NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 1 of 7
SAMPLE ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5): Analyse a New Zealand primary
production environmental issue
Assessment Criteria
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Analyse involves:
Critically analyse involves:
 explaining the environmental issue
arising from the primary production processes
 explaining, in detail, the issue arising from the primary production
processes
 explaining potential courses of
action to mitigate the negative impacts of the processes
 evaluating potential courses of
action to mitigate the negative impacts of the production processes
 recommending sustainable production processes.
 recommending sustainable production processes that best address the issue.
Achievement with Excellence
Comprehensively analyse
involves:
 evaluating the environmental
issue arising from the primary
production processes
 justifying potential courses of
action to mitigate the negative
impacts of the production processes (may involve comparing
and contrasting alternative
courses of action
 recommending sustainable production practices that best address the issue and are economically viable.
Evidence Statement
Expected coverage for environmental issue:
The use of agrichemicals in agricultural/horticultural systems
Agrichemicals are used in many aspects of primary production in New Zealand. These include:
(a)
 chemical sprays (fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, etc) used to control diseases, pests, and
weeds
 fertilisers used to provide additional nutrients to plants for improved growth
 drenches, pour-ons, and animal health treatments used to improve animal health and
performance.
Negative environmental implications:
 Water pollution, due to leaching of chemicals into waterways or underground aquifers.
The leaching of chemicals into waterways and aquifers is a particular risk for agricultural
fertilisers and sprays. These have the greatest potential to be applied in quantities that risk
leaching – causing increased nutrient levels in the water, accelerated growth of algae, and loss
of habitat for living organisms. The run-off from foliage of chemical sprays over time can also
end up in waterways.
(b) (i)
 Residual build-up of toxic chemicals in the soil over time.
Many chemicals applied to land and crops do not break down in the soil. Over time, their
concentration in the soil builds up to levels that may be toxic to plants and animals. Another
danger is the chemicals re-entering the food chain and negatively impacting on plant and / or
animal life.
 Harming of non-target species through the use of non-selective / broad-spectrum pesticides /
insecticides (eg honey bees).
 Air pollution caused by spray drift (eg DDT, copper-based chemicals).
(b) (ii)
Economic implications:
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 2 of 7
 Increasing the value of produce.
In many industries it is very difficult to grow produce to export specifications without the use of
agrichemicals. By using agrichemicals, growers are able to produce high-quality produce and
access high-value markets – eg pip fruit: high quality, pest- and blemish-free fruit has received
an average of ~$1.22 / kg over the past three years, while blemished fruit that is only really
accepted by the processing industry has received only ~$0.20 / kg.
 Cost of agrichemicals to the producer.
Agrichemicals are a significant expense within many farming systems. Kiwifruit growers spend
an average of $8,900 each year ($1,780 / ha) on weed and pest control, while national annual
expenditure on pesticides alone was estimated at ~$210 million in 2004.
Social implications
 Human health risks.
Many agrichemicals are very toxic and many people (especially asthmatics), suffer adverse
reactions if they come into contact with the chemical via spray drift or by some other means.
(b) (iii)
 Contamination of soil, drinking water supplies, food.
The residual nature of many agrichemicals after use means they can build up in the soil over
time (eg sheep farming to dairying, and issues around old sheep dips or rural land being
subdivided for housing). These residues can impact on potential new uses of the land. The
contamination of drinking water – especially in intensively cropped or planted regions such as
Hawke’s Bay, with shallow aquifers being used for public water supplies – is a significant issue
and potential risk.
Course of action that New Zealand producers are likely to implement (strengths and
weaknesses)
Use integrated pest management (IPM)-type programmes to manage pests / diseases /
weeds within primary production systems
Strengths
 Reduced volumes / frequencies of chemical / spray / drench use; therefore lower cost and
environmental impact.
 Selection of low toxicity or ‘soft’ pesticides / herbicides / insecticides.
 Acceptance of approved programmes in international markets, eg EUREGAP approval carries an
endorsement of the system’s sustainability and environmental awareness.
Weaknesses
 More time spent monitoring pest and disease numbers within the growing system.
(c)
 Some crops / industries do not have suitable chemicals either available or ‘registered /
approved for use’.
 This can be considered a high-risk approach – if you get it wrong, the season’s crop is
potentially ruined.
Halt the use of agrichemicals – go totally ‘organic’
Strengths
 Halts the release of agrichemicals into the environment and any negative implications /
impacts. These include adverse effects on non-target species, the build-up of residues, human
impacts, etc. As an example, it is estimated that 3,500 tonnes of agrichemical ‘active
ingredient’ (AI) are used in New Zealand each year.
 Produce is able to be sold as organic and hence receives a premium price – eg organic
kiwifruit produce receives $10.31 per tray vs. $8.20 for non-organic regular varieties.
 Reduced purchase costs of agrichemicals for the producer.
Weaknesses
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 3 of 7
 Economically, the implications would be huge for some industries. The onion, brassica, pipfruit,
and potato industries would struggle to produce economic crops without the use of
agrichemicals.
 The arable and pastoral industries would also incur extra costs if they had to use conventional
cultivation instead of the use of herbicides within their programmes.
Justification (why the recommended course of action is better than the other two the
candidate has suggested)
Example of answer: Use IPM programmes such as KIWIGREEN to limit the negative environmental
impacts of agrichemicals
These are characterised by the use of pest monitoring to guide insecticide spraying; a reduced
choice of pesticides with use at long, pre-harvest intervals; greater use of ‘soft’ pesticides
[mineral oil, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) sprays]; and modified plant / canopy / soil management to
reduce disease pressure and hence the need for frequent, high-volume spraying. All these
contribute to reducing the environmental impact of agrichemical use.
Monitoring faecal egg numbers and appropriate drench and stock management allows for a
reduction in the use of drenches within livestock production systems, with potentially large cost
savings. This option is economically viable, as product yield and quality are able to be
maintained, and access to major markets continues, provided the agrichemicals used are
approved for use by that country / market. The social impact is also minimised, as the use of the
more toxic / dangerous chemicals is generally stopped or restricted, and the frequency of
spraying is reduced.
One issue with this approach is with the use of herbicides, which make up around two-thirds of
total agrichemical use. For example, Glyphosate in pasture and crop renewal programmes, and
the issue that the alternative (conventional cultivation) may be more time-consuming and
expensive, and may have other potentially damaging effects in terms of damage to soil structure,
earthworm numbers and carbon dioxide emissions. The risk of pest resistance may also be a
greater issue if fewer agrichemical options are available to growers.
Going totally organic and halting the use of agrichemicals has benefits in terms of the
environment and reduced impacts on society as a whole. However, the drop in economic
income, both at the producer level and nationally, would be huge, and a significant part of New
Zealand’s horticultural exports would be at risk of not meeting the quality required by their
respective markets. A decline in efficiency in the pastoral agricultural and forestry sectors would
also be likely if the widespread use of herbicides were restricted or stopped. A decline in animal
growth rates, due to limits being placed on the use of drenches and pour-ons for parasite control,
is another reason why this option is not preferred.
Expected coverage for environmental issue:
The emission of greenhouse gases from agricultural / horticultural production systems.
Greenhouse gases are a by-product of many farming operations. These include:
 the belching of methane gas from ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep, deer, etc) and from dairy
effluent systems
(a)
 the release of nitrous oxide from nitrogen rich pastures (caused by high levels of fertiliser and
subsequent stocking rates)
 the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of cultivated soil, the burning of fossil fuels in
agricultural-based vehicles, and the burning off of crop residues and stubbles.
Negative environmental implications:
(b) (i)
 Increased air temperatures, due to greater retention of solar radiation from the sun (ie the
greenhouse effect). Ten of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 4 of 7
 Rising sea levels, due to melting of the polar ice caps caused by warmer temperatures. From
1993–2007 the average rate of sea level rise was 3.3 mm / year.
 More coastal erosion due to the higher sea levels and more dynamic weather patterns.
 More extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, due to changing weather systems
and the ability of air to carry more water as it becomes warmer, and the interactions between
warm and cold air masses becoming more dynamic, eg the September 2010 storm in Southland / Otago.
 Compared with 1989/90, the number of growing degree-day values in the 2080s may increase
by as much as 500 to 800 for most of the North Island, and for some northern and eastern
parts of the South Island.
For example, on the east coast of both islands, production is set to decrease by up to 45% in
areas affected by water shortages. This includes Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and parts of the Tasman and Marlborough regions. Droughts are expected to occur 2–6 times more frequently than
during the latter part of the twentieth century.
Economic implications:
 Increased costs associated with the control of erosion of both coastlines and riverbanks.
 On the east coast of both islands, production is set to decrease by up to 45% in areas affected
by water shortages. This includes Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and parts of the Tasman and Marlborough regions. Droughts are expected to occur 2–6 times more frequently than during the
latter part of the twentieth century.
(b) (ii)
 Improvements in production are projected in both dairying and sheep / beef farming in Southland and the west coast of the South Island. These regions are likely to remain wetter than
other parts, with a warming climate improving the profitability of farming in these areas.
 There may be extra costs imposed on communities for dealing with the risk associated with the
more extreme climatic events that climate change is expected to cause – eg higher costs /
rates to pay for more extensive flood protection / river stopbanks. The storms in late spring in
2010 cost 2.5 million lambs, valued at the farm gate at over $200 million.
Social implications:
(b) (iii)
A decline is projected for dairy and sheep / beef production in average-year and worst-year production in east coast areas (Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Canterbury), and
also for Northland. This is likely to result in these farming systems becoming more risky and ultimately less viable, causing changes in both rural and urban communities.
Course of action that New Zealand producers are likely to implement (strengths and
weaknesses)
Creating ‘carbon sinks’ by planting plantation forest / woodlots
Strengths
 An easily achievable option.
 Provides a long-term income from the land in the form of wood / logs.
(c)
 Forests are an effective sink for atmospheric carbon – estimated to absorb around 20 million
tones of atmospheric carbon each year (we produce about 70 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent
greenhouse gas per year).
 New Zealand expects to absorb up to 105 million tonnes of CO 2 in the period 2008–2012 in
forests planted after 1990.
Weaknesses
 Carbon dioxide emissions are a very small part of total greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in New Zealand. The agricultural sector accounts for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions.
 When the trees are eventually harvested, this would result in the release of some of the stored
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 5 of 7
carbon from the decay of the slash and debris.
Retiring unproductive hill country to allow regeneration
Strengths
 Reduction in hill country erosion (of up to 90% in some cases) associated with this action.
 Minimal loss in production and income.
Weaknesses
 Once established / mature, the net effect of these regenerated areas on atmospheric CO 2 levels would be minimal, as the release of CO2 from the decay of the leaf litter / dead plant material increases.
Reduce the number/density of ruminant animals on New Zealand farms
Strengths
 Reducing ruminant numbers not only decreases methane emissions (a potent greenhouse gas
– 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide), but would also reduce nitrous oxide emissions,
due to the reduced need to apply large quantities of urea and other nitrogenous fertilisers, and
fewer urine patches and other high-risk emission situations.
 The effect on the level of emissions is apparent very quickly.
Weaknesses
 There would be huge opposition from the farming sector, as it would require a total change in
land use, farming systems and livelihood for thousands of farmers.
 The economic effect on communities and the country would be significant.
Reduce/limit the burning of fossil fuels to heat greenhouses
Strengths
Overall reduction in CO2 emissions in New Zealand.
Weaknesses
 Loss in productivity, due to the inability to heat greenhouses to the optimum level.
 Lack of (and cost of) suitable alternative heating options.
 This contributes a very small proportion of the agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions
– less than 1%.
Reduce/limit the application of nitrogenous fertilisers by farmers
Strengths
 Less money spent on purchasing fertiliser. Currently, urea, the most common nitrogenous fertiliser, costs $624 per tonne, while more expensive options such as DAP cost $995 per tonne.
 Less nitrogen available for oxidation into nitrous oxide from both fertiliser sources and urine
patches (nitrous oxide is an extremely potent greenhouse gas – 210 times more potent than
carbon dioxide).
Weaknesses
 Pasture growth on farms that traditionally use a lot of nitrogenous fertiliser would be reduced.
This might typically result in a 10–15% drop in pasture growth and productivity in the first year
on some soils.
 Stocking rates and farm productivity would decrease.
Increase the use of nitrification inhibitors such as Eco-N
Strengths
 Increase in the effective use of soil nitrogen for plant growth. Growth increases by up to 18–
20%.
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 6 of 7
 Reduced nitrous oxide emissions by up to 75%, and less leaching of nitrates into waterways in
the order of 60%.
Weaknesses
 The cost involved in the purchase and application of the nitrification inhibitors – two applications per year, costing $92 per hectare.
 The actual effectiveness is still a matter of some debate amongst soil scientists and fertiliser
companies – especially in the wetter regions of New Zealand such as Taranaki and the West
Coast.
Justification (why the recommended course of action is better than the other two the
candidate has suggested)
Example of answer: Creating carbon sinks by planting forests / woodlots on the more
unproductive hill country.
This option is the most easily implemented across a range of regions and land uses. It does not
significantly reduce the productive capacity of farmland, as it would be the less productive parts
of the farm that would be planted in trees. It could also provide a long-term income from the land
in the form of wood / logs.
Forests are an effective sink for atmospheric carbon – estimated to absorb around 20 million
tonnes of atmospheric carbon each year (we produce about 70 million tonnes of CO 2-equivalent
greenhouse gas per year). New Zealand expects to absorb up to 105 million tonnes of CO 2 in the
period 2008–2012 in forests planted after 1990.
The use of nitrification inhibitors that reduce the emissions of nitrous oxide from farmland (especially intensively farmed land) has increased in the past few years. While it does reduce nitrous
oxide emissions by up to 75%, and increases farm crop / pasture growth up to 20%, there is a
cost associated with applying it ($92/ha), and difficulties (and extra costs) arise if it is to be applied to rolling or hill country that is subject to high stocking rates. Although nitrous oxide is an
extremely potent greenhouse gas (approximately 210 times more potent than CO 2), worldwide it
is currently only the third most significant greenhouse gas after methane and carbon dioxide.
Therefore, at present, the planting of forests / woodlots to act as carbon sinks is the most effective and socially acceptable option among those currently available to New Zealand producers,
and has the most positive economic outcomes.
NØ
No response, no relevant evidence.
Candidate:
 describes a farming practice that causes the issue
N1
 correctly identifies TWO implications
 gives a partial description of a course of action.
Not Achieved
Candidate:
 describes a farming practice that causes the issue
N2
 correctly identifies TWO implications
 describes ONE potential course of action that would mitigate the negative environmental
implications.
Candidate:
 explains a farming practice that causes the issue
Achievement
A3
 correctly identifies THREE implications (TWO environmental implications AND ONE
social implication OR economic implication)
 explains ONE potential course of action that would mitigate the negative environmental
implications and gives a partial explanation of a second course of action.
NCEA Level 3 Agricultural and Horticultural Science 91532 (3.5) — page 7 of 7
Candidate:
 explains a farming practice that causes the issue
A4
 correctly identifies FOUR implications
 explains TWO potential courses of action that would mitigate the negative environmental
implications.
Candidate:
 explains in detail a farming practice that causes the issue
M5
 explains THREE implications (TWO environmental implications AND ONE social
implication OR economic implication)
 evaluates ONE potential course of action that would mitigate the negative environmental
implications.
Merit
Candidate:
 explains in detail a farming practice that causes the issue
M6
 explains FOUR implications
 evaluates ONE potential course of action that would mitigate the negative environmental
implications and gives partial evaluation of a second course of action.
Candidate:
E7
 evaluates a farming practice that causes the issue
 gives a partial justification of a selected course of action.
Candidate:
Excellence
 evaluates a farming practice that causes the issue
E8
 gives a comprehensive evaluation of a selected course of action, which involves
consideration of the social and economic implications and gives a comparison with an
alternative course of action.