Dairy production
Federated Farmers spokesperson Bruce McNab has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the Greens call for changes to our industrial dairy industry. Today in the Independent Financial Review [offline] he says:
The Greens, like many people, get on their soapbox and preach away but, other than reducing production, which is not in the country’s interest, they haven’t got any answers.
Well, one of the many answers that does not involve reduced production, would be to avoid using chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Replace those chemicals with natural fertilisers such as manure and compost. Use scientifically proven farming methods, such as herd and crop rotation to improve soil fertility, and biological pest controls such as pre-existing birds and bugs to keep the farm in balance.
It’s called organics - its only one solution to intensive industrial dairy farming in New Zealand. But it commands a significant price differential when produce is exported overseas. And contrary to Federated Farmers fears not only does it not reduce production, it may even increase it. There are less costs associated with stock feeds, and pesticides and more employment on our farms.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:31 am
This radio interview with Steffan Browning of Soil and Health Association is useful too:
Organic Future
The Soil and Health Association says it’s got the answer to what it calls
New Zealand’s ‘dirty record’ in agriculture.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/organic_future
February 20th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Also, is it so illogical to suggest a reduction in dairy production?
When we talk of electricity generation, we don’t think too much about talking of replacing coal-fired generation with renewable generation. The product is still generated (i.e. electrical energy to run your lights), but the method of generation is changed from a highly polluting form to a less polluting one.
In comparison, dairy production is one way of creating food energy and nutrition for humans (and animals and biofuels and products and so on). But there are many other forms of production to create food energy and nutrition, some of which will no doubt be better for the environment. So what is so radical with the idea of replacing the production of dairy food with other types of food that have equivalent energy and nutritional content, but lower environmental impact?
Be interested in others’ comments…
February 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
What is the cost of production?
Who is the market for the produce, and how big is that market?
Is that market viable?
What is the food that meets the above criteria?
February 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hi Q, apparently it takes 1000 litres of water to get 1 litre of milk. Any thoughts on the embodied energy/ eroei of milk from an intensive system? I think it would have changed somewhat now for darying as they are moving beyond just pumping in fertilzers to grow the grass and a re using suplimentary feed such as palm oil cake.
My reason for asking is that Bioethanol in the states has recieved a fair amount of negative attention for its poor eroei - perhaps NZ industriall dairy could use the same scrutiny?
Cheers
February 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
BluePeter - I recall reading, and it was so long ago that I don’t have any reference to hand, that pigs were the most efficient and least environmentally damaging means of converting ‘inputs’ into animal protein. While a huge pork industry might not be what New Zealand is most appropriate for, the point of my post was that organics and a multiplicity of farm products via rotation area a much more sustainable way to farm than the monoculture of just dairy, dairy, dairy.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I’d encourage Green members to buy and run dairy farms on organic grounds then, if it is so good. Let it be a matter of choice, given that all dairy farmers have every incentive to run farms that are lower cost and command higher prices! If the arguments in this thread are true, it will happen.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
All good questions to be asked in assessing alternatives, Peter, as long as the environmental cost of production is factored in too - i.e. all externaties included. Also, it should be remembered that the marked does not exist in splendid isolation, but is created by our values and demands. If we consumers wish to improve our environment, we can choose to change consumer demand.
Buckwheat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckwheat contains ~20% protein and has the versitility of being able to be made into flour. This is more protein than milk, and akin to cheese and milk solids. Friends of mine grow it in Canterbury, so it is also locally available. Sure, you can’t pour it on your cornflakes, but I’m talking energy/nutritional content here, not form.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
>>organics and a multiplicity of farm products via rotation area
Perhaps, but is there any money in it?
New Zealand turns grass, into animals, into food. If that income stream is compromised, then we will not be able to afford all the other things we want to do - like healthcare, education, welfare, and so on.
It’s all very well saying we must do this and that because the environmental impact is reduced, but what about other measurements of well-being? Like healthcare provision? More effective infrastructure? Lower cost education?
No-one wants the environment destroyed. But we’re a long, long, long way from that scenario in this country, especially as far as raising animals is concerned.
Meanwhile, the cost of healthcare is rocketing.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
>>I’m talking energy/nutritional content here, not form.
Form is important, else we’d be happily eating food capsules.
If the demand is for milk not buckweat, then there is little point producing buckweat.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I think food capsules only existed in the minds of 1950s futurologists…
February 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
The idea places function over form….
People demand milk, and will do for generations to come.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
And why is there so much dairying in Canterbury, suddenly. Perhaps it’s interacting policies from separate bodies….consider:
- Selwyn Plantation Board is tired of NIMBY objections to forestry operations on its downland plantations.
- a Gummint nationalises carbon credits on recently planted trees
- a Regional Council with plenty of farmer representatives turn’s Nelson’s eye
- dairy prices shoot up
- NI dairy farmers have run out of space, friendly neighbours and accommodating Regional Councils
- underused capacity in SI dairy processing plants
So the result is:
- SPB hightails it to the foothills and (literally) mulches its young plantations
- dairy conversions proceed apace - land is cheaper than NI, labour is plentiful, prices are high, plants run at capacity then expand.
- consequent effects on electricity consumption and downstream water quailty are felt
- the backlash against ‘dirty dairy’ begins
But looking at this sorry spectacle, who is to blame?
- farmers for acting rationally in terms of locations, prices and operating costs?
- authorities for having no Plan in place (remember that District Plans take typically ten years to change, whereas the plantation-to-operating-dairy-farm cycle is less than 12 months)?
- Regional Councils with no responsibility for Power Planning?
- international prices for dairy products?
- full moon and a long hot summer? (sorry, that’s been used before…)
Typical planning SNAFU, IMHO. Bit like house prices, eh.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
BluePeter; the problem with the grass-animals-peoplefood chain is that in some cases it’s heavily subsidised compared to the sustainable options. When the outside community pays to clean up your mess, through government or whatever, that’s what eats up potential hospital money. Not to mention the adverse health effects of pollution.
Worse still, to my mind, is why the aquifers get drained. If one overtaxes it, they do better, if ten overtax it, they all do worse. So the best deal for each individual is the same as the worst deal for the community as a whole.
That is precisely where strict community regulation produces the best results, remembering that cheats can prosper greatly and so much be harshly punished.
River irrigation in much of NZ is similar, everyone gets cut off when the river gets low, so everyone pumps 24/7 when it looks like that might happen, which forces that to happen earlier than it would have otherwise. Everyone gets hurt, every time, but you get hurt worse if you’re the only one who doesn’t pump like a crazy person.
Ideally farmers should be able to transfer volume rights, so that those making a good profit can buy it off the guys who’re just growing grass with it when the supply gets tightened. And yes, a gradual tightening rather than the ubiquitous all or nothing supply would be nice, but that all requires metering which no one is interested in investing in, because it’s useless without supporting regulation. :sigh:
February 20th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
# BluePeter Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
> People demand milk, and will do for generations to come.
Which people? One of the fastest-growing markets for dairy products is China, and Fonterra are spending huge amounts of money on advertising to convince Chinese people to demand milk, because Chinese people were not demanding milk. In fact they were quite happy without it and found the idea of cheese uproariously funny.
So it’s not true that New Zealand produces as much milk as it does because people demand milk. It produces as much milk as it does because convincing people to demand milk happens to be profitable.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
kahikatea,
That sounds like the peculiar, and quite frankly - ridiculously patronizing - left-wing view of advertising, a view which also “informed” the EFA. A view that people are mindless dolts hypnotized by whatever is put in front of them. If that were true, business (and elections) would be simple! Buy up as much advertising as you can, then watch the predictable returns roll in.
It does not work that way.
Advertising is a very hit and miss affair. Some stories resonate, and others do not. How much money would Destiny Church have to spend to get a majority?
It’s the same with milk, or any other product. If people really did not want it, the advertising money would be wasted.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
People are not mindless dolts, for sure, but they are influenced by advertising to some degree- or at least, there are some pretty hilariously unlikely coincidences happening to coincide increased sales with advertising campaigns.
I do agree that advertising is hit-and-miss though. But the campaign still points out we are attempting to increase demand for dairy, rather than make what people currently demand, doesn’t it?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
The Chinese now have access to fridges. And they are developing a taste for all things Western - including ice-cream. The middle class can now afford to buy more, and there is more choice. A consumer revolution.
Advertising plays a part, certainly. But the cause and effect is complex, else all advertising campaigns would generate money. But they don’t….
February 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
BluePeter Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
> That sounds like the peculiar, and quite frankly - ridiculously patronizing - left-wing view of advertising, a view which also “informed� the EFA. A view that people are mindless dolts hypnotized by whatever is put in front of them.
Of course it also depends on what you’re trying to sell.
But the business people who spend billions of dollars on advertising aren’t stupid - they know that advertising affects people’s buying habits, and they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
One often hears in the media that such products (and red meat) are eaten because they are associated with ‘the west’ and therefore the person consuming such products is wealthy/upper class - like jeans used to be I think? Just chuck a hollywood star in there and pander to a country’s self-imposed ‘cultural cringe’. In the end it is up to the individual if they want the product, no one is being forced, but I am not particularly fond of adds that induce a sense of inferiority - ads for make up would not work if we were all happy and confident for example. No doubt Fonterra’s ads would show unpolluted NZ country streams…
February 21st, 2008 at 1:31 am
Anyone else remember Fonterra’s chocolate cheese? Developed in an attempt to get dairy into the Chinese markets? I don’t think it ever took off, but does demonstrate the lengths Fonterra is going to to lever open new markets. Of course with a goal of 3% (I think ) annual compound growth they need to find new markets to take the increased production.
The other factor is that part of what’s driving dairy expansion is the capital gain from conversion. Its also what driving land values beyond the purchasing ability of young farmers and turning the tradition family farm over to increasingly concentrated corporate ownership. That, as sheep farmers in Canterbury will tell you, is changing the nature of rural communities from stable and cohesive to transient and fragmented. It also may lead to a decreased stewardship ethic in general - although not in all cases.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Good thread. But you cannot regulate people’s wants to any fine degree. ‘Demand’, as Ari has it, is actually the result of millions upon millions of individual buying decisions. To think otherwise is to patronise the buyer - the old paternalism (or perhaps Nanny Knows Best?, to keep things gender-neutral).
So my personal decision never ever to buy any food item Made In China, f’rinstance, if sufficiently widely replicated, will have an effect on the aggregate demand for Chinese-made food. It certainly worked That way for the pet-food market in the US, recently. That position is immune to advertising.
And, pet food aside, advertising cuts both ways - it may induce, and it may also repel…..
February 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
>>But the business people who spend billions of dollars on advertising aren’t stupid - they know that advertising affects people’s buying habits, and they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t.
It’s not that simple. They test market advertising, and it fails more often than not.
Advertising only works if the message resonates with people. The reasons advertising resonates with some people is complex, but it must appeal to *their* wants and needs. Control does not rest with the advertiser.
McDonalds consumption has been tracking down, despite advertising, mainly because people’s eating habits are changing. This is almost certainly due to greater health and fitness awareness.
>>Anyone else remember Fonterra’s chocolate cheese?
No. And by virtue of the fact it didn’t take off, their advertising clealry didn’t work, then?
The people voted with their wallets.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
The problem with agricultural production is intensification, dairy conversion is just the current favourite. The land is being asked to produce more than it can or should, probably in the short term, but certainly in the long. Why are farmers (who nearly all love the land) pushed this way? Land value and capital gain!
It’s simple really, farms are worth more than they are capable of earning. Young (and even corporate) farmers are obliged to rape the #$%^ out of their land in a desperate bid to pay for them.
It’s odd really that landed gentry ( I should know, I am one) see capital gain tax as the GREAT EVIL when its capital gain that is killing our farmland under a carpet of cow shit and urea.
Ban foreign ownership and tax capital gain at the same rate as other forms of income. I’m sure there would be short term carnage but the long term stability would allow land owners to plan for the long term.
Long term Zero population growth would be essential as well, but that’s another subject.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Wheat prices are pretty damn high - says the news - I wonder what prospect there is of growing some more of that…in Canterbury at least, not so much Southland.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Well spotted, StephenR. As did Herschel 200 years ago - low sunspots, cool Gaia, high wheat prices…
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
This is slightly more biofuel related…I meant they already grow wheat in Canterbury and was wondering how it compares to also-rising dairy prices in terms of price-competitiveness.
I vaguely recall reading about sunspots at hot-topic.co.nz a little while back…