sounds good but we really don’t know a lot about it’ – then you have to run demonstrations to show them how good it is.”

      “Tradition has been our biggest competition all the way along.”

      Emeny says years of trial work shows that fine particle application produces about twice the growth response as granular fertiliser, making it more economic despite the higher costs of spreading.

      “The cost per kg of growing the grass is a whole lot lower, that’s the beauty of it – so its a high standard of fertiliser application and the end result is a lower cost per kg of grass growth.”

      He doesn’t want to criticise Ballance and Ravensdown because he still has to buy fertiliser from them, but you can sense his frustration when he talks about their reluctance to back the method.

      “What they don’t like is farmers taking the option of putting lower rates on and getting as good a result – their business is a volume sales business.

      “They’ll argue until the cows come home that there’s not enough science to qualify that there should be a change to this type of technology.”

      Dr Jamie Blennerhassett, innovation leader at Ballance Agri-Nutrients, was once a believer in fine particle application …
      Supplied
      Dr Jamie Blennerhassett, innovation leader at Ballance Agri-Nutrients, was once a believer in fine particle application of fertiliser. Not now.

      Dr Jamie Blennerhassett used to be a believer in fine particle application.

      Now, as innovation leader for Ballance, he’s a naysayer.

      He first became aware of the technology over a decade ago when he was head of research and development for Summit Quinphos, a small fertiliser company that was later bought out by Ballance.

      Emeny approached the firm saying “we’ve got this cool technology, are you interested”, Blennerhassett says, “and we said ‘yes’.”

      They did field trials, “and we got results that convinced us enough to start selling and promoting the concept.”

      But he says further independent trials through Ag Research didn’t back up those results.

      “Essentially they all came back and showed, yes there was a slight increase in the uptake through the leaves as urea … but that never ended up resulting in any extra pasture.

      “So you got a little boost to begin with and it never flowed through.”

      Claims the system is better for the environment are overstated, he says, as 90 per cent of leaching comes from cows’ urine rather than directly from fertiliser.

      Blennerhassett says Ballance is focusing on products containing urease inhibitors which disrupt the chemical process that causes nitrogen to be lost to the atmosphere.

      He rejects the argument that the fertiliser companies are holding back new technology to protect volume sales. Ballance sold 1.64m tonnes of product in the past financial year for profit of $71m, up from $57m the year before.

      “As a co-op we don’t want to sell fertiliser our customers don’t need. If you look at the biggest driver of our shareholders at the moment, it’s in the environmental space … they want us to help solve burning sustainability issues.”

      Ravensdown’s chief scientific officer, Dr Ants Roberts, says proponents of fine particle application will often add other things, such as the growth hormone gibberellic acid, which can boost grass growth.

      They have to claim huge efficiency gains, he says, to justify the greater costs.

      “The claims they make, I can’t see being justified by the science, therefore I tell the farmers ‘look at the cost, and you’ll get no extra benefit of doing it that way’.”

      A Ravensdown spokesman insisted that sales tonnage is not the key performance metric for the company.

      “In those situations where the science showed that the farmer and environment would gain from applying less fertiliser, then that was a win for Ravensdown.”

      Dr Bert Quin says “establishment” scientists have their “minds in the mud” when it comes to more efficient ways of applying nitrogen fertiliser.

      Quin is a highly respected researcher who was chief scientist for soil fertility at the Ruakura Research Centre in the 1980s before setting up his own firm, Quinphos Fertilisers.

      Along with Blennerhassett, he was an early advocate of fine particle application but has since developed his own system which he claims is even better.

      Called Onesystem, it uses urea in prilled form, negating the need for expensive grinding machinery. A urease inhibitor is applied to the wetted prills as they are spread, which Quin says prevents loss to the atmosphere.

      It’s been used on a large farm in Victoria, Australia to good effect, he says, but the fertiliser co-ops here “damn it with faint praise”.

      “There’s a simple reason. If you make urea twice as efficient you’re only going to sell half as much.”

      The Ministry of Primary Industries has given more than $16m to fertiliser efficiency projects led by Ballance and Ravensdown but Quin says they focused on things like how to spread fertiliser on hill country.

      “We’re the only country in the world that’s doing virtually no research on how to make fertiliser nutrients themselves more efficient.

      “I try not to think about what could really have been achieved with a fraction of the taxpayers’ dollars.”

      Meanwhile, the debate over whether the fine particle application method actually works continues to rage.

      An article in the New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research in May, by ex-Ag Research and Ballance agronomists, reviewed the research on fine particle application and found there is “insufficient evidence to show any agronomic advantage … over a granular fertiliser product”.

      But a literature review by agricultural consultant Chris Crossley, commissioned by Living Water, a joint project between Fonterra and the Department of Conservation, found there were significant benefits from the method, with greater pasture growth and reduced nitrate leaching.

      Living Water’s national manager, Sarah Yarrow, says the group commissioned a fine particle application trial at Waituna, Southland, where slightly more grass growth was achieved with about half the nitrogen used in granular application.

      She says although the fertiliser companies have upped their use of sustainability consultants, their volume sales model is an impediment to progress.

      “I don’t think they’ve addressed what does it mean if we need to use less fertiliser to achieve the environmental outcomes we want, what does that actually look like?”

      Once the Waituna results have been analysed, Yarrow says, Living Water will approach the companies about what more needs to be done to convince them fine particle application is viable.

      “If I was a farmer making choices about buying half as much fertiliser and one of the benefits might be that you reduce your impact on the environment, then why wouldn’t you? It’s kind of a no brainer.”

      Mark Shepherd, principal scientist of farm systems and environment for Ag Research, says from what he’s seen of the Waituna trial, the possibilities are exciting.

      “There definitely seemed to be a yield advantage, I definitely think there’s something in it.”

      Shepherd says he’s been impressed with the trial work done by FPA NZ, which builds up its database every time it takes on a new client, and he has spoken to Living Water about doing a full analysis of the data.

      Shane Harold worked in senior roles for Ravensdown for 26 years before starting his own firm, Fert Wholesale Direct.

      Shane Harold of Fert Wholesale Direct with ammonium sulphate fertiliser from China.

      Shane Harold of Fert Wholesale Direct with ammonium sulphate fertiliser from China.

      He promotes Quin’s Onesystem and is scathing of the lack of efficiency gains in the use of fertiliser in the past 30 years.

      There’s a simple reason for it, he says – the duopoly control of the industry.

      “In a nutshell, having no competition stifles innovation. They [the big two companies] are reliant on 1970s and 80s science, they are not investing in a lot of what I call productive science.

      “Because New Zealand doesn’t have direct competition it has allowed the industry to price products to allow them to maximise tonnage rather than perhaps benefit [the environment].”

      Harold claims that during his time, sales reps were trained to dissuade farmers from trying alternatives.

      A contract milker from Taupo, who asked that his name not be published for fear of repercussions, says he saw first hand the “outstanding” results of a fine particle application trial on his farm.

      But fertiliser company reps convinced the owner the system wouldn’t work.

      “It’s an uphill battle for a lot of us managers. Farm owners are fairly traditionalist – they do everything by the book and do as these fert companies tell them to do.

      “The fert companies are in it for the money obviously – they have a lot of influence over the farmers.”

      We are now seeing the hollowing out of our environmental regulations in NZ by large overseas corporations getting around Government controls so what will happen under TPPA??????

      Our government has truly been nobbled at making water quality and climate change able to be effectively acted upon sadly.

      How much is enough?

  17. Bradbury your comments are completely inane, as is your pretence at impartiality.

    The protest bird throwing was symbolic. It isn’t always easy to get your hands on dead birds after a poison drop, not because they aren’t there, but because said areas are subject to lockdown imposed by DOC and their thugs. Then there is the small issue of transporting said birds to Wellington, considering it is illegal to be in possession of said birds.

    You dribble on about moderating a debate, how is that possible when you state on FB that anti 1080 protesters are liars? Trevor Mallard is the liar here. Accusing protesters of bludgeoning native birds? How completely pathetic can he get?
    A declaration is needed, are you a member or contributor to Forest and Bird, DOC, OSPRI or any of the other fascists hell bent on destroying what little is left of the clean green reputation this country once had??

    • Oh Tom, what a wee charmer you are.

      Your paranoia is hilarious, but I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever had any contact to Forest & Bird, DoC, OSPRI or anyone else with skin in this game champ.

      I just find your poorly executed anger and rage to be a bit cult and crazy.

      • Well Martyn, are you saying you could impartially moderate a debate after the comments you have made?

        Good to know you aren’t another of those suburban eco warriors who think a $20 donation to FnB is akin to saving the planet. I wasn’t being paranoid, simply asking for a declaration that you aren’t part of that fascist agenda due to concerns about some of your comments re those who oppose poisoning.

        Now respond to this please. What is your opinion of DOC deliberately poisoning a threatened native bird? Hundreds of them?
        I am asking you because I have contacted all of the relevant MPs from each party and all of the mainstream media outlets. Also a couple of media talking heads including John Campbell. I have supplied evidence of this.

        NOBODY has responded, not even to call me a paranoid and delusional anti vaxxer, climate change denier, 9/11 conspiracy theorist or any of those other throwaway lines used regularly to deflect from the point at hand in an attempt to portray the writer as some foll hat wearing hippy on methadone. Which I am not.
        Nope, not even a denial, just a flat refusal to engage.

        What’s your response? Want to see the evidence? Or is that in your “too hard” basket?

        BTW I don’t do anger and rage, promise. Happy to have a chat any time.

      • So, any response to my second post? Or are you still mulling it over? Take your time. The evidence won’t go away. Cheer.

      • No response and my post not published? Must be great to be in charge of the narrative, means you always get the last word. Oh well, another nail in the coffin of the “left” in NZ. It’s always good to know these things, helps clear the air and dispels any illusions of what people are up against.

  18. @ MJOLNIR…do you dispute this?

    IN 2004 THE DHS WAS ASKED TO BAN THE PRODUCTION OF ODORLESS, TASTELESS 1080 – THE MOST TOXIC PESTICIDE REGISTERED BY WHO – BECAUSE IT COULD BE USED BY TERRORISTS TO POISON US WATER SUPPLIES

    https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2018/09/14/in-2004-the-dhs-was-asked-to-ban-the-production-of-odorless-tasteless-1080-the-most-toxic-pesticide-registered-by-who-because-it-could-be-used-by-terrorists-to-poison-us-water-supplies/

Comments are closed.