Hello James.
Colin and the team have run the numbers on Otapawa Station, looking at the farm across three lenses — nutrient performance, carbon opportunity, and environmental risk. Three decisions we'd like to discuss:
- Fertiliser maintenance and production
- Carbon reinvestment opportunities
- Environmental risk assumptions and what they mean for the farm
This is an example only and is not interactive in this mobile version. It includes all plans — from fertiliser to carbon — as part of this investment.
In plan
$212,980 per year
Initial $333,763 capital required
Baseline
$35,753
Precision fertiliser: maintenance
$71,559
Precision fertiliser: peak production
$29,008
Spaced Poplar: ETS
$76,660
No investment required — yours regardless of what you decide below
Fertiliser
$30,653
Over-application saving · 979 ha
Saving — no fertiliser spend
+
Carbon registration
$5,100
Register 56 ha of existing native forest on the ETS
Existing ETS eligible forest
What else is included in this plan
All three investments are included in the plan above. Remove any to adjust the total.
Precision fertiliser: maintenance
Fertiliser
+$71,559
Invest $27,679 · Lift the underperforming 762 ha
Precision fertiliser: peak production
Fertiliser
+$29,008
Invest $33,084 · precision VRA across 646 ha
Spaced Poplar planting: ETS
Carbon
$76,660 / yr
Annual revenue
Investment: $273k one-off
$76,660/yr for 30 years · investment recovered by year 4
Environmental risk
Assumptions & exclusions
Some areas of this farm carry high erosion and runoff risk. These areas have been left out of nutrient placement.
69 hectares were set aside and not included in fertiliser recommendations.
Land producing less than 4 tonnes of dry matter per hectare was flagged for a different land use.
Identified automatically using slope, pasture yield, and erosion risk data.