viewpoint
September 2014
with John Barnes – Managing Director
After all is said and done…
MORE IS SAID THAN DONE.
I have the privilege to meet with many interesting people both in the farming sector and other related professions, and all of them are keenly interested in how New Zealand creates its wealth and income. All of us must be concerned about this because it is the way we survive and thrive in our World. There are very few people who I meet who would argue with how we obtain our income, but most express concerns regarding the sustainability of our farming sector. I have to say this is what really drives me. We can and must lift our production in all sectors but we cannot do this at the expense of our environment. It is so sad to hear that just a few farmers are living for today and don’t give a toss about the future. Well, I care and the people I have around me believe we need to make a change. In this edition I want to give you the option for change because after reading this you will do one of two things, change for the good or do nothing and allow someone else to set the standards for farming in the future. The choice is yours.
In October 2004 (nearly 10 years ago now) Dr Morgan Williams wrote the following in his report “Growing for Good”.
In this report we examine the environmental sustainability of more intensive farming in New Zealand. That is, we look at how well the natural resource base of farming is being maintained. We do this by teasing out some of the complex economic, social, political, environmental and global forces that are shaping New Zealand’s food and fibre businesses. Our starting position is an optimistic one. My team and I believe that New Zealand’s farming sector will continue to play a vital role in our economy far into a distant future. We also believe in the ability of New Zealanders to innovate, to recognise when new directions are needed, and to redesign systems to meet new
challenges and opportunities.
The purpose of this report, Dr Williams said, was to address concerns raised regarding the impact of intensive farming… on New Zealand’s waterways. The report raises concerns about many current trends and the serious risks to the quality of the environment and the sustainability of farming in this country. We therefore highlight a need to redesign existing systems to achieve better environmental, social and economic outcomes. This is not to say we cannot be more productive. There is a greater need to grow more food for an ever increasing population. Farming in New Zealand must intensify; it is a matter as to how this will happen. “Growing for Good” continues by saying:
Nonetheless, there are many ways in which farmers can maintain or even increase productivity and avoid adverse effects. For example, it is possible to apply human knowledge to design systems that are more profitable and use less materials and energy. Farming and sustainability For farming to remain viable, the physical environment in which it is
based needs to be sustained in a healthy condition. This is because farming is dependent on ‘natural capital’ – the stocks of natural resources such as water, soil and biodiversity – and the ‘services’ that this natural capital provides. Degrading natural capital is contributing to decreasing farm productivity in many parts of the world. Furthermore, if the wider community thinks that the environmental damage is unacceptable, farmers risk losing their ‘licence to operate’ in society. Ultimately, to ensure that food production from farms can be sustained, farming needs to be:
- Environmentally sustainable: to maintain and enhance the natural capital on which farming depends as well as other ecosystems influenced by farming.
- Socially beneficial: to enhance the quality of life for people in rural communities and beyond, while addressing wider social and cultural concerns.
- Economically viable: to ensure farmers have a secure and rewarding livelihood.
The report continues with some observations, which are of concern to me.
There are rising concerns in many parts of the world about the quality of people’s food and the integrity of the environment in which it is grown
New Zealand’s water ways and lakes are becoming nutrient enriched and degraded
the longer it takes to address these problems, the more likely it is that serious degradation will result
To respond to the growing environmental risks within New Zealand, New Zealand farmers need to acknowledge and address these trends. Current trends are not inevitable. It is possible to farm in ways that are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. However, this will require many existing systems to be redesigned.
Redesigning for sustainability
“Redesign” involves purposefully changing or adapting farming practices, and the broader system that shape those practices, to meet specific goals and values.
Remedy and mitigation approaches aim to alleviate the undesirable impacts of farming practices. They do not tend to address the underlying factors that often drive farmers, or enable them, to adopt these practices in the first place.
More fundamental redesign involves examining how the entire farm is set up and then changing it to deliver better environmental, social and economic outcomes. However, these initiatives are not often supported by broader social and economical institutions… that help shape farming practices.
The good news is that a lot of activity is already taking place in New Zealand to redesign the production systems on our farms. However, the not so good news is that existing initiatives are not sufficiently profound or widespread enough to make a real and lasting difference. More and more external inputs are being used to boost production, while the health of the environment continues to decline. More fundamental change is required.
We need to concentrate on one aspect of this report which I think has been woefully overlooked and it wouldn’t cost a cent. That aspect is the conversation that Morgan Williams was trying to encourage us to have about intensive agriculture. It just has not happened!!! Instead what we have done is engage in claim and counter claim. Accusations and finger pointing of the worst kind have been the order of the day and we are still carrying on in that fashion.
I am appealing for a serious and ongoing conversation to begin now and it need not be heated or controversial. We are all in this together and if we look at what we have and what we want for the future then we might get somewhere. After all, producing world beating food products is what we do and that is not going to change.
There seems to me to be a broad consensus around the need to produce in an environmentally sustainable way and quite frankly if we do not, then we won’t be farming in the future.
Obviously the whole enterprise of agriculture must be socially beneficial to the country and with the amount of income coming from this sector that would seem to me to be self-evident. Good will towards our rural cousins is high and we regard our landscape as one of our prime assets. Along with that goes economic viability and our agricultural sector is certainly viable and in fact a crown jewel. Nobody that I know would challenge this state of affairs. Last but not least is our cultural attachment to the land by New Zealanders of Maori, European and Asian descent. This is almost what defines us as New Zealanders.
If we can all agree on these matters, where is the problem? The problem, of course, is where we are heading to. We need to discuss how much fertiliser we can apply without causing harm, and we need to discuss what type of fertiliser we should use and where. We are only now starting to measure the effects of farming on the environment and because some of the results are not great we get into the blame game. It has to be said that this is not a very helpful response.
We have the people and the expertise and we have the technology to do much better if only we could begin to discuss the issues rather than talking past each other. Not one of the current problems is irreversible at present and if we find solutions now they will not become so.
The sooner we start the better.
But we need to know how this pollution is happening.
In NZ we have two differing fertiliser input systems. The first is the major system used in farming now for over 130 years, which uses water soluble acid based phosphate. This product is the one that has made our farming productive during the past 100 years and it works like this:
The hard phosphate rock is broken down in factories by adding sulphuric acid to make it plant available. The pH of the fertiliser is now +/- 3. This fertiliser is 100% water soluble, and is readily plant available. The method of providing Phosphate to the plant is in solution. I quote from the fertiliser manual:
Thus the time for P to reach the roots in high sorbing [relatively less P ions in solution – more adsorbed on soil colloids] thus the more fertiliser must be supplied to the soil solution P concentration and allow P to move faster to the plant root.
Clearly here the method of Phosphate getting to the point of uptake is for the fertiliser to go to the plant.
The other method works differently. This phosphate is commonly called Reactive Phosphate and is sold as suitable for direct application. It is important to note that for a natural phosphate to meet these criteria, there are several tests it must pass. There are some products being sold which may not meet these strict standards. This type of phosphate is not water soluble, and has a higher pH of +/-7. Because it is not water soluble it cannot go into solution in the soil, which means it must have a different method of delivery to the plant. This delivery system works like this; as the phosphate moves into the soil, the soils acid and soil biology seeks out and breaks down the phosphate granules.
Another way of providing plants with phosphate is for the roots to seek out the fertiliser. I came across an article published in the Nelson Mail in 1977, and I will quote from part of it.
A group of fungi which gives phosphate to roots and in return receives carbohydrate is being studied by DSIR scientists. By using the fungi New Zealand’s fertiliser use may be reduced. The group is known as vesicular – arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. A mycorrhizal is the association of a fungus with the roots of a plant when both partners benefit. The hyphae grow considerable distances into the soil beyond the root and root hair zone and act as an extension of the root system for absorbing phosphorus. They can pick up and transport phosphate to the root up to 7 cm from the root surface. By judicious use of the fungi, it may be possible to use phosphate in the soil more efficiently, allowing reduced fertiliser applications while maintaining production.
Further beneficial studies have been conducted both here in New Zealand by MAF and overseas which prove that it is possible to lift farming production while lowering the input costs. I don’t subscribe to the idea that a small amount of any macronutrient will do the same work as mainstream recommendation would supply, however there are ways of achieving efficiencies.
For this reason we have developed products that supply bulk P. K. S. nutrients but also contain the microbes that will make these products work better. A further study on microbes will be had in another edition.
As I said at the beginning, we all have a choice and there are real options to choose from. You can be part of the new group which is GROWING FOR GOOD.
There you go folks; I have exposed my inner self to you all. At heart I am seriously into the technical side of what makes our products work and I could not hold it back any longer. You got a heap of it in this September newsletter and if you found it to be heavy stuff then I presume that you will have skipped over some of it. My suggestion is that you do what I do when I get a heavy technical document that I do not have time to read right then – put some of it in the file for future reference. Even better, get our reps to go over some of it when they call.
Now that I have got the important stuff off my chest I will promise a bit lighter fare next month.