Wellington
The intention is right, the understanding is apparent and the realisation is clear that ourprimary industries need to be less commodity, more market.
The question remains how.
A
forum
organised by the
NZ Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science
inWellington reinforced that our economy is just as much as ever living off our ability to convertsunshine, soil and fresh air into protein products. (Indeed, David Lange was 'thanked' forsuggesting back in the 1980s that agriculture was a sunset industry - perhaps changing the mindsetsof a potential generation of would-be scientists for the sector!). Some audio recorded by SciBlogsKent Atkinson is
But, as Rod Oram pointed out when crunching some numbers for the 120 attendees, agriculture ain'tsustainable. We are not a low cost place to produce milk or meat. Our land is very expensive. Oramsaid that even the family interests of Fonterra chairman Henry van der Heyden have bought land fordairying in Missouri, USA. Its price is a third that of New Zealand's and their milk price ishigher. (Fair enough to take our technologies over to America, but shouldn't NZ brand our keycomparative advantage - a responsible pastoralism method?)
Oram said that the price ceilings for milk powder and meat are probably being reached.Substitutes such as soy powder become more attractive, permanently given the costs of changinginputs for a manufacturer, beyond current levels. NZ shouldn't then expect a continued run of everincreasing agricultural prices.
The number of young people studying primary industry science isway below replacement requirements for our major industries - agriculture, horticulture, forestryand aquaculture.
Universally the speakers, from former agriculture minister Jim Anderton to Royal Society of NZpresident Garth Carnaby, Fed Farmers vice-president William Rolleston and before-mentioned Oram allsaid we must add more value to what we produce.
Anderton made an analogy about 'cracking' milk (much as crude oil if refined to its constituent'bits'). But later, questioner Kevin Marshall and speaker Oram both agreed that Fonterra's (mostlyoff-farm) R&D spend of about $125 million a year out of total revenues of about $20 billion isnot really enough. It was pointed out that Nestle has just announced an incremental investment innutriceuticals of US$500 million!
Because, at the heart of what everyone is talking about, isit is only off-farm; more cleverly using the raw materials produced from our land, water and brains,that we can create more value.
We've failed, so far, to make 'invention' at this level seem sexy. We've failed, so far, to showpotential investors (including farmers) that there's money to be made in some of these areas. Andwe've failed, so far, to partner up with those (usually overseas) entities who could help takeproducts to market - and share the value-added component.
The forum n a sense was too stuck on the farm; even while it didn't want to be.
We're good, indeed world-leaders at the growing. In spite of agriculture's current commodityboom, a sustainable economic and environmental future is only possible by becoming world-leaders attransforming the raw materials we naturally produce into products that manufacturers and consumersneed or desire.
We have a long way to go - though such a forum is at least a place to start airing suchconcerns.