viewpoint
November 2014
with John Barnes – Managing Director
Since Britain stopped looking to us for food and we had to begin marketing our produce to the world we have become pretty good at it. The ‘Clean Green’ image may have been the work of a clever ad agency but it was such a perfect fit that we adopted it as our own quite naturally as if it was our birthright. This was of course helped along by our green pastures and grass fed animals, manicured well-tended farms and lovely scenery.
This has changed a bit of late with some of our farmers taking the first tentative steps into housing our animals in order to get more production. Another hoped for benefit is to mitigate the impact on our land, and by spreading animal waste evenly and at the optimum time it is argued that they can run more animals and at the same time lessen the danger of soiling our streams, rivers and lakes.
I have watched this process with interest and while I admire the enterprise and good intentions of these high input operations I worry about the fixed costs of plant and machinery. These machinery costs are something that we have by and large managed to avoid over the last hundred years or so of intensive agriculture. Time will tell whether my worries have foundation or whether the added expense is more than compensated for by increased production and efficiency.
My own area of expertise is fertiliser and containing the cost of this most important input for my farmer clients is something that I will continue to do as an integral part of our business. I have obviously been involved with many different types of farming enterprise and therefore had a close and privileged insight into farmers’ budgets as part of my work. Those in the dairying business who can get their costs as close as they can to $4.00 per kilogram of milk solids seem to live a far more stress free existence and can weather price shocks just that much better.
Traditionally the milk price has fluctuated more than it has in the last few years, so the nearly 50% drop in the last 6 months has been a shock. Hopefully by February it will return to a more reasonable level but right now is a good time to be looking at our costs of production and I am keen to help with that.
I believe that we can live with the inevitable price fluctuations if we retain our all grass feeding systems and manage the system well. Our cows need to be fully fed and at the risk of being controversial we need to do this even if we have to drop cow numbers a little. In fact, a recent study at Lincoln University on this exact issue found that production increased with a drop in cow numbers because the net effect was that the remainder of the herd were then fed to capacity. More importantly, PROFIT increased.
In tough times it is no bad thing to head back to basics in order to weather the storm and branch out again when good times return. In my own business I have had to do this and it is surprising how you can get through, even though one does not wish price reversals on anybody. Give us a call and see how we can help you.
Growing more grass need not be just about how much fertiliser, typically nitrogen, you can afford to throw at it. In my opinion it is a whole lot more than that. It is about;
- Soil structure.
- Soils ability to store fertility.
- Root structure.
- Health of the intermediate bit between the root and the soil.
Soil Structure – I have commented on the state of our soils in the past, but feel it is worth commenting briefly again here. With the use, and in my opinion over use, of acid based water soluble fertilisers the quality of some of our soils has deteriorated according to farmers who have been around longer than myself. One of the farmers I had dealings with some years ago, lamented the fact that good soils in his region had changed dramatically over his life time. He didn’t base his thoughts on any sort of soil science but on his observation and crop yields. Production had dropped. To compensate for this, nitrogen application had increased, which had artificially lifted production. This in turn had compacted the soils further. So while applying more N may be a short term fix, it is not a long term solution.
Soils ability to store fertility – Many of our soils in New Zealand are considered to be light in nature, meaning their ability to hold elements is limited. Some of our soil consultants don’t seem to take this into consideration when making recommendations to their clients. I fully understand that there are optimum levels a soil should have to grow grass at required growth rates, but overflowing the soil with fertiliser isn’t going to help, either in the growing of pasture or the bank balance. Our approach is to apply a little often. Farming to the environment and conditions should be the paramount thinking here.
Root structure – If a plate measure is an important tool for farmers to measure grass, and I agree it is, then a spade should also be just as important to measure the POWER HOUSE of the plant. This is where the fertiliser reaches the plant. The second biggest spend for many farmers is fertiliser, yet little if any thinking goes into how this fertiliser inter-relates with the plant at this level. While we provide fertiliser to farmers, we should also be responsible about when and where it is used. Fertiliser does not just enter the root system by some sort of accident. It happens through a series of events and this is an area where we all know little about.
Health of the intermediate bit between the root and the soil, the rhizosphere – Fertiliser New Zealand has been working with farmers to provide products which will work at providing a better delivery system for the fertiliser by creating an improved rhizosphere. This is the main reason why VitaLife was developed back in 2002. It has the microbes and fungi which will, amongst other activities, develop the rhizosphere for a greater uptake of nutrients. As many of our farmers will know, this saves them dollars and grows them more grass. I came across an article recently talking about research on these matters;
Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are associated with plant roots and augment plant productivity and immunity; however, recent work by several groups shows that PGPR also elicit so-called ‘induced systemic tolerance’ to salt and drought. As we discuss here, PGPR might also increase nutrient uptake from soils, thus reducing the need for fertilizers and preventing the accumulation of nitrates and phosphates in agricultural soils. A reduction in fertilizer use would lessen the effects of water contamination from fertilizer run-off and lead to savings for farmers.Jungwook Yang, Joseph W. Kloepper and Choong-Min Ryu
While we have not been able to receive any Government funding to show scientifically what we are doing, many farmers know from practical experience that it is making a difference to their farm and to their overall profit. We look forward to the day when we can provide independent facts as to how all this works. In the meantime we will continue to show from on farm antidotal work the benefits of our products and provide them with overseas work on the science behind what we do.
On another matter, I see the Government will take another look at carbon on New Zealand farms. I believe some of our products could be adding carbon to our soils, but that is a subject for another month.