Our agriculture’s much more than the sum of its parts

This post also appears at www.pastureharmonies.org

Too much, arguably all the time, we look at all the individual components of our farm production systems……and beat ourselves up about them.

We could use less fertiliser, our use of water isn’t that optimal at times, occasionally there’s animal welfare issues, and as for degradation of waterways……

And that’s just on-farm.

Get off-farm and meat marketers are continually giving a figurative fingers to each other, the ever-declining wool industry’s in(ward)-fighting continues and everybody wants to take a pot-shot at Fonterra – including sometimes Fonterra itself.

Meanwhile, back in the city, farmers and farms and all things associated with them are fair game for all and sundry to have a go at.

We can’t see the wood for the trees.

It is as if instead of standing back and looking at the whole picture of say the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, we go in with a magnifying glass and try to check it out.

‘Oh, messy brushstroke there’, ‘could’ve used a different shade of skin tone here’, ‘that eyeball’s not quite even’.

But then we never pull back and contemplate its beauty, its completeness, its balance.

Luckily, from art’s point of view, it is only art historians and art archivists and art lovers who get that close – but all the time they appreciate the big picture.

We, we never give ourselves the opportunity to ponder that, wow, we (mostly) wisely use nature’s resources and sunlight and produce fantastic products.

And seeing as I’m on an art bent, even if we stand back and look at the big picture, we’ve never given it a name. We can’t even begin to describe the components of the picture because there’s no start point.

da Vinci didn’t call his masterpiece ‘Picture of a reasonably pretty, enigmatically-smiling woman’ (though at least it would’ve been a name).

My argument is; over the past 100 years or so, we’ve painted a great picture, provided it with a stylish frame.

But, because we’ve never named it, (and getting back to the main point) it is as if our wonderful picture competes with one completed by a house painter.

Because we’ve never given a name to responsible pastoralism, we’re undifferentiated, unable to precisely say why our produce should command a premium.

But, the whole of our agriculture is more than the sum of its parts.

Or maybe it’s not.

Perhaps our inability to stand back and think romantically about our total offer means we deserve to forever be in the downward spiral of commodity produce and prices?


About sticknz

sticK is by Peter Kerr, a writer for hire. I have a broad science and technology background and interest, with an original degree in agricultural science. My writing speciality is making the complex understandable. I am available for outside consultancy work, and for general discussions of converting a good idea into something positive
This entry was posted in high tech, Innovation, Processed food, SciBlogs, Science, Science policy, sustainability, value added food and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Our agriculture’s much more than the sum of its parts

  1. David Miller says:

    Good points again Peter. It is so easy to ignore valuable IP when it is all around you. It is however not so much a case of a downward spiral of commodity produce and prices. Notwithstanding some current downward fluctuations, increasing demand from higher income market segments in Asia will buoy up some of our food prices, reversing the sustained negative income elasticity trends of yesteryear. But we must use the good years ahead to move beyond commodities and add value to our primary products. It is far better to do this while prices are good than from the bottom of a sustained and declining price trough. This requires relentless commitment by primary sectors and government to R&D and to value chain analysis and capture – establishing and building upon well targeted international market and technology based collaborations .

    • sticknz says:

      Yep, totally agree.

      The unifying theory (to co-opt a physics term) for our agriculture though I argue, is naming the part that’s special – i.e. responsible pastoralism

  2. BDB inc says:

    You should ignore that Commodity prices are fixed by the worlds biggest traders for profit, these prices are unstable and do not even reflect current demand.
    Since we all know prices should go up maybe we should be less interested in “flogging it off” (there is no romance in it).
    Responsible . Is it just because I live in a small city that I don’t think we should think acknowledging the problems(or the bad) that make us less than what we could be is enough.
    We can’t name only the good parts and let the bad increase masterpieces are not painted like that, they are complete( and all good).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s