Lessons for the management of highly productive land

Two years after Cyclone Gabrielle devastated the Hawke’s Bay and Tairawhiti regions, what have we learned about recovery?

Cyclone Gabrielle struck New Zealand in February 2023, causing widespread flooding that affected Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne/Tairawhiti, and Northland. In Hawke’s Bay and Tairawhiti, Cyclone Gabrielle was characterised by the enormous amount of sediment that was deposited on some of the county’s most highly productive land.

It was an extraordinarily difficult year characterised not by a single catastrophic event but by cumulative impacts from severe storms and several additional weather events including Cyclone Hale in January, Cyclone Gabrielle and Son of Gabrielle in February, and others that followed particularly in the Wairoa and Tairawhiti areas.

In November 2025, we co-hosted with FAR and Vegetable Research and Innovation, a symposium for researchers to share and compare findings from studies of Cyclone Gabrielle and recovery. Around 60 people gathered in Havelock North for two days. Thank you to all the organisations that sponsored the symposium, allowing it to be run with no fees for the participants.

A great deal of semi-coordinated activity followed in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. However, there was much incomplete work that would add value by helping enrich our understanding of the longer-term effects of different management responses in different scenarios. The symposium brought together those who investigated Cyclone Gabrielle’s impacts on highly productive land. They presented and discussed findings and observations to draw out lessons to aid land managers and policy makers in future events.

Among the questions were:

1. What are the lessons to pass on to those impacted by future events?
2. What are the lessons for policy makers?
3. What are the economic outcomes from different approaches?
4. How have sites responded to different management of cropping soils, given different sediment types and depths?
5. How have sites responded to the removal of sediment and any subsequent soil amelioration efforts?
6. Have permanent crops responded differently to different approaches applied in similar scenarios?
7. Are all soils recovering quickly? Will they return to previous productivity levels?

Twenty presentations covered historic storm events of note, the weather conditions before and during the cyclone, geological influences, immediate responses, food safety, and longer-term trials seeking to understand how best to return high value land to best production. We thank all the presenters for telling their stories, and all delegates for their contributions to the discussion.

At the end of the symposium, Dirk Wallace led a feedback session in which all delegates responded to a set of questions:

1. What elements aided recovery and what lessons can inform policy and sector planning?
2. What surprises and challenges emerged during recovery?
3. What key takeaways should guide future preparedness?
4. What information is still missing?

Across questions, several themes consistently emerged.

• Communication and collaboration were identified as critically important.
• Data and research surfaced as both a strength and a challenge.
• Infrastructure and preparedness were recurring concerns.
• On the technical front, soil and crop recovery exceeded expectations, with yields rebounding faster than anticipated.
• Finally, human and social dimensions were central to recovery success. Mental health support, patience, and direct communication with experienced peers were repeatedly stressed.

Participants agreed on several priority actions:

1. Establish a central information hub with regional portals to provide consistent, accessible guidance and data.
2. Commission targeted research on rainfall patterns, soil microbiology, contamination risks, and crop-specific recovery timelines, delivered in decision-ready formats.
3. Strengthen pre-event coordination through drills, contact lists, and local decision-making authority, alongside investment in backup infrastructure.
4. Embed human-first supports, including mental health services, peer advisory panels, and tailored financial relief for vulnerable growers.
5. Integrate disaster risk reduction and nature-based solutions (e.g., wetlands, “room for rivers”) into long-term land-use planning.

The symposium captured invaluable knowledge that will help communities and policymakers prepare for and respond to future events. Visit the Cyclone Gabrielle Research Symposium page to access all presentations, with videos coming soon.

Thanks everyone! Sally Anderson, Dirk Wallace and Dan Bloomer – Symposium Convenors

The butternuts in the Carbon Positive trial were planted on the 15th of November. Before the butternuts emerged, there was a high weed pressure in the conventional treatment. Therefore, it was sprayed with Buster, while the other two treatments were not.

Emergence

When the butternuts started to emerge, we noticed there was cutworm damage and found cutworms. Cutworms are one of the main insect pests in butternut crops. They chew through the butternut’s stem at ground level, killing the plant. Once we identified the problem, we sprayed Bestseller before the cutworms did too much damage.

Side Dressing

Before sidedressing, our fortnightly soil nitrate testing showed there was 80 kg N/ha in the Conventional treatment, 71 kg N/ha in the Hybrid, and 62 kg N/ha in the Regenerative treatment.

At sidedressing, the Conventional treatment received the ‘standard’ rate of YaraBela CAN (150 kg/ha). For the Hybrid treatment, the goal was to apply a half rate of YaraBela CAN (75 kg/ha), but the lowest the side dressing machine could be calibrated to was 113 kg/ha, so that is the rate we used. The Hybrid treatment also received a foliar application of seaweed. The Regenerative treatment only received a foliar application of seaweed, Megafol, and fulvic acid, as the soil nitrate results showed there was a sufficient level of Nitrate-N in the soil.

Weed Management

Standard weed management would use an inter-row cultivator before the butternuts start running. We felt there wasn’t a high enough weed pressure to do this, and that it could cause a weed strike if we disturb the uncultivated areas in the Hybrid and Regenerative treatments. All treatments were hand-weeded with a push hoe to remove any weeds before the butternuts started to run.

Operation Advisory Group

The Operation Avisory Group has met weekly, and they are happy with how the butternuts are growing, the low weed pressure and the disease pressure.

A big thank you to Andy for taking the time to side-dress our butternuts.

Carbon Positive is a partnership between LandWISE, the HB Future Farming Trust, McCain Foods, Heinz-Wattie’s and Process Vegetables NZ.

During the tomato crop (26/10/2023 – 6/3/2024), the Regenerative treatment had significantly lower nitrate levels than the Conventional and Hybrid treatments, despite all three receiving similar amounts of nitrogen. This lower nitrate level was likely due to the breakdown of the cover crop. Approximately 12 t/ha of cover crop, mainly oats, was incorporated into the soil two days before planting, which would have tied up nitrogen.

Since then, different amounts of nitrogen have been applied across treatments, and there has been no significant difference in soil nitrate levels, except during the period when the Conventional and Hybrid treatments were in peas, while the Regenerative treatment remained in cover crop.

Amount of Nitrogen applied during each crop, by treatment.

Butternuts

Our pre-season soil tests showed that there was 110 kg of potentially available nitrogen in the Conventional, 93. 3 in the Hybrid and 97.3 in the Regenerative treatment.

Two days before the butternuts were planted, there were 32 kg Nitrate-N/ha in the Conventional, 39 in the Hybrid, and 46 in the Regenerative treatment.

At planting, the Conventional and Hybrid treatments received 300 kg of Complex, whereas the Regenerative treatment received 150 kg of Complex. This increased the kg of Nitrate-N in the Conventional to 80, the Hybrid to 71, and the Regenerative to 63.

At side dressing, the Conventional treatment got 150 kg/ha of CAN. The Hybrid got 113 kg/ha of CAN and a foliar application of seaweed. The Regenerative treatment got a foliar application of seaweed, Megafol, and fulvic acid.

When testing for nitrate after side dressing, we avoided the area where the fertiliser was applied. The nitrate test showed similar results to last time. There is 74 Kg of Nitrate-N in the Conventional, 73 in the Hybrid and 65 in the Regenerative treatment. We can assume the conventional is 18 kg higher and the Hybrid is 13.6 kg higher, as this is how much nitrogen was applied at side dressing.

Our aim is to push the limits of regenerative cropping to understand how much nitrogen input can be reduced. Based on potentially available nitrogen and fortnightly soil nitrate results, the Operations Advisory Group decided not to apply granular fertiliser to the Regenerative treatment at side-dressing.

A similar approach was taken last season in beans, where no granular fertiliser was applied at side-dressing and a foliar approach was used instead. Soil nitrate levels remained similar across all treatments, and the Regenerative treatment produced the highest bean yield.

We will continue to monitor nitrate levels fortnightly, and we will do leaf testing during fruit set.

In November, we co-hosted a research symposium with Vegetable Research and Innovation and the Foundation for Arable Research. The symposium brought together those who had investigated Cyclone Gabrielle’s impacts on highly productive land to present and discuss findings and observations, and draw out lessons to aid land managers and policy makers in future events.

A great deal of semi-coordinated activity followed in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. However, there was much incomplete work that would add value by helping enrich our understanding of the longer-term effects of different management responses in different scenarios.

The symposium brought together researchers, advisors, farmers/growers and others involved in observing the impacts on productive land and the effects of different responses in the cases of Cyclone Gabrielle and previous similar events. More than 20 presentations covered historic events, the broader climate context of Cyclone Gabrielle, a range of land use types and many areas of research.

The convenors (Sally Anderson, Dirk Wallace and Dan Bloomer) are now in the process of collating the proceedings and preparing to load material on the conference web page. We’ll do posts as items are loaded with abstracts, summaries and presentation videos. From the outset, the response to the calamity that was Cyclone Gabrielle has been one of high support and collegiality from many, many quarters. The symposium was our attempt to get the best from all the work that was done and find the lessons for those impacted by future events.

We are most grateful for the support and enthusiastic involvement of all the presenters and delegates and the organisations that funded the event.

The Conventional treatment was planted with treated seed and 300kg/ha of Complex fertiliser.

The Hybrid treatment was planted with treated seed, coated in TrichoStart and 300kg/ha of Complex fertiliser. Mycorrcin, Biostart N and TrichoStart were applied at planting via liquid injection.

The Regenerative treatment was planted with untreated seed, and 5kg/ha of humates mixed with 150kg of Complex fertiliser. As with the hybrid treatment, mycorrcin, Biostart N, and TrichoStart were applied via liquid injection.

After planting, all treatments received Ironmax slug bait before two 50cm strips of pre-emergeence herbicide, Frontier-P and Magister, were strip-sprayed over the plant lines.

Throughout the season, the Operations Advisory Group and Heinz-Wattie’s agronomists will meet weekly to track how the butternuts are growing. Together, they’ll make the calls on crop protection, weeding, fungicide and insecticide use, and adjust management decisions as the season unfolds.

A big thank you to Gareth Holder from Redloh Horticulture for taking the time to plant our butternuts.

Carbon Positive is a partnership between LandWISE, the HB Future Farming Trust, McCain Foods, Heinz-Wattie’s and Process Vegetables NZ.

Carbon Positive is, unsurprisingly, tracking soil carbon levels under our three different management approaches. We have two key measurements; total soil carbon and hot water extractable carbon. Hot water extractable carbon is a laboratory test measure of labile carbon, which is the ‘active’ carbon that drives soil biological processes. It is a very small portion of the total carbon, but it is doing the heavy lifting.

Starting from our November 2022 baseline of 4.1 tonnes of labile carbon per hectare, levels rose modestly to 4.6 T/ha by June 2024 following summer sweetcorn and winter cover crops. The dramatic change came after the winter cover crops that followed the process tomato crop. By November 2024, carbon stocks had jumped to 5.3 T/ha across all treatments – a 29% increase from baseline. But this peak proved temporary. Following the peas and beans double-crop, June 2025 measurements returned to 4.2 T/ha, essentially back where we started. Look at the interactive charts below.

The most striking finding is how similarly all three management approaches responded to each crop sequence. Whether under conventional, hybrid, or regenerative management, the carbon patterns were remarkably consistent: modest gains after sweetcorn, substantial peaks after tomatoes and cover crops, and return to baseline after legumes.

This suggests the biological systems under all three management approaches are equally robust and responsive. More importantly, any treatment effects are currently being swamped by much larger crop-driven fluctuations. The summer crop choice appears to matter more than tillage practices or input strategies, at least in these early years.

Process tomatoes produce a lot of biomass – not just fruit, but extensive root systems and above-ground residues that get incorporated after harvest. The charts show that at the end of the tomato crop, the labile carbon in the deeper layers was much higher. Then the November 2024 sampling captured this system at peak carbon input, just as winter cover crops were maturing and contributing even more biomass.

The subsequent return to baseline following legumes suggests that, while peas and beans fix nitrogen and benefit soil health in other ways, their carbon inputs and cycling patterns clearly differ from high-biomass crops like tomatoes.

The conventional system plants annual ryegrass and grazes it with lambs through winter, while hybrid and regenerative treatments establish ungrazed multispecies cover crop mixes. Despite these fundamentally different approaches – livestock integration versus plant-only systems – both pathways track the same carbon cycling patterns through all crop sequences.

Three years of data teaches us that patience is essential when evaluating soil carbon outcomes. The large crop-driven fluctuations mean we need several complete rotation cycles before drawing firm conclusions about management system effects. However, the consistent responses across all treatments offer important reassurance indicating that all approaches demonstrated equivalent biological function and responsiveness to crop inputs. Rather than seeing carbon “loss” in the return to baseline by 2025, we’re observing a biologically active system cycling around a stable equilibrium.

So far, our research demonstrates that soil carbon in working farm systems follows complex biological rhythms that require patient observation. The apparent “return to baseline” doesn’t represent system failure, but rather the natural cycling of a healthy, biologically active farming system responding predictably to diverse crop inputs. We’re sampling again in early November – what will we find?

Make sure you’ve signed up to receive our newsletter to hear when field walks and other relevant events are being offered.

Validation and Practical Implementation of the Nitrachek 404

Have you tried to match soil test strip colours against the colours on the tin, and found yourself wondering if you’re seeing the right shade of purple? Those days of guesswork can be over.

The Nitrachek 404 is like having a portable lab right in your paddock. Instead of relying on visual colour matching, this electronic device reads test strips and displays precise digital readings. No more uncertainty about whether the lighting is affecting your colour judgment.

Proven Results

With funding from Te Ahikawariki, we worked with vegetable growers and agronomists to test the Nitrachek 404 across Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, Pukekohe, and Gisborne. When comparing soil sample Quick Tests against Hill Labs analysis, we achieved 95.5% correlation with laboratory methods when proper protocols were followed.

The economics are compelling too. Laboratory tests cost ~$40 per sample, while Nitrachek strips are about $3 each. For farms requiring frequent monitoring, the device pays for itself very quickly – delivering 90% cost savings per sample.

We have conducted well over a thousand Nitrate Quick Test soil assessments over the last five years. We have identified four key sources of error: sample collection, sample preparation, reading the test strip accurately and reliably, and adjusting for soil moisture content. We have prepared resources for growers taking soil samples so check out our LandWISE Online Learning pages.

We had some major issues comparing our quick test results with those from the commercial laboratory. In some cases, the samples were badly affected by heat or wetness during transport to the lab, resulting in dubious results. But the biggest issue was properly applying the correct soil moisture. To get accurate results, we found that using the soil moisture percentage was critical. We used the online calculator that estimates soil moisture based on your soil type and whether you think the sample is wet, moist or dry. On our MicroFarm soils, this put us 30% out compared to Hill Labs – far too much for budgeting. We worked through issues with Matt Norris from BSI – Plant and Food and found that an equation using actual measured soil moisture made all the difference.

Getting the right answer

We make sure to measure actual soil moisture percentage. We either use a Hydrosense twin-prong soil moisture tester in the field, or we weigh the soil samples that we collect. After sieving the sample for the Quick Test, we dry 100 g of the left-over soil and weigh it again dry. That is easy to do and the most accurate method.

There are still a few maths steps to get from the test strip to the amount on nitrogen in your paddock! You need to calibrate the device, each batch of test strips, adjust for actual soil moisture, soil density, sample depth and, if you want maximum accuracy, add a final lab correction factor to have Quick Test results exactly match laboratory results. That is a bit of a nuisance and leaves lots of room for mistakes, so we developed an online calculator for you.

The online calculator eliminates the complexity of converting raw readings into useful field values. You enter your Nitrachek reading, correction factors, soil moisture content, and soil density, and it converts the data into the nitrate nitrogen values you need (kg/ha).

Practical Considerations

The device isn’t perfect for every situation. Some growers found the one-minute testing time slower than visual estimation for quick field checks. If you just need approximate values for immediate decisions, visual methods still work well.

However, for precise nutrient budgeting, regulatory compliance, or entering specific data into management software, the Nitrachek delivers laboratory-level accuracy at a fraction of the cost.

Getting Consistent Results

Success depends on following proper protocols. The research identified sample handling as crucial – keeping samples cool during transport and processing them promptly significantly improves accuracy. Device and strip calibrations are also essential, as each batch of test strips requires calibration due to manufacturing variations.

We found the device was accurate within the 2-75 ppm range we tested. That should cover most typical pre-planting conditions in New Zealand vegetable production. The graph below shows results from the MicroFarm and shows an average 7% difference between the quick test and lab results. You might not worry about 7%, but if you do, the online calculator lets you correct it.

For growers focused on precision agriculture and environmental compliance, this represents genuine progress – laboratory-quality soil testing that’s both affordable and immediate.

Download our full report here>

Many thanks to Te Ahikawariki for funding and supporting this work. And many thanks to the growers who took part, tested the method and the device, and gave us useful feedback. And special thanks to Matt Norris for helping us crack the puzzle and providing the “Norris Equation” that properly accounts for soil moisture levels.

With funding from Te Ahikawariki, we teamed up with regional agronomists to ask a number of growers about cover cropping. We wanted to learn what the barriers were to new entrants, and what the ongoing headaches were for those who do use cover crops.

Three-quarters of the 32 growers surveyed have been using cover crops for an average of 23 years. These aren’t beginners struggling with basics—these are people who’ve figured out how to make cover crops profitable, and their insights challenge everything we think we know about adoption barriers.

We were perhaps not too surprised to find the barriers everyone assumes matter most actually don’t. Equipment access scored just 1.2 out of 4 as a barrier—the lowest of everything measured. Information gaps scored only 1.6. These experienced growers have moved way beyond those basic issues.

So what are the real barriers? Three big ones that actually matter:

1. Nitrogen Tie-Up (The Technical Killer)

Cover crops locking up nutrients when your cash crop desperately needs them. This scored 2.7 out of 4—the highest barrier measured. It’s not about getting cover crops established; it’s about managing what happens to your nitrogen afterward.

2. Weed Management Gone Wrong

Getting effective suppression without creating new problems. Too often, cover crops become part of the weed problem themselves rather than solving it.

3. Operational Flexibility (The Hidden Killer)

This one was not even in our list of questions but came through loud and clear in grower comments. As a Hawke’s Bay grower put it:

“Once land is cover cropped it ties it up for a period of time and if it’s a wet season then it reduces options and we can fall behind in our planting programme.”

It’s about losing the ability to adapt when weather doesn’t cooperate. That’s a fundamental farming system challenge, not a technical problem you can solve with research.

Why Three-Quarters of These Growers Persist

Despite the barriers, 75% of surveyed growers use cover crops. What’s driving them?

Soil structure improvement absolutely dominates. It scored 3.4 out of 4, with 87% rating it as highly important. Half called it “make-or-break” for their decision.

One Pukekohe grower explained: “The difference in soil workability after a few years of cover crops is dramatic—better water infiltration, easier cultivation, improved root penetration.”

Interestingly, environmental benefits come second. Biodiversity enhancement, soil moisture management, input reduction—they all scored well, but practical farming benefits drive adoption more than environmental ideals. These growers are businesspeople first.

Species That Work (And the Ones to Run From)

After 23 years of collective experience, some clear winners and losers have emerged:

The Champions:

• Oats: Top the list for reliable establishment, easy termination, good biomass production
• Annual ryegrass: Consistent cover, works with livestock
• Vetch: Nitrogen fixation benefits

The Problem Children:

Multiple growers warned about rye—”potential to become a weed” and “difficult to remove.” Brassicas got harsh verdicts too, especially near seed crops. One grower’s blunt assessment: “Radish is a strict no no” because of contamination risks.

And those complex multi-species mixes everyone talks about? “Hard to manage and control weeds” was the verdict. The experienced growers say start simple, learn the basics, then add complexity gradually. Seed crop contamination is huge here because of our export industry. You can’t afford volunteers in the wrong places.

Land tenure creates headaches too. Landlords want to graze cover crops for income while growers want maximum biomass for soil benefits. As one frustrated grower explained:

“When cover crops are grazed we see little benefit especially over a wet period as we need more cultivation and have worse soil structure.”

These aren’t technical problems you can research your way out of—they’re structural issues that need policy solutions.

We’re Not Alone in This

The good news? Remarkably similar patterns show up internationally. US research confirms soil health is the primary driver globally—87% internationally versus our 87.5%. The same technical challenges around nitrogen management and termination timing appear everywhere. We’re not unique in our barriers, which means we can learn from solutions developed overseas.

Getting Started: Advice from the Trenches

What’s the advice for growers considering cover crops? Start simple. Pick one reliable species like oats. Begin on less critical paddocks. Most importantly, plan your termination method before you plant—that’s where many beginners fail. Expect a learning curve. One Canterbury grower with 15 years’ experience captured it perfectly:

“The first year taught me what not to do. The second year taught me what might work. By the third year, I started to see why everyone talks about soil structure benefits.”

At the bottom of this post you can download a link to a report by Charles “Merf” Merfield. We asked him to put his experience and thoughts on paper for all to see. It’s well worth your time to read. In brief, Merf says:

Simply put, cover crops are plants you grow for reasons other than selling them. Think of them as your farm’s support crew—they’re not the stars of the show, but they make everything else work better. That’s why they’re increasingly called “service crops” overseas, which honestly makes a lot more sense when you think about it. These aren’t exotic plants we’re talking about. Most cover crops use the same species you already know well—oats, ryecorn, mustards, clovers, and annual ryegrass. The difference is how and why you’re using them.

Cover crops aren’t a one-size-fits-all solution—they’re more like a Swiss Army knife with different tools for different jobs. Green manures are all about fixing nitrogen from the air using legumes. Catch crops are your nutrient insurance policy. Mulch crops suppress weeds better than most herbicides. Smother crops actually smother established problem weeds, think of them as your biological bulldozer. Then there are the conservation biocontrol crops—plants that support beneficial insects to keep pest populations in check.

The Cost Reality

Seed costs are real—they scored 2.5 out of 4 as a barrier. But the bigger challenge is demonstrating long-term value. One grower captured the economic puzzle: “How to put a value/dollar on them, especially longer term benefits.” The benefits take 2-3 years to become obvious, so you need patience and persistence.

Thanks to Daniel Sutton for initiating this research, and the regional agronomists who helped interview growers; Andrew Luxmoore in Pukekohe, Chris Lambert in Gisborne, Dan in Hawke’s Bay, Karen Coleman in Manawatu/Levin and Charles Merfield in Canterbury. And thanks, as always to the growers who gave time to share their experiences and knowledge.

Download the Full Cover Crops Survey Report

Download a supplementary report by Charles Merfield

The LandWISE Conference, Getting to Carbon Positive, attracted more than 80 people who heard speakers on a wide range of topics related to ongoing sustainability.

Day 1 discussed ways to assess our emissions levels, how we can reduce our environmental impact through diverse farming techniques including regenerative practices and soil health, and new research around pest management.

Pii-Tuulia Nikula opened with an introduction to emissions accounting, which was followed by Uttam Floray outlining how Toitu certifies emissions. Ron McFetridge from WaterForce said he was asked by key clients about WaterForce’s emissions, which set them on a journey to reduce their emissions and environmental impact. Olivia’s take:

“I enjoyed listening to Ron discuss how WaterForce has been installing solar panels on their offices, putting in electric vehicle chargers, and deploying electric and hybrid vehicles for their staff. Given that they travel 4.5 million kilometres annually as a company, WaterForce saw electrification as an effective way to reduce emissions and environmental impact. By doing this, they are setting a precedent for other companies.”

Dan Bloomer presented results from the Carbon Positive trial including the 2024-2025 cropping programme and a Carbon balance for each of the treatments, which showed nitrogen fertilisers and diesel were the largest CO₂^-e contributors. The introduction of livestock added significantly to overall emissions, even if on farm for a relatively short time. Matt Norris presented results from regenerative cropping trials, including use of composts, at LeaderBrand in Gisborne, Angus McKenzie described how Wairuna Farm is applying the principles in Canterbury, the various things he had been trialing on his farm, and how they created a wetland to treat drainage water. Sam McNally addressed ways to increase soil carbon and explained fundamental changes in our understanding of soil carbon sequestration and carbon pathways. Photosynthesis feeds the whole system!    

Three speakers discussed beneficial non-crop plants. Dan talked about the lessons from growing multispecies cover crop mixes in the Carbon Positive trial. Charles Merfield provided information about cover crops for regenerative cropping and the need to ask what functions you wanted cover crops to perform. Jeff Smith presented lessons from biostrip and insectaries research through the A Lighter Touch project.

Day 1 was wrapped up with Asha Chhagan talking about new technologies to assist pest and disease management, and Bethan Shaw reporting on work done looking at earwigs recolonising orchard sites that had been devastated by Cyclone Gabrielle. Daniel Sutton and Chris Lambert reporting on trials with a camera equipped AI enabled pest trap.

Olivia’s take:

“The conference was a good opportunity for me to do my first conference presentation! I talked about the Slakes app and things we have learned from using it to assess soil aggregate strength, and I spoke about the Nitrachek device project that I have been running as a part of my Te Ahikawariki/VICE internship.”

Many thanks to all our sponsors, speakers and delegates!

The LandWISE Conference, Getting to Carbon Positive, attracted more than 80 people who heard speakers on a wide range of topics related to ongoing sustainability. Day 2 had a strong focus on electrification options to increase profitability and reduce emissions. New Zealand is reaching a point where solar power is the cheapest energy available – as Mike Casey noted, the cheapest form of energy ever.

Uttam Floray introduced Rewiring Aotearoa and the local chapter, Electrify Hawke’s Bay which are focused on helping promote and activate electrification. Mike Casey described the electrification of his cherry orchard and laid out a huge set of statistics and examples of ways New Zealanders can profitably swap fossil fuel machines for electric ones. Becks Smith now helps farmers work out how solar can add to their businesses having set up a solar system for irrigation pumping in Otago.

Lincoln University has chosen major investments in solar electricity to reduce emissions at the university, and Pieter-Wilem Hendriks is part of a team investigating ways to combine agricultural production with energy generation. At smaller scale, Aaron Duncan explained options for home and SME solar systems, using the Centre for Land and Water system as a case study. Boyd Benton discussed the way Ripple Tech transplants electric motors into fossil vehicles and, in a second talk, introduced micro-hydro as a viable option for sites with streams. Olivia said

“It was fantastic to hear Uttam Singh Floray, Mike Casey, Becks Smith, Pieter Hendriks, Boyd Benton, and Aaron Duncan discussing electrification and reducing emissions. You could sense their genuine passion for the topic, which made their talks even more engaging. I particularly enjoyed Mike Casey’s talk on his electric cherry farm. I found it fascinating that every piece of machinery used on the farm is electric, including the truck that transports the cherries to the packhouse. That means there are no fossil fuel carbon emissions until after the cherries have been transported from the farm.”

Horizons Regional Council Field Session

The field session on Thursday afternoon provided delegates with opportunity to get first-hand experience of some of the techniques and technologies that had been discussed. We thank “A Lighter Touch”, WaterForce, Freenergy, RippleTech, PowerSpout, Vegetables NZ, Autonabit, and Agovor for bringing their wares to demonstrate. Gadgets, machines and systems to excite, save time and money, and enable systemic changes. Olivia said

“I didn’t make it around to all the field event demonstrations, as I was demonstrating the Slakes app and the Nitrachek device. I did manage to see the smart trap, the off-grid hydro pump, the Govor robot, and the Avvy bird scaring robot. They offer so much, and we expect to see a lot more of these technologies in years to come!”

We gratefully acknowledge all our sponsors, presenters, demonstrators, and delegates!