viewpoint
June 2015
with John Barnes – Managing Director
I have had the privilege to be at some very interesting gatherings in recent times.
And as one NZ Politian said years ago, “I have been thinking.”
There is no doubt that we need to increase food production, the down side to this is we are polluting our world. This is evident in our own country where we have the Ministry for the Environment at odds with the Primary Industry as to how to make progress. The vast majority of business say that is the price of production. They then say we can remediate, now that is a great word. So, remediation is going to slow down pollution and will also make many very clever business operators a whole lot of money.
I was at an international expo just last week where all this new technology was on display. I will take just one small part of what was on display. Billions of dollars are being spent on fixing water quality, just so we can drink something that will not kill us. This is a very big market and I can only see this growing ever bigger. No longer can many in other countries drink water from a tap. When drinking water came into our shops I just couldn’t believe it. Why would people want to pay for something that has been free for much of my life? But times are changing. Water and especially clean potable water is the next big thing. Big international companies are now setting up to take polluted water and turn it into something we all can drink. My doctor keeps telling me to drink two litres of water per day which seems to be the standard rate. This means that for every million people that would be two million litres of water that needs to be produced each and every day. Each of those two million litres has to be packaged into a container and sent to a distribution point like a shop, and every container has to be sent to the recycle centre every day. We can see that feeding and watering the world is turning out to be a bit of an issue. Expos like the one I went to in Frankfurt showcases what the latest machinery and technology is doing and how they can make it happen for their prospective clients. This Expo Centre covers a vast area. It would be impossible to see all exhibits and listen to every lecture, and one can only achieve so much in a day. For all of us it was a case of looking at what you wanted to see and then try and find it. There were eleven halls and most had three floors, plus there was an outside area with displays. Many of the lectures focused on being part of a Bio World. This seems to be quite a topic of interest for many leaders around the world.
Another recent meeting which I attended was held in Wellington and was focused mostly on New Zealand agriculture. I found it useful as it as was run by independent people who were looking for answers. One debate of note was about water quality and one panellist put up some figures from NIWA to show how our rivers were faring. Many showed a decline. The debate turned a bit interesting when a spokesperson from a national farming group said the figures from NIWA were not correct as the world standard for water is set too low. Quite a debate followed and I felt sorry for the panellist in question as he has a Doctorate in Water Quality in New Zealand and he isn’t taken seriously by the farmers he is trying to help. When will these “farming leaders” start to listen? Of course this was never reported. We need to start doing, not just talking. Issues such as water quality, which almost all of our farming leaders just wish to ignore, are not going away. Another interesting discussion was around our clean green image which I believe to be a very good marketing strategy. But we should be careful the rest of the world don’t see it as misleading. Our rivers are far from perfect, and our land is not what it used to be. All this is happening on some very fragile land and these issues need to be addressed. Some of the research work on land and water is being done by people who could be seen as not totally independent. If this type of research was done by some other industries it would have to be stated that it could have a bias. This happens in the medical profession when medicine is tested by a company with even a slightest interest in what is being tested. Sadly this does happen within our farming community. This is the reason I found the debate in Wellington so interesting. As a farming community collectively many just don’t want to know. Our farmers are urged to apply more fertiliser to grow even more crops and not be concerned about NIWA’s figures because if independent figures don’t agree with their aims they just lift the “accepted levels” and the problem just goes away.
How do I view all this? As an optimist I believe that we can fix the problems without losing one single dollar from our primary production. Firstly we need to understand that soil and water are closely related as water flows through and across land. If the land is clean and healthy then the water that flows from it will also be healthy. One of the displays at the European Expo showed running water through a pebble treated system purifying the water. It occurred to me that this is what Nature used to do. That is why we focus on soil fertility. We know it is possible to grow more and yet use less fertiliser. The principles behind this are sound and independently proven, both by science and by years of practical farmer experience here in New Zealand.
My second point is that there is no disputing fertiliser is required in almost all cases, but Fertilizer New Zealand’s stand on this different. We should keep the nutrient tank full but not overflowing. This is our point of difference. I cannot remember how many times I have heard at rural field days that applying extra fertiliser is like money in the bank. Our view is we should apply enough to grow the crop and no more unless there is very good reason. Apart from anything else it makes economic sense. We believe we will grow as a company by providing less fertiliser to more farmers.
My final point is to suit the type of fertiliser product to the situation. It is well understood that some types of phosphate will leach less than others, so applying these types of products will give economic benefits while still providing the required growth rates. Just because some phosphate products release in a sustained way doesn’t mean that there will not be enough to grow. Change is something that will happen, it will depend on the how. Either we change or it will be forced upon us.
