By Paul McBeth
The bacterial vine disease that invaded New Zealand kiwifruit orchards last year looks likely to cut export returns by as much as a quarter in the year to March 2013, according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s latest update of the outlook for agriculture.
MAF warns the Pseudomonas syringae pv actinadiae bacteria, better known as Psa, is having a severe impact on the gold kiwifruit varietal, and the effect on green varieties is still unknown. That could cut the volume of gold kiwifruit exports by two-thirds and shave an eighth from the volume of green fruit sold overseas.
That means the value of total exports could drop by as much as 25 percent to $782 million in the 12 months ended March 31 2013, though MAF officials think an 18 percent decline to $862 million is more likely. Under MAF’s best case scenario, export returns would fall by 13 percent to $915 million in the 2013 year.
“The impact Psa has had over the past year, and will continue to have on rural businesses and communities has raised the question of the government’s role in assisting recovery and MAF is investigating options,” it said in a statement.
The Psa bacterium was discovered at several orchards last year, prompting the government and statutory monopoly exporter Zespri to stump up $25 million apiece in a plan to contain the spread of the vine canker.
MAF said Te Puke in the Bay of Plenty was the hardest hit area, and just over a quarter of kiwifruit orchards are known to the have the bacteria present.
Last week, shareholders in grower Satara Cooperative nixed a bid to merge with the larger Seeka Kiwifruit Industries in a deal that was seen as giving scale in the troubled industry. Last year, Satara abandoned a proposed merger with Eastpack after Eastpack’s credit lines dried up following the Psa outbreak.
(BusinessDesk)
5 Comments
The above article is incorrect - over 75% of Te Puke orchards have some level of PSA-v infection. And 36% of NZ kiwifruit orchards are infected.
The $25m came from a range of sources including the Zespri corporate account. Gold growers contributed quite a bit directly to the fund - I think it was 30c / tray from last years harvest as well as extra from the gold pool. When money comes from Zespri corporate fund it effectively comes from money that would be distributed to zespri shareholders (ie kiwifruit growers).
In another kick to the guts - I have just got my revaluation from Western Bay of Plenty District Council for my gold orchard - down from $2.4m to $845K ... and this includes a fairly nice 4 bedroom house.
Agridame. My reason for asking is everyone seems to talk of zespri as if it's a cooperative and your post notes money coming from zespri corporate account and direct from trays and the notes that zespri shareholders are growers. But that's not correct is it, as in not all shareholders are growers and not all growers are shareholders.
Just seems a very weird setup with zespri having many hands in many pies.
All shareholders of Zespri are current or past kiwifruit growers. Not all growers are shareholders. Zespri is effectively a hybrid cooperative corporate with a statutory monopsony (or export monopoly).
Most corporates look to maximise the wealth of their shareholders as their main priority however Zespri also need to keep growers (esp growers without Zespri shares) well rewarded otherwise their regulatory single-desk status may be threatened. So it is an unique but often conflicting situation especially in how to distribute profits/expenses such as the PSA issue.
Hereditary is largely responsible for this loss in which an over production of a male hormone called dihydrotestosterone or DHT, attacks the hair follicles which prevents vital nutrients getting to the hair and stops further growth. It is the hair follicles themselves which determine baldness and not where they are located on the scalp. You will have areas of hair which are termed ‘balding-resistant’. These hairs are located on the back and sides of your head and resemble a ‘fringe’ or ‘horseshoe’ pattern which remains in spite of this hair loss. These hairs follow the hair growth cycle as normal.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.