Ag sector is here to stay
OPINION: In twelve months’ time, plus or minus, we’ll be in the same place, give or take, and thinking the same things, more or less.
The likelihood of this being true in anything to do with primary production is slim because New Zealand is unlike any other country.
The combination of climate, relatively disease and predator-free status, and young soils, has enabled a productive grass-based pastoral system that poses unique challenges in management.
Employment laws, regulations designed to protect the environment and lack of Government subsidies to reduce risk and assist with making changes, add to the difficulties for overseas experts in making informed judgement.
In short – the advice given by the overseas experts can be wide of any useful mark.
The same warnings apply to bringing in policies and regulations from overseas without understanding why they were formulated for the country of origin.
This year, for instance, dairy farmers are being warned that new legislation for cooling standards for milk will be in place by 2018. Fonterra food safety technical advisor Tim Johnstone has explained that the changes will bring New Zealand into line with other countries and enable auditing for quality, but he has also said that New Zealand produces higher quality milk.
The new standards “might allow access into emerging markets that might otherwise not be achieved”, but farmers are wondering about the cost. It isn’t just the ‘$15,000 to $24,000 for a 300 cow farm for the new refrigeration system that should be considered, it is also whether the whole vat should be replaced and how the rural power infrastructure will cope. A new transformer puts $30,000 on top of the vat and chiller bill – and nobody has said that New Zealand milk quality is lower than in other countries.
Another change this year is the removal of the induction tool that was used to enable cows to be milked in synchrony with grass growth. The veterinary expert from Europe involved in the decision to remove this tool could not possibly have realised what doing so would mean. This year many farmers are finding that they have a minimum of 12% empty rate (4-5% higher than last year) because they took the bulls out of the herd early to avoid the problem of late calving animals.
As more New Zealand farmers head towards higher input systems, increased difficulties with conception will mean more wastage. This is not the case in the northern hemisphere system which involves year-round milking and considerable supplementary feeding. Cows can have 14-15 months between calves, but in the US they are in the milking herd for only 2-3 years. In New Zealand the in-herd time is 5-6 years, but this will now change.
In addition, more replacement stock will be required to prevent the quality of the herd decreasing. Already farmers are commenting that they have culled on ‘empties and late calvers’ and can’t afford to cull on age, mastitis and feet problems. This will become a welfare issue in itself – a problem never envisaged by the overseas experts used to dealing with housed animals.
New industries also have the problem of establishing guidelines and protocols. For dairy goats, the problem of unwanted young stock is under discussion. In Europe, kids are reared for six weeks and then sent for slaughter.
In Europe the farmers receive subsidies from their governments to allow them to do this. At six weeks the carcases can be checked for diseases, but these diseases don’t occur in New Zealand – and neither do subsidies.
And in this debate, the animal welfare issues appear to be missed. Humane despatch of a newly-born animal before flight-fight reactions develop is generally the preferred option.
Overseas experts probably aren’t giving their advice in an attempt to put New Zealand farmers at a disadvantage in comparison with other producers, but this is the effect. Whose role is it to challenge what is being imposed?
• Jacqueline Rowarth is professor of agribusiness at the University of Waikato.
