An Ill Wind

An ill wind is blowing across the dairy industry at present. I can only imagine the feeling: slogging through another day of mud, calves and the cold weather knowing that all that effort equates to going backwards financially. For this season at least.

I can hear you muttering – why are the salaries of those Fonterra fat cats in HQ and abroad not linked to commodity prices?

I can hear your expletives – they convinced us that China would take every ounce of product. Double-ewes – thats all they are!

I can hear your rage – even the effing tanker driver will do better than me!

I can hear you screaming. All those menacing vultures in the market-place conniving to peck profits from my financial skeleton. Bloody snake-oil merchants greasing me up with the patsy pater about their product being just as effective as real deal!

And then I see the PR department of the collective seed merchants – the so-called Pasture Renewable Trust – (why the last word?) – greasing the MPI about how important pasture renewal is in tough times. BS. I’ve already wasted heaps of dollars on pasture renewal – expensive waste of time if you ask me.

And now we have DairyNZ running around as if they are they are some modern incarnation of the Social Welfare department, treating us like moronic dole bludgers.  Levy this, levy that,  - I didn’t pay a levy to have my hand held like a day-one school kid.  And now they are muttering Farm Systems 1 and 2 are the way forward after years of being non-committal. Hypocrites! 

And where are all those self-proclaimed analysts with their forward-looking wisdom – China China China, Asia, Asia Asia, India India India! Parading ponies!       

And what about all those pricks who said Fonterra is the future. The meat industry should restructure in its image! You’re silent now you dick heads! 

It is of course a human failing. When the gold rush is on – and the gold takes many, many forms from the sharemarket, Fanny Mae, kiwifruit, Rugby World Cups - we just cannot contemplate the possibility that the gold will one day stop. Myopia sets in. Good times are an anesthetic to reflection, contemplation and wise analysis. 

But it is an ill wind that blows no good. Listen closely. Remember the Elephant in the Room I spoke to you about – his trumpeting is getting louder and louder. Do you remember what he was saying? He was repeating a truth from our past. Our pastoral sector was globally competitive because of our low cost, clover-based, all weather, in situ grassland system. You cannot avoid hearing him now. Take heart and learn from the ill wind.

And we all have our own personal ill-wind story. Even those famous farming raconteurs like Steve Wyn-Harris and his buddy Jamie McKay have shared theirs recently. This is mine, or at least one that fits the current theme.   
 
My father told us – yes, 10 children – his story. He was compelled by life’s circumstances to leave school in the early depression years and work on the farm so that his father, a qualified plumber, could return to the trade to keep the farm from the bankers – a 100 acre dairy farm then milking about 20 cows. The butterfat price had fallen suddenly from 2/6d to 6d.  This experience cast a shadow over his whole life – he was greatly interested in farming, agriculture, crops, soils and plants and read very widely, but I think that being a farmer was not stimulating enough for him.

Thus, Dad was adamant in his advice to us – “secure your future first” he would say “get a trade or an education”. Most of us did. For me being the youngest of six boys and being coded with some intelligence gene, I had no option. University was for me. My father’s ill-wind became my good fortune.

So take heart. It is possibly that the current situation will teach this generation of dairy farmers the basic biological and economic truth about pastoral farming in New Zealand. While the dairy industry remains largely a commodity based we are only competitive internationally, year in and year out, up and down, cycle upon cycle, if we stick to our proven low-cost system.

PS. One of my brothers did not follow Dads advice. He left school, ironically to take over the farm because Dad fell seriously ill. We joke about it now: he has just retired and cashed up. I still have to work.  His financial assets are worth many, many times more than mine.  So thanks Dad – get an education and secure your future? I guess he would respond with – depends on how you count your assets son.     

Hill Country Symposium

A two-day symposium on hill country was held recently in Rotorua.  It was well attended by 300 farmers, consultants and agricultural scientists. Clearly there is a thirst for innovation, new technologies and knowledge in this sector. 

The aim of the meeting was made explicit: “What does a profitable and resilient future for our hill country farming look like?” And, “What do we, collectively and as individuals, do to achieve this future?”  The output of the symposium, and hence, one hopes, the answers to these questions, is to be formally captured in a “Position Paper.” More on that after the paper comes out.

In the meantime my contribution to these questions was a paper entitled “An assessment of the current fertiliser practices in New Zealand hill country.” The conclusion of the paper is blunt: there is currently a large amount of untapped potential in our hill country due to poor, sub-optimal soil fertility.

There are several threads supporting this conclusion. My experience over the last decade sheds some light. For example in the last 4 years only 2 of the 760 farms we (agKnowledge Ltd) have visited presented with no nutrient limitations. In other words a large majority of hill country farms are underperforming because of deficiencies of one or a number of nutrients. In order of decreasing frequency the culprits are K, S and Mo.

In the paper we presented 4 real-life case studies. The actual or predicted increases in production from optimizing the soil fertility on these farms were about 20%.

More convincing we have clients whose production is 2 to 3 times greater than the average – did you catch that – 200% to 300% better! Why? They have one thing in common – they love fertiliser. No excuses, no mucking around! These farmers fertilize their farms to their full biological and economic potential. As one of these farmers told me; he learnt about fertiliser by watching the dairy farmers.

This attitude is manifest not just their profitability but can be seen in their pastures, which provide proof to my catch-cry – clover is a weed given the right soil fertility. Serendipitously this can be seen in most districts. As dairy farming has expanded onto what was dry-stock country, suddenly the pastures are green and full of vigorous clover and ryegrass. Duh?

It seems that we have lost sight of what a good clover-based pasture looks like and have forgotten the skills to grow and manage it. This problem has been insidiously creeping up on us over the last few decades or so. I can suggest some reasons for this.

There have been very few fertiliser field trials in the last 20-30 years and hence farmers no longer have a reference point - a mental image - of what a good clover-based pasture looks like. Also farmers have been given many reasons, other than soil fertility, for the decline in pasture and clover production: the flea, root weevil, poor pasture persistence, lack of pasture renewal and of course weather extremes. These have become, in my view, excuses, which have masked the real reason for poor clover growth – suboptimal soil fertility. 

There are exacerbating institutional reasons too. Government policy since the mid 1980s has focused the two large fertiliser cooperatives to pursue market share, sales and profits. Consequently the fertiliser industry has placed less and less emphasis and time on providing sound technical advice to famers, assisting them to optimize soil fertility and hence pasture production, at the least cost. Furthermore the agricultural universities are no longer teaching courses in the basics of soil fertility and pasture nutrition and the CRIs’ are diverting their soil science resources into the important environmental-issues space. There is currently no research on soil fertility and pasture nutrition in the CRIs, and hence there is no need for them to teach and retain the relevant skills in this area.

So how do we break this vicious cycle: my farm only carries 10 su/ha and hence I can only afford $X on fertilisers and because I can only afford $X dollars on fertiliser I can only run 10 su/ha! 

We need, I believe, to upgrade our approach. Gone are the days where the fertiliser policy was set by one or a combination of such fiscally advanced reasons like: Do what we did last year – we got through okay, didn’t we? Adjust the fert. spend up or down to fit the budget – my god the accountant will be impressed? Do what the neighbor did last year – he’s a good bloke and his farm always looks green, right? Do what the salesman says – get away from the nasty chemical fertilisers and in any case what he sold me cost less than last year…. yeah right?

We now have the tools - the science and the software, to develop for a given farm, fertiliser polices based on economic outcome. The steps are simply stated: establish the biological potential of the farm; establish the current nutrient status of the farm (soil and pasture tests); develop a fertiliser plan (i.e. the nutrient inputs and the least cost fertiliser inputs) to get the soil nutrient levels into the optimal ranges such that profitably is maximized in the long term.

This is how I see “a profitable and resilient future for our hill country farming.” What am I doing it about it? agKnowledge, with funding from agmardt, is currently testing a beta version of a new econometric fertiliser model for this purpose.

Future Requirements for Soil Management

Late last year, December to be exact, the Ministry of Primary Industries released a report entitled,  “Future Requirements for Soil Management in New Zealand.” It begins with a statement of the obvious; “Soil is fundamental to life on Earth – it underpins food, feed, fibre and fuel production.” A nice piece of alliteration for a government document, I thought. Perhaps a reminder to remember your four F’s – eff-this and eff-that, all squared, of course.

Naturally I read the eloquently pictured and presented report – government departments do that these days, reflecting a popular value in our valueless society, that form is more important than substance - with considerable interest.  I had, and still have, skin in this game, accepting that my skin is perhaps a little calloused and scared for the simple and sufficient reason that I have boldly, perhaps foolishly, decided to put my scientific skin on the line.

The report contains some really good initiatives. In center place, it is proposed to establish a ‘National Soil Management Group’ to provide leadership, to develop a national soil strategy, to inform and advise policy and practice, and to provide a national perspective on research. I say bravo to this. 

The science reforms, which commenced in the 1990 have devastated New Zealand’s skills in soil science. In my time as National Science Leader, Soils and Fertiliser in agResearch (1990 – 1997), I saw soil scientist numbers go from 20 to 10. It got worse after I left.  The same happened in the other new CRIs (Landcare and Crop and Food), which inherited soil scientists from their antecedents.

This culling of New Zealand’s soil science resources was given political legitimacy with the’ sunset industry’ slogan and it spilled over into future recruitment into soil science. Thus, this report notes that “enrollment remains low” [in Universities]; “Scientist roles in specialist areas such as soil science are particularly challenging to fill,” and that, “there is critical need for “more accredited rural professionals/providers to transfer new techniques and knowledge.”

I was made hugely aware of this situation following the death of my mentor Mr Micheal O’Connor. I realized that I am the last man standing with a skill-set grounded on the science of soil fertility, pasture nutrition and fertilisers. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Universities no longer teach this subject. The training and research opportunities that are available in this sector are mostly in the box ‘environment’ not the box ‘productivity.’ 

In this context I see the current report as playing catch-up. And it will be a long-haul! New Zealand had a proud history in soil sciences, especially in pedology, soil chemistry, soil fertility, fertiliser and pasture nutrition. And it is not just a matter of restoring the number of scientists – great bundles of institutional knowledge and wisdom have been lost.

So I welcome this, what I hope will be the beginning of the beginning – the restoration of the vital discipline of soil science in NZ. Yes, soils are fundamental to life on earth. Yes, New Zealand derives about $35 b in export value from its primary industries. Yes, this industry depends on maintaining productive soils, and yes that goal must be broad enough to embrace the environmental challenges we confront.

The report hints at the latent funding problem with some weasel wording: “Without clear national research priorities however it is difficult to ascertain the amount of investment dedicated to soil priorities and to evaluate the impact of this funding”. The funding conundrum (and it is just that: soils are important but we don’t want fund research in soil science) is parked for now with yet another new mechanism to rationalize science funding, “The National Science Challenges,” which is growing like an ectophyte on the warm belly of Wellington’s science bureaucracy.   
 
Lets assume that this good initiative proceeds and that a ‘National Soil Management Group ‘is established (pic me, pic me!), which then applies the successful formula used by the Land and Water Forum (as suggested in the report) to bring all the relevant stakeholders together (how I despise that word – it makes me think; ribeye) to set the agenda and funding requirements for soil science for the next generation or so. 

The question then begs; what research is required in the foreseeable future? The report identifies “six specific pressures as significant to New Zealand soils.” I think these can sensibly be reduced to the following three bullets:

1. Intensification of land use and its consequences on nutrient losses and on the soil quality.
2. Land-use changes including urban creep onto high quality soils, and increasing intensification onto erodible hill country soils
3. Poor vegetative cover on erodible soils due to deforestation past and current.

It is at this point I become, ….. well …… um, um…….. perplexed. We are discussing New Zealand’s future needs for soil science and scientists. But some of this does not require soil science. Things like restoring vegetative cover and urban creep are policy issues.  Sure science is needed to inform those policies but the science and knowledge is already to hand.

I would hope that the Minister for Primary Industries is also perplexed. This report, so we are told, was the consequence of three earlier reports – “huge public expenditure and all I get is this! Is the soil science fraternity not aware of my big bold aspirational goal for this sector: doubling export value by 2025! Where is the production-lead research? Don’t they have any new ideas to increase soil production and productivity? Go tell them I’m not happy”: Yes Minister!

ANZAC Thoughts

I have sat in that place – the place where he penned that immortal poem about those poppies in Flanders Fields. It was a dressing station outside Ypres where he attended to the wounded. He was John McCrae a Canadian medic. The year 1915.

We all know, because it was taught so religiously in primary school, the first few lines: “In Flanders Fields where poppies grow between the crosses row on row……”. What struck me as I sat outside the now restored dressing station, in that almost sacred place; and it emerges fresh from my subconscious every Anzac Day, is the last verse.

“Take up our quarrel with the foe/to you from falling hands we throw the torch/be yours to hold it high/If ye break faith with us who die/ we shall not sleep….”

If John McCrae and all those soldiers for whom he spoke, could speak to us today what meanings would they want us to apply: what “quarrel”, what “torch”, what “faith?” What is worth fighting for today?

Of course freedom and democracy are paramount but we, the baby boomers, are blessed; we have never experienced a time when these basic rights were threatened, at least not in our precious corner of the world. I do acknowledge that for the current flood of refugees staggering into Europe, the ‘quarrel’ and the ‘foe’ are well defined.

Perhaps for us the issue reduces to defining the current threats to a 20th century democracy. 

I could list a bunch of issues: feeding 9 billion mouths, land-use intensification, industrial farming, genetic modification, animal rights and climate change.  The press reminds us daily of these problems and no doubt these are important issues but, in my analysis, they are technical and political issues which will be solved given time, science investment and political will. One day I suspect we will reflect on them, with that grinning pride of a 4 year old who has just learned to ride a bike – gosh, I have just conquered a major.

For me the major threat that we must confront are not these, what I will call externalities. The challenge lies deep, often hidden within us – our philosophical settings – the mental scaffolding upon which we decide what is best, not just for ourselves but for our communities and society.

We have emerged from the age of enlightenment, the age of reason, when so much progress was made, only to find ourselves now plunging headlong and thoughtlessly into a world labeled by others as the world of “airheads” a world of “mumbo jumbo”. A place where the sound-bites and the clichés are as profound as it gets and the Sunday paper gets more and more mindless as it gets fatter and fatter.

How did it happen that the age of reason morphed into the age of non-reason: where PC ism demands that all opinions be given equal weight and respect, irrespective of where the evidence lies. Where pseudo-science is allowed and tolerated at the table of science. Where criticism, that vital activity by which science progresses, is no longer allowed. Where science is trapped in a political and commercial time warp that gags its solemn purpose in any enlightened society – academic freedom. Where politicians regard the voice of science as simply another lobby group looking for money. Where the purpose of science is no longer about the pursuit of truth and understanding. Its role now is to support the political or environmental narrative of the extremists.

Science, the foundation stone of the enlightenment, the source of so much progress since the 1700s, is today under threat. And science is politically helpless. Yes, we need lawyers and accountants to administer the laws of the land. We need doctors for health, teachers for education and engineers to keep   us safe. These are givens in a modern society. But science…….? Science is the only truly voluntary profession. The law does not prescribe that governments, societies and farmers must use science. Ask Sir Peter Gluckman how hard it has been to get science involved on policy decisions.

This reality, and our modern philosophical settings, puts science in a very vulnerable position. The foe of unreason must be fought to restore science to its noble cause.  That is my quarrel. It is my torch. It is one of the reasons that keeps me alive.

Ok boys…..? Over the top tomorrow?  Watch your back, mind. The enemy this time is within. 

Fertilisers: A Bad Rap

Paul Erhlich (1968) and The Club of Rome (1972) famously reiterated the Reverend Malthus’s 1798 prediction that the world was soon to run out of resources, and in particular food, because of the increase in human population. The end was nigh they proclaimed! They will of course be proven correct one-day, unless the cosmologist have got it wrong, and the sun’s nuclear furnace will burn in perpetuity. In the meantime we need to get on with this thing we call life.

The fact that we are here today and that there are no clear-chicken-licken signs that the sky is falling, is proof that, “It is difficult to make predictions especially when they are about the future”, an insight attributed to many wise men.

What makes prophesying difficult is that we do not know what the future holds, and this is especially the case with science and technology.  Malthus, Erhlich and the Club of Rome were all sadly wrong, at least within their timeframes of doom, because of two little events. They both occurred about 100 years ago (1914 to be exact).

The first commercial production of urea occurred at the outbreak of WWI. Haber developed the science to convert nitrogen gas from the atmosphere into ammonia and hence to urea, and later, Bosch, developed the technology to make this an industrial reality. Welcome to the Haber-Bosch process for making fertiliser N.  It is estimated that 48% of the worlds population depends on fertiliser N for its food production. If you argue that fertiliser N should be banned because it causes environmental damage then you should run for World President and announce your policy that human survival requires that we let 3b odd people starve to death! 

Another birth happened in 1914 in Ohio, USA. Norman Borlag was born.  He is regarded as the father of the green revolution and before he died aged 95 was the most honored scientist on the planet – Nobel Peace Prize, President Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal. Why?

He developed disease resistant semi dwarf, but high yielding, varieties of wheat -rice followed later. As a consequence, basket-case countries at the time, like Mexico, India and Pakistan, rather than importing wheat to feed the increasing population, became net exporters. This development is remembered as the Green Revolution and saved millions of people from starvation.

Thus were the predictions of Erhlich and the Club of Rome thwarted by science and technology. Surprise, surprise, or the modern vernacular - bugger-me! 

Despite this amazing contribution to agricultural science and to humanity Borlag’s work has been, and still is, criticized by environmentalist. They argue that the green revolution replaced sustainable subsistence farming, reliant on animal manure, with intensive industrial-type agriculture dependent on fossil fuel to provide the fertiliser and other agrichemicals.

Borlaug responded thus (I have adjusted his figures to reflect todays reality): The world produces about 100 m tonnes of fertiliser N. To replace that with animal manure would require about 5 b tonnes of animal manure. In turn this would require about 7.5 b cattle.  Currently we have about 1.5 b head. Thus to meet the demand for manure, a five fold increase in cattle would be required together with a similar increase in the land use. The ironical end-point of his argument was that those who want to preserve natural ecosytems should embrace the intensification of agriculture.

The same logic can be deduced from more recent research showing that production from organic farms is about 60-70% that of conventional farms. Thus to feed todays population “organically” would required a large increase (30-40%) in land use, reducing net biodiversity, one of the holy grails of the environmental movement.

Of course today in our more environmentally conscious society, we can see a weakness in Borlaug’s argument. To put food into people’s mouths requires intensification and intensification requires more fertile soils, which requires fertiliser, and more fertile soils give rise to more nutrients getting into the waterways.  To minimize this outcome environmentalists argue de-intensify – in effect the only way forwards is to go backwards.

Such myopia must be challenged because it falls into the Malthusian trap – it assumes that nothing will change heading into the future. Borlaug’s immediate problem was to alleviate hunger. He did that with science and technology. Our immediate problem is to optimize production and simultaneously reduce avoidable nutrient loss. We will find solutions, we have already started. Getting rid of fertiliser and destocking is going backwards.

Fertiliser: Capital or Discretionary?

All young scientists at Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre were strongly encouraged to interact and relate with farmers – this was of course “Mac” McMeekan’s legacy - “science is no good until it is applied on the farm”. I came to thoroughly enjoy these interactions - I say ‘came too’ because I had to learn to confront and overcome my inherent shyness – yes, shyness. The late John Scott, and the now aged Drs Arnold Bryant and Clive Dalton, all helped me learn the skills and gain confidence. 

The informal meetings in the haybarn, woolshed or cowshed were the best because they allowed the natural banter to take place – the cut and thrust of debate. Because we were public servants we were always fair game. 
I remember well turning up to a farm discussion group to find the farmer’s ute strategically parked with a big banner in the rear window – Reduce Taxes Kill a Public Servant. We were often taunted with “what do you know – you are a public servant shielded from the harsh reality that is the farmer’s lot”. 

These memories have come flooding back because of the current plight of the dairy farmer. Things are grim. Some may not survive. I empathize. No longer a public servant, my business, agknowledge, depends on a financially healthy farming sector. What hurts you hurts me. I may not survive either! The best we can do is to help each other. In that spirit here is some free advice.

Fertilisers are a large component of discretionary expenditure and for this reason it is tempting to cut back on the fertiliser dollar. Possibly your accountant is advising you to do so. I suggest you think again – after all, does your accountant really know about the intimate relationship between fertiliser use and pasture production? Does he appreciate that clover-based pasture is the cheapest feed on the farm?

I think there are, in many situations, some clever ways to cut fertiliser costs in the short-term (1-2 years) without significantly affecting pasture production.

First, stick with the generic products: super, potash and urea. Don’t get sucked into using branded products - typically they are just a more expensive way of doing the same thing and the plant does not know! The plant does not think to itself – oh heck, some expensive fertiliser – I had better grow faster! Always choose the least-cost product, or combination of products, to deliver the required nutrients. I know from experience that this step alone can save significant dollars.

Phosphorus is the most expensive nutrient ($3.20/kg P) and, unlike to the other nutrients we typically need to add to our soils (e.g. sulphur and potash), it stays put. So if the Olsen P levels on the farm are in the optimal range you can go for at least one year without losing pasture production. The Olsen P levels may drop but only by 1 to 2 units. 

But you cannot do this with the more mobile nutrients, sulphur and potash. The soil sulphur and potash tanks have to be topped up annually. The good news is that these nutrients are cheaper than P. Sulphur costs about $0.70/kg and potash about $1.40/kg. The money you save from withholding P will easily cover the costs of applying the required amounts of K and S.

Lime is very cheap (about $30/tonne) relative to fertilisers (super about $320/tonne). When money is tight it is tempting to apply lime as if it is a substitute for fertiliser. Lime is not a fertiliser – it does not contain any of the nutrients we need to add to maintain soil P, K and S levels. Sure it contains calcium (Ca) but our soils already have plenty of Ca.  The reason we apply lime is to change the soil pH and if the soil pH is in the optimal range (5.8 – 6.0) you will be wasting money applying more lime.

And please, please, please, do not let yourself get ripped off by the muck and mystery brigade.  They pray on farmer’s vulnerability, which at the moment is cash. If they suggest to you that they can ‘fertilize’ the farm for a fraction of the cost of normal solid fertiliser then they are selling mutton dressed up as lamb, not fertiliser nutrients. 

History often contains pearls of wisdom that can bring some comfort. Remember the late 80’s, early 90’s? The sheep and beef sector went pear shaped – no subsidies, poor commodity prices. Surveys during and after this rough period by Meat & Wool NZ, showed a clear link between fertiliser use and profit. Those farmers who continued with their annual fertiliser plan were more profitable during and after the crash. You see, the truth is that fertiliser should treated as capital, not discretionary expenditure. 

Elephants 2

Do you remember the Elephant in the room? I used this idiomatic metaphor in a column early last year to express the fact that we – the New Zealand dairy industry - has lost sight of the obvious – the foundation for our international competitive advantage. It is based on, just I case you have not been present for the last century, in situ grazing all-year-round, on clover-based pastures. 

We lost sight of this elephant because we became addicted: nitrogen fertiliser, maize silage, palm kernel. We were drugged on per cow production and that male problem - mine is bigger than yours – we liked to show off in our discussion groups.

So are you ‘off the feed-out wagon’ yet? A whole season of low payouts and still you want a fix of supplements – a shot of PKE anyone? A sneaky puff of those white urea prills in the back paddock? It can’t hurt can it?

I understand. I know addictions. None of us is clean. It takes time…….. .

You are on the couch. Your shrink in soothing – how’s it going?

Well, I was fine until a few days ago. The tear ducts swell. But the cows are now looking skinny. You understand - I’m big on animal health and welfare. That is why I ended up going down the slippery slope of supplements. I got addicted cos I cared!!!!!! Tears welled - just little trickles. 

I tried – I thought it was for the common good. Even the bosses who run the cooperative said I was doing the right thing. I remember talking to my DairyNZ consultant about my growing dependence – he encouraged me - all five systems are good systems he said. They are so bloody PC these days.

Now look at what has happened to me?  I’m so gullible. I’ve become a laughing stock – one tsp., add water, bring to boil while stirring, then, piss yourself at my expense. Every body thinks I’m foolish

There, there; he comforts, bringing a touch of realism. You have not met everybody, so how do you know everybody thinks you are foolish? I like you - and by the by, I have put me fees up. It’s the only mechanism I have to reduce my workload.

But he is wise, my shrink, He knows what is really happening. He asks - but the rain, the rain must be good for you and the cows?  Seeking to gain empathy he adds – I thought of you as I peered out of the wet tent flaps – lucky you I thought, grinning.

The tears now flow unimpeded.  He recalled the story his mum told him about the sad faced clown! Everyone was happy to see him but he cried when alone. That’s me!

He trundles home. He is aware enough to realize he has used the right adjective - trundler – something that some one else pushes around the golf course of life.  EF …… the dairy industry, he mutters.

Enough, enough, time to be my own man. Time to be like Frankie the crooner and Do it My Way. But where to start?

Clover based pasture cost 4-5 cents kg DM. Those drugs like Maize and PKE are all greater than 30 cents. Mmmmm – so if I grow more pasture and optimise pasture utilisation I will be maximising income, relative to input costs. So far so good. The Elephant might be right after all.

But I have got so many cows now, some will starve. Ah, but that’s the rot in the old thinking isn’t it? More cows equals more production and more production must mean more profit. It’s a fact is it not; my milk cheque increases with increasing cows ……… so where is the flaw?  Ah hah, got it - costs go up out of proportion to income. That’s the slippery slope the elephant was on about !!!. Why didn’t the Misses tell me, she runs the books, I do the work. That’s our deal. 

Slow down, slow down - remember what they taught you at AA. Small steps.

Step one. From now on I’ll do the work and the thinking, thank you very much!!

So if I can’t feed all my cows, why not sell some? Yip, production will decline a little, but think of the cost savings. It a ratio thingy not a ration thingy – I’ll swap Swap for my money. Clever word plays, a sign his confidence is returning. He grins to himself.

Back now in his favorite chair in his castle. No one uses My chair. My throne.  My thinking place. My holy space.

The elephant trumpets out of the first mail he opens. Is a summary of recent research which summarizes production and financial data covering 2759 dairy-farm years, from spring-calving, pasture- based dairy farms. “On average pasture harvested/ha and net profit/ha declined with every tonne of DM supplementary feed purchased/ha”.

Dam it he realizes in triumph, my intuition was right all along – I should have trusted myself rather than listening to all that cooperative, marketing, management BS. My co-op, which I thought respected me as one of their many owners, duped me big time.

Any hint of regret about lost income melts away with the more sturdy, more meaningful, and more satisfying, realization. From now on I am going to let my intuition be my own personal elephant. 

Depression - A Personal Story

Winston Churchill called it his black dog. Andrew Solomon called his book on the subject “The Noonday Demon.” After repeated bouts, over many years, I have come to call it “my friend”. To finally escape the torment of depression I found the courage to confront myself – to slowly, emotional-layer-by-emotional layer to scrape away and excise all that was false in me. Eric Fromm (1946) expressed it thus: mans main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become who he truly is.”

I came to see my disposition to depression as a consequence of accrued, knotted-up, unresolved feelings arising from historically painful situations and experiences, some of my own making but most arising from life’s circumstances. These, often old, emotional boils had to be lanced and the wounds healed before further inner growth can take place. It was only then that the dark, grey, featureless wall of melancholia - emotional numbness - slowly evaporated away.  A fresh newness to life began.

That is not to deny that the distressing symptoms of depression have a biochemical basis. They do. For me it was essential that the biochemical imbalance was first addressed. It was the first step towards mental health. I will, I am told, be taking antidepressants for the rest of my life, just as a person afflicted with Type 1 diabetes must inject insulin to remain alive. 

But even this first step in dealing with depression was mentally difficult. I initially rejected the advice of my doctor when he suggested medication. What me – I’m not mad – I’m not going mad! Because of my poor knowledge of the disease I directly linked depression with madness and with that unhealthy inference came that paralyzing emotion - shame.  Do nothing and especially do not share your inner thoughts and fears. Depression can be a trap.
 
It took me time to come to accept my illness for what is was. It comforted and reassured me to learn that the predisposition to depression is hereditary, it often afflicts intelligent creative minds, and that many famous people made significant contributions to society despite their illness. There was hope. And my mother added her wisdom also – you are lucky son that in your generation they have effective medications. She knew something of the source of my genes and the suffering of some of my forebears.

The specialist told me that antidepressants take time to ‘kick’ in and the experience is still vivid when that happened. To me it felt like the sun was now shining in my brain. Not the temporary euphoria of mind-altering drug, but the wonderful realization that I could be normal. My brain it appeared to me was now working normally. It was working the way that I thought a normal brain should – like it worked for most normal people.  At last I felt I could be myself.  No longer was my life undermined and limited by that deep, hidden, soul-destroying sense of shame - that dreadful possibility that one day someone will expose me for the weak frail fraud that I really was inside.

That was the beginning. I was to learn that those little white pills did not immunize me from further bouts of depression. They can and did return, sometimes with vengeance. I ‘bottomed’ out the year after I left my dream job at Ruakura – a better description is “walked the plank with a blunderbus up my arse” - wondering whether I was going mad or was it the new science system?

Slowly, incrementally, my emotional and mental resilience improved, a consequence of medication, wise advice, self-awareness and a determination to be true to myself. The fear of further painful depressive episodes became my motivation to ‘give birth to myself.’ Depression became my guide, my friend.

It is because I have come to see depression as a beneficial experience I no longer feel the shame which traps so many sufferers.  I now feel free to talk about this aspect of my experience. I do so knowing that for me sharing my deepest concerns and fears gives me my strongest sense of being human - not a perfect, human, just perfectly human. 

Dairy NZ

One thing I have been ‘banging on’ about since this column began more that 2 years ago is the importance of clover-based pasture to our pastoral industries – the cheapest animal feed there is in NZ – the source of on-farm profitability and the source of our international competitive advantage. Remember the ‘elephant in the room.’

This is what I wrote in October 2014:

“What the elephant has been saying since the 1950s is that our New Zealand, low cost, clover-based pastoral system, with all weather grazing in situ, is a winner.  It is the source of our competitive advantage internationally. It is the reason we can compete globally even though we are far removed from the markets.”

I also raised an awkward question:

“……. where is the leadership in this industry? Dairy NZ has introduced us, over the last decade, to the Five Production Systems typically used in NZ, on a continuum from no supplements to more than 30% supplements. But they have been steadfastly non-committal about which system is best.”

Some generous farmers thanked me for those 2014 comments but by and large I thought they would be ignored, especially by the movers and shakers. I think this stasis would have prevailed except for one thing – the now low MS payout.

Hence my huge, delighted surprise reading the Dairy News (February 23 2016).  The headline blazed “DairyNZ plans refocus on pastures”. The first paragraph stated, “The New Zealand dairy industry has lost its way on growing and utilizing pasture says DairyNZ Chief Executive Tim Mackle.” DairyNZ plans to launch a campaign next month on, putting pasture first? Bravo, bravo, bravo. Standing ovation, clapping clapping, clapping, encore, encore.

This change in focus is, it seems to me, not so much a ‘matter of necessity being the mother of invention’. Thanks to our forebears we already know about all-pasture farming. This circumstance is more Churchillian – a case of confronting the grim reality of possibly sustained, low milk product prices.

I have over the years argued this point with DairyNZ staff.  Their position, or at least my understanding of their position, was that all five systems are equally profitable and hence, it was not necessary or appropriate for Dairy NZ to take a position.

In this vacuum the market for supplements burgeoned, eagerly aided and abetted from the lowest level – farm discussion groups, which focused on either per cow production or total farm production – to the highest level – a co-op saying give us all the milk you can produce. In the middle the supplement market prospered.

But as it turned all of this came at the expense of the average farmer’s profit. The figures I recall at the time was that in a 12 month period feed cost increased on the average from 80 cents/kg MS to $1.40/kg MS.

In their defense, DairyNZ say that they have always stressed pasture production and utilisation first. That may be the case but I think this qualification was drowned by the roaring sound of a $V8 payout. Those in the pursuit of Eldorado are not interested in the small print.

Nevertheless lets be generous umpires and give DairyNZ the benefit of the doubt.

This is what I now clearly and unambiguously hear from DairyNZ. All 5 farm-systems are profitable providing pasture production and pasture utilisation is optimised as a matter of priority. Supplements can profitably be added into the system providing, and here in lies the farm management rub, it is not used as a substitute for good quality clover-based pasture. All five systems leak profits if pasture production, quality and utilisation are compromised.

So I applaud DairyNZ’s new “pasture first” initiative but you will need to forgive: I am a tad skeptical, not about the initiative, but about its delivery.  As we proceed into the future by relearning this old skill, we need to remember that optimizing the production and quality of clover-based pasture is no simple matter. It requires a sound knowledge of the science of soil fertility and pasture nutrition, it requires the skill and experience to ‘read’ and assess pastures for tell-tail signs of nutrient deficiencies, and to collect soil and clover samples that reflect the underlying soil fertility. This of course requires time on farm.

These skills are no longer taught at University and they are no longer required in the CRI’s, focused as they are on environmental rather than production issues.
The fertiliser industry, historically a repository of these skills, is focused on market share, sales and the environmental threats confronting their industry. Cars, cell phones and sales targets define the job and the real important things like pasture assessment and collecting representative soil and plant samples are often delegated to unskilled staff.

These are not theoretical concerns. I see it day after day on farms from the North Cape the Bluff. The quality of fertiliser advice that New Zealand farmers are exposed to is, in my opinion, abysmal.  We must do better if we are to survive.   

When is a Co-op Not a Co-op

When is a cooperative not cooperative? And, to avoid possible complications, I am not thinking of Fonterra. My attention at this moment is the fertiliser industry. I think of them as sports team – the Blue team (Ballance AgriNutrients) and the Green Team (Ravensdown ).
 
According to the Companies Office, “A cooperative is a term used to describe a business organization that is owned and democratically controlled by it members,” and perhaps more revealing “A cooperative is run for the mutual benefit of its members who may purchase goods or use the services at a favorable rate rather than being established for the purpose of earning profits for investors.” 

I was driven to seek a definition of a cooperative company because of recent advertising by the Blue Team with respect to their product SustaiN. You have seen the ads I am sure. The one in front of me as I write is from the Dairy News (October 13, 2015). A full-page ad showing a farmer, Mr Shane Campbell, holding a placard claiming: MY SUSTAIN GAIN, $1013, NET BENEFIT. The ad tells us that this is the benefit from using SustaiN instead of urea. (SustaiN is urea treated with a urease inhibitor. The reader is directed to a website (http://www.sustaingain.co.nz) for further information which provides the reader with what are referred to as the “Calculation Variables.” 

It is assumed that 30 kg N/ha is applied per application and that 15% of the urea N is volatilized (lost to the air) and 7.5% is lost from SustaiN. Thus the inputs of effective N are 27.7 kg N/ha for SustaiN and 25.5 for urea. Applying a conversion factor of 10 kg DM/kg effective N applied means the pasture production from SustaiN is 277 kg DM/ha compared to 255 from urea. These figures are then used to calculate the annual financial benefit for the farmer of $1013.  There appears to be another “Calculation Variable.” While the ad states the benefit to Mr Campbell is $1,013, the same farmer on the website gets a benefit of $1,541

I recently reviewed all of the field trials data that I could find nationally and internationally comparing urea and Sustain on pastures and crops yields (see agknowledge.co.nz/publications Fertiliser Review 34). There are 105 comparisons in the data set I assembled and the average response of SustaiN, relative to urea, was 2% with a confidence interval of about +/-1%.  The range in responses was from -11% to +23%. In other words the results straddle zero. The probability of getting a positive response is about 62%, slightly better that calling heads.  (Please note that if 100 field trials were conducted comparing a control (no treatment) with a completely inert material the results would range from about -20% to + 20% with the average at about zero. This is due to the background noise in all field trial work). 

Thus there is a hint in the data that SustaiN is better than urea but is hard to ‘see’ given the background noise. This conclusion is consistent with the view that when urea is used as recommended (typically 50 kg urea/ha per application) on temperate clover-based pastures, the losses of N via volatilization are small (< 5%).

The Blue machine obfuscates this fact by claiming that SustaiN reduces volatilisation by 50%. This is true - but 50% of a small amount is a small amount!!! They also claim that when the difference between the products is calculated on a marginal basis the average response is about 5%. In my opinion calculating the difference between these products on a marginal basis, as distinct from an absolute basis, is a mathematical contrivance that makes the difference between the products look bigger. 

It is likely that the Blue team will also respond by saying that volatilisation of N from urea is variable and depends on a number of factors and in particular rainfall post application of the urea. This may, I accept, explain some of the variability – the experimental noise - in the data. Where sufficient rain has fallen post application, volatilisation will be minimized resulting in small differences between Sustain and urea. The larger differences, they go up to +23% in this data set, may be trials in which there was no rain post application and the weather was warm and humid. This explanation for the range in the positive results (the 62% of the 105 trials with response to SustaiN relative to urea in the range 0 - +23%) is tempting. But if these results are accepted as real – as distinct from expressions of background noise – what about the 48% of results which show negative responses suggesting that SustaiN depresses yield relative to urea. Are they real or are they background noise? Statistics is unforgiving. 

I can see the Green team blushing ever so slightly because I’m sure they would not like to be reminded of their promotion of their sister product, EcoN.  Remember – EcoN? It was claimed to increase pasture production by up to 20%. My review (NZ Grasslands Conference 2011) of the field trials with this product (n = 28) indicated very similar results to those discussed above – an average response of 2% with a range -17% to +17%. Once again a hint of an effect but hardly discernable above the ‘experimental noise.’  Being charitable, the ad was half correct – up to about 20%!

The interpretation of scientific trials is fraught with difficulty when the results are within the margin of experimental error, which in agronomic field research is typically +/-20%.  It is my view that both companies are playing commercial games in this space at the expense of their owners.

I have of course raised these issues from time to time with both teams. The answer is always the same. “Doug, Dougie, Douglas, Dr Edmeades”  – depending on the depth of their wound – “Our owners, the farmer, expect us to be efficient and make a profit.” It is a foolproof argument until the next question – “That is fine. I understand. But at the expense of your owners!!!!! “ 
.