By Allan Barber
After a week in England and a month touring central Europe by road, rail and river, I have gained a superficial impression of the predominant types of agricultural activity in the region. I am talking about Austria, Bavaria, Rhineland and some of the old Communist countries – East Germany, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
While these observations cannot claim to be comprehensive or even accurate in the matter of detail, they will provide a fairly accurate point of contrast with New Zealand’s agricultural landscape.
In particular they indicate a totally different set of political, economic and environmental priorities in Europe.
The similarities are few and far between: in Germany there are substantial plantings of pine trees for house building and furniture manufacture, although they are thin, spindly trees which grow more slowly than ours because of the climate; along the Rhine and Danube there are plentiful vineyards, many on the side of very steep, rocky hills; and there are plenty of crops, including maize and wheat.
But that’s about where the similarities end. Cattle are a surprise when they appear alongside the hectares of crops, although more plentiful in Bavaria where there is a strong dairy herd; sheep are almost non-existent, but I did see two flocks on a farm park museum, one of which was nearly extinct. Farm size is much smaller than in New Zealand and all livestock is housed inside for half the year because of the extremes of climate.
The largest types of land use are traditional crops of wheat and barley, maize or corn for animal feed and ethanol, sugar beet for sugar and fodder, and sunflowers for oil and seeds with waste used for fodder and, in recent years, an increasing amount of rapeseed for biofuels.
A growing land use, particularly in Germany, is for solar panel farms which would seem to be an even bigger misuse of agricultural land than any other devoted to biofuel production.
Germany has a stronger green lobby than any other EU member, evidenced by the longstanding presence of the Green party in parliament and government. The intention is to close all reactors in Germany by 2022 and this will place enormous pressure on finding replacement sources of energy, as well as laying nearly 4,000 kilometres of grid.
The impact on the landscape is already significant – heavily government subsidised solar panels cover many roofs as well as the growing number of solar farms, wind turbines stretch across the countryside, while rapeseed and other biofuel destined crops have taken up large swathes of countryside. Besides there aren’t really sufficient sunlight hours or wind for solar and wind generation to operate economically.
Nor is it certain that the alternative energy sources will be sufficient to replace nuclear capacity by 2022 or any other target date.
Germany is currently a net exporter of energy, although many other EU members are equally opposed to nuclear power, so the longer term energy outlook for Europe is dubious. It will take an awful lot of solar panels (rumoured to be currently less than 2% of energy generation), wind turbines, hydro dams and hectares of rapeseed to compensate.
The other overwhelming impression is that of scale – as everybody knows already, European farm size is dramatically smaller than New Zealand’s. Herd sizes are minute in comparison and, in many cases, only big enough to meet the needs of the family. A visit to the Bavarian Farm Museum Park gave a fascinating insight into farming history, both before and during the introduction of mechanisation.
Farm houses from previous centuries which had still been occupied until the 20th century all had the cattle stalls underneath the hay loft reached by a ramp to take the hay up so it could then be fed to the cattle in the winter. Living quarters were designed beside and round the cattle stalls and loft. In some ways, farm production involving livestock has not progressed very much beyond these examples from history.
Obviously, given the EU’s agricultural subsidy commitment, there is an enormous amount of agricultural production in Europe. But much of it appears to be uneconomical because of scale, while another large proportion is devoted to biofuel and energy production for environmental and political reasons.
If we wish to continue exporting high value products to the EU, New Zealand’s challenge is to grow environmentally acceptable agricultural produce efficiently and present it in a way that meets sophisticated consumer demands.
This will become increasingly difficult because New Zealand is no longer a cheap option and our exchange rate is unlikely to weaken against the Euro for some time to come.
--------------------------------------------
Allan Barber is a commentator on agribusiness, especially the meat industry, and lives in the Matakana Wine Country where he runs a boutique B&B with his wife. You can contact him by email at allan@barberstrategic.co.nz or through his blog at http://allanbarber.wordpress.com.
43 Comments
Hello New Zealand – 1980 !
30 years ago countries like Switzerland/ Germany/ Austria have recognised that pollution coming from industrial and agriculture activities are not only destroying the environment (air/ soil/ water), but the consequences are putting a massive burden on taxpayer to clean up the mess.
Massive lobbing for years by industries prevented solid, comprehensive plans for improvements. Considering the denseness of population, various, major industries, the environment is balanced and in good shape today. In many cases rivers/ streams are cleaner then here in New Zealand and New Zealand’s taxpayer are still awaiting a massive bill.
When do we learn in this country, that only small(er) units, but diversity and quality production with excellent overseas branding is sustainable for small and remote country New Zealand - long term?
Quite agree.
NZ's problems are its indebtedness and distance - farming here is scaled up to try to cope with these problems and it's going to hit the wall, imo. Farms are much smaller in Europe for two reasons, history and the social fabric which supports these small units. This is not going to change.
Switzerland is stunningly beautiful and if I was a Swiss national owning a small farm there's is no way I would ever contemplate moving to NZ. Frankly this talk of a clean green image being a major NZ selling point is not credible. Business works on the basis of quality and price.
Here in HK, on the now very rare occasion I buy milk, the milk I buy is Swiss. It's better and only marginally more expensive. Dairy products could vanish from the supermarket shelves here and hardly anyone would notice.
I have very fond memories of climbing the mountains above Montreux a couple of years ago.
It's real, found in the better supermarkets. Bought Ozzie milk a few times - the last time when I got it home it was rotten. NZ milk is mucked around with and tasted awful - bought it as a yogurt drink. People here hardly touch the stuff, although there must be a lot of WMP used in various products. I no longer need to buy baby formula - thank goodness!
How do you explain Mainland Chinese crossing the border to Hong Kong to buy baby formula?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06-29/no-quick-fix-for-chinas-troubled-dairy-industry
My visits to the across the border aren't that memorable. Often the food is terrible. I've met HK folk who take food into China when on business. HK's food standard is far better and closer to what NZers are used to. People trust NZ baby formula. The Chinese dairy industry is developing rapidly by the look of it.
Fonterra to invest in two new farms in China
Fonterra today unveiled the next step in its strategy to build a high-quality, sustainable fresh local milk supply in China, announcing plans to develop two new large-scale dairy farms in Hebei province.
Chief Executive Theo Spierings made the announcement at the official opening of Fonterra's second farm in China - called Yutian Farm One.
Speaking at the ceremony, Mr Spierings said China is a significant priority in Fonterra's refreshed global strategy.
"We have a long history in China and we are committed to the further development of the local Chinese dairy industry.We want to establish an integrated milk business in China that processes high quality milk from Chinese farms into dairy nutrition for Chinese customers and consumers," he said.
With consumption in China expected to double by 2020, the country will be consuming more than 70 billion litres of milk every year by 2020.
"It is clear that much of this growth in demand for dairy nutrition will be met from local production.
Does this sound like the kiwifruit saga all over again???
The packaging and the fact there is not much for sale and that it's a bit more expensive and of course Walter's endorsement!
One thing very noticeable to me is that I until coming to HK I was always a big milk drinker and needed regulary trips to the dentist to get my teeth cleaned despite fastidious brushing. Now virtually without milk for two years and they are as clean as a whistle!
There's always two sides to any story Walter. Switzerland's farmers receive over 57% of their income from subsidies. If you pay me enough I too will reduce my cow numbers. But you wil have to pay me. ;-)
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/09/subsidies-rise-to-22-percent-o
This report supports Allan's comments
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2188/eu-farm-policy-ignores-…
Our farming culture as far as environment concern is 30 years behind central Europe.
Co – the link doesn’t support Allan’s comments, but my link. In that case there are two sides of agriculture concepts. The countries I mentioned cannot sustain high numbers of stock and they don’t need to anyway. Agriculture is only a small sector of these counties diverse industries. E.g. food manufacturing (Nestle) is far more common and profitable.
When I compare the two regions from experience, not just holiday, I have to say again diversity in industries, allow massive progress on environmental issues. http://www.themeatsite.com/articles/1631/german-food-production-on-sustainable-course , whereas here I still see 1980 – massive stock numbers polluting, especially waterways – just not sustainable.
I agree there needs to be diversity in economic pillars. However a key difference when it comes to the environment is that farming in Europe wouldn't survive without subsidies. Farmers you refer to, have unlike kiwi farmers,had 30years of subsidies - to the point that in a number of countries, of which Switzerland is one, it is now the majority of their income. This encourages environmental considerations. Obviously the inhabitants of these countries see subsidies as a valid trade off for better environmental concerns for it will be the manufacturers etc who will be paying for those subsidies. I can't see kiwis buying in to that. Kiwis want both a clean, green environment and the economic benefits that agriculture brings. Somewhere down the line a compromise is going to have to be reached. As said before Walter, pay me enough and I will drop my cow numbers, after all they do that in Switzerland. Switzerland also has a population nearly twice that of NZ, that also will encourage non agricultural economic activity.
You refer to massive stock numbers Some interesting comparisons
New Zealand
dairy cows and in calf heifers in NZ 4.68m (2011)
almost 100% of farms are run on a fulltime basis
43.69% of land is used for agricultural purpose
Germany
dairy stock in Germany 4.23m (2005)
55% of farms are run on a part time basis
53% of land is used for farming purposes
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx?title=Situation…
http://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Standardartikel/EN/Agriculture/Farmingin…
I am subsidising my wife - she earns half of my salary - should I change her to the better model?!?!?
I subsidised my kids - in schooling and start of life - should I regret it?!?!?
I am subsidising my parents - if I stop they will suffer - should I stop it?!?!?
I am subsidising my future - by saving, living modestly, learning all my life, by working not too hard, taking care about my health and balance my life - should I stop doing so - it is uneconomical - now - as it takes into account long term situation - long term in my life meaning.
Should I stop all of this just because it does not make me efficient in today's methodology?!?!
That's the life questions......
Those crazy Germans! When will they learn how much better it is to live in drafty, uninsulated houses with 2.4 residents per 600m2 section where the area not taken up by three bathrooms and a games room is covered in concrete pavers. There they go insisting on living in higher densities in energy efficient housing so that there is enough spare land to locate solar panels etc. When will they learn it is much more fun to be at the end of a very long energy supply chain controlled by many of the craziest people on the planet.
This is an insightful article, if you're too close to the grass to see the fences.
Germany has a lot of folk - and in this they're way ahead of us - who know where energy-supply is going, and realise that something has to be done ahead of time. They aren't blinded by our collective belief that 'the market' will sort things out, either. Meaning they are making more intelligent moves.
Alan - and all Kiwi farmers - has to realise that to pay for our produce, the Europeans have to do something to something, to generate real payment. We've demonstrably gone past the point where virtual wealth will cut the mustard, or be honoured.
Those countries/nations who have renewable energy, will survive. Those who rely on non-renewables, won't. Those who use all their available renewables currently (us) need to figure out what will drive the tractors, trucks and supporting acts.
And - one for HughP - this flags the land-area competition problem, one which won't go away. Production per hectare will peak and decline, demand will hike, returns will dwindle, housing will encroach, infrastructure will deline....... interesting times.
Interesting that the paragraph had "Germany has Greens in Parliment and Germany is abandoning Nuclear", almost a political comment on those pesky greens. Yet I think Merkel made that call after Japan and the boiling water reactor meltdowns...
I think we only have 65~70%? renewables, not enough really. (I guess we should thank Muldoon for that....a win for Big Govenment....I guess).
Also I worry about swamping the lifeboat. The Govn will at some point start to accept in rich ppl with open arms who have lots of $. A waste of space most of them will prove....in fact more like parasites.
Supporting acts, yes indeed....a decent % of a farmers land will have to go to bio-deisel and the farmer aka 3rd world will have to be making hie/her own fuel on site IMHO. I need to dig through that bio-deisel making process and find it there are any choke points like a chemical tahst essential but only available via a large production plant overseas......hopefully not.
regards
a decent % of a farmers land will have to go to bio-deisel I understand what you are saying Steven but it is not as simple as that. Crop production is not an innocent in environmental degradation. It requires significant amounts of fertiliser and sprays. As the Commissioner for the environment has said - there may have to be trade offs as to which waterways we value highly and which we are prepared to allow to degrade. Perhaps those are the discussions we should be having now, - planning for the future.
CO - That comment is a failure to see the big physical/strategic picture.
If you rely on a process of unaccounted degradation to maintain something, that something won't be maintained.
Is it so difficult to understand?
I just saw a film which featured Iowa farmers, realising their impact on the GOM fisheries (and that's just the economic effect, not the bio).
Fail to mitigate 100%, and the difference between Southland and the 'Fertile Crescent', is time.
There are idiots around - I had this conversation with Waitaki Mayor Familton - who think you can have a 'balance'. That's horseshit. Every time you 'balance', you want to shift the goal-posts to the next field, and 'balance' there. That cranial failure is the forgetting of the original base-line.
Natiural Capital has to be accounted for properly and honestly - and I seem to remember pinging you for spin hereabouts - and we are too big an impact on the planet to pretend that 'it's just a little bit, won't matter'. In reality, no species leaves no footprint, and the only valid way to long-term sustainability is a drastic reduction of global population. Who you gonna sell to then?
Agree. The "Next Field Over" syndrome describes it perfectly. Symptomatic of the damage as conveyed in this picture. They abandon one and move on to the "next field over" and no-one ever cleans up the devastation.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Derelict_Factory_-_Alperton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_311079.jpg
History is littered with 'Next field over' syndrome, but humanity still survives.
In the case of your factory iconoclast they only moved on to the dole queues.
Despite all the investment Alperton Carton Company was hit badly by the recession of the 1980s and ceased trading at the end of August 1981. Most of the staff were made redundant http://www.kzwp.com/lyons/alperton.htm
uh....you dont get it yet I think. A significant % of a farmers land will have to be dedicated to organic bio-deisel production so he/she has fuel to sow and collect that bio-deisel crop. Then remainder or NET will go to have a useful organic crop output ie food.....This output per hectare will be organic which will be significantly less than fossil fuel's output per hectare because a) Fertilizer will be so expensive it wont be worthwhile and b) it may well be scarce...and that of course is a huge problem if we are using GE crops.....if you dont put the right amount of fertilzer and pesticides on it you get less output.
The term is EROEI, energy return on energy invested....so with fossil fuel the only return is the extraction, converstion and transport to point of use. At the start of the oil age that was 100 :1, today is 20 to 30 :1 Self-made organic biofuel is likely to be way lower.
Ive mentioned it before but there is a cool game called minecraft that teaches you this....its a model environment you have to survive in...
So lets take that as an example,
Fossil, to make a fossil fuel plant, I'd need a oil well/gusher, pump and piping to storage, pipe and pumping to a refinery and pipe and pump to an engine. I'd need 20% of my engines to provide power to run and cool....
pump - crude
pump - fuel
pump - water
piping - crude
piping - fuel
piping - water
storage - crude
storage - fuel.
Now consider what you have to replace to get the bio-fuel....you have to put a complete set of infrastructure in to replace the oil well/gusher...
So you have to clear land, prep the land, wait while (in this case trees) grow, harvest them, break these down into fuel size pellets and convert to fuel....lots of transports and fuel inputs are now needed....the NET out is far less, which means we can do far less like support an as complex society that we could with fossil oil....
The commisioner for the environment, if he did indeed say that is a moron, or maybe a flat earther....
He obviously isnt concerned about sustainability....Tis simple say you degrade that waterway you dont care about by 5% per year....(that abuse of course will compound as next year there is only 95% left to get that sum out of) So once that waterway is screwed, what next? go to the one you care about?....
Its can kicking....
Yes sure lets start a discuson with "we are robbing our childrens and garndchildrens future, morally how do you feel about that?"
ie what future is there for them if there is nothing left?
regards
It was 3 Enviromental Commissioners hearing an appeal by local iwi for more stringent controls on the Kawerau mill renewed consents. I seem to have lost the link - it was an Environment Bay of Plenty case. Iwi lost that appeal but were somewhat mollified and withdrew others after a deal with the mill to provide around $50k per year to them. Everything is for sale at a price. The river (Tarawera) downstream from the mill flows out to sea. Locally it is known as the 'Black Drain'. The RMA requires giving equal consideration to environmental, economic and social factors when making policy/decisions. That's why the decision came out as it did. They've been polluting the river as long as the mill has existed. The new consents are for 20+ years.
One thing you have left out in the above is the harvesting of methane to produce power etc. I don't know a lot about it, but I do know that the local regional council is aware of the potential. It is reasonably common on large farms in the US. There is a pilot being done on Canterbury.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/602110/Finding-power-in-effluent
I don't believe GM crops would survive long term in an organic system. Also if we were to adopt a more Swiss/peasant approach to harvesting crops, we would go back to small areas supporting multiple families using time honoured techniques, such as those my father grew up with - horses, stooking hay etc. We do not have to use tractors to farm.
Mechanical separators, separating effluent solids from liquid, are appearing on farms now. They are expensive and the jury is still out whether they are better than a 'weeping wall' effluent system. The solids are spread as fertilser. Gibberellic acid is also seen to be used on more farms now, though most of the ones I know using it are using it more as a trial than as a whole of farm policy. Personally I have a bit of an issue with using it even though it is used in food crops including in California on table grapes - yep those big Thompson seedless grapes you buy here in the supermarket.
Yes sure lets start a discuson with "we are robbing our childrens and garndchildrens future, morally how do you feel about that?"
ie what future is there for them if there is nothing left? ok. I simply have more faith in humanity to work through any problems to survive. I am also a realist and realise not all will survive some will, some won't. So the legacy I leave my children and grandchildren will be to be the best I can be, and give them the skills to adapt to whatever situation they find themselves in.
You asked on another thread where people will go to emigrate - well NZ has to be high on that list. We are too underpopulated to have a diverse economy. ;-)
Agree mist with your comment re weeping walls - I think they are disgusting yet some regional councils are encourageing them. I know some engineers (down our way all our ponds etc have to be designed by registered enginners) won't have a bar of them unless they are at a minimum, concrete lined.
There are so many mechanical separators coming on to the market that I will bide our time as some of them are bound to fall by the wayside - as you have mentioned, some are more suited to indoor systems.
We have to now place the solids removed from the stone trap on to a pad and leave them to 'dry' before we can spread them on the farm compared to when we used to just spread them directly. Will be the first year we have used the pad so will be interesting to see how it all works.
Oh, such a doomsayer pdk! the only valid way to long-term sustainability is a drastic reduction of global population. So how are you going to acheive that pdk? Who is going to make that decision - who lives and who dies? You? Who says that humans have to inhabit this earth for infinity?
Big corporations control a significant amount of food supplies of the world pdk, Nestle, Kraft etc. I sell to them. Who they then on sell to is for them to decide. I recently visited a friend who is a prarire spud grower in Canada. The company (major multinational) he sells to not only tells him what variety and how many acres to grow, but also when and how much spray, fertiliser and irrigation to apply. This chap has 6000 acres under cultivation. In relation to his spud crop he makes no decision other than whether or not to contract to the company he sells to. My friend said they used to grow dryland potatoes as they coped with the prarire climate with little or no need for irrigation. His contract forbids him to grow dryland potatoes. He adapted to do what he had to do. As will anyone who wants to stay working on the land.
I have no fear of changing my farming ways in order to provide a self sufficient lifestyle for my family if the need arose. My family still owns horse drawn ag implements, that I could call up. :-)
If you rely on a process of unaccounted degradation to maintain something, that something won't be maintained.
The Environment Commissioners in the Bay of Plenty ruled that the continuation of polluting the Tarawera River by the mills in Kawerau provided economic and social benefits to the community that outweighed the water degradation. The pollution continues, the town continues. No spin. So some of those decisions are already being made. Is that so difficult to understand?
Fail to mitigate 100%, and the difference between Southland and the 'Fertile Crescent', is time. Southland has come back from the brink once pdk - it can do it again. During the Southland cereal boom in the late Victorian times the soil was cranked until it could take no more. This resulted in a moribund agricultural sector for years afterwards, as all that was sustainable after the soil was trashed, primarily to pay off huge debts run up by land hungry farmers was sheep stocked at a low rate.
We have a philsophical difference to the long term future pdk. You talk of long term sustainability - whatever that means. (I believe our interpretation will differ.) I look back at history - war and famine (population control), times of great wealth and also of great poverty, overuse of resources (for the period) etc. I see no reason why those cycles won't continue to appear from time to time.
I think CasO , That your response although well intended is fairly normal , given that our own inability to recognise, as a species, the burden we place upon sustainable resource, and further, the burden we place upon each other to become competitive for the quality of our survival.
Who lives and who dies....? I don't interpret what he is saying to mean selective culling is even a remote possibility.
I think he is referring to Man at least recognizing there is a problem of ghastly proportions, having done so implement proactive policy to give the future generations at least the chance of a quality of existance rather than what they can look forward to if we do not.
Religion and Economies need to revise their doctrines and to recognise that growth of the species in number gives ....no...assurance of growth in the quality of life.
It is almost impossible to be here in lttle old N.Z. and have a grasp of the developing scale of our procreation and the utter misery it will bring those who cannot compete.
For the purpose of debate Christov - The best outcomes are when a community takes responsibility for issues affecting it. As a rural dweller I have seen this many times over the years. A shining recent example of this is now in the Waituna the emphasis on water quality is actually throwing out preconceived ideas/knee jerk reactions, looking at, and researching the science and then in partnership look for solutions. The overwhelming result of that is recognition that even in a catchment as small as the Waituna there is not going to be a one size fits all solution. This is something that many urban dwellers mistakenly believe when it comes to water quality.
Perhaps we have gone too far to be global-centric, instead of realising the most precious assets are our own communities. If all of us became more community focused and less global focused the world might just be a better place.
When living in rural China I saw what by my kiwi standards, were miserable living conditions. But I saw more genuinely happy people living that simple existence than I see people living in their 'dream home, with the dream car', here. I would also say that the wealthy Chinese I met never showed the simple happiness that the rural folk with practically nothing had. I have always had a problem with people of one culture telling another culture what to do and that's how I see westerners talking about global population control. Local communities will do the best to ensure their survival and if they don't, Nature will sort it out - by whatever means.
Competitveness is part of the human pysche. Like it or not the strong (and sometimes the cunning) will survive. Can the world really cope with everyone having access to great medical care and living well into old age? No there will always be winners and losers - just as there will also be religion and civil strife somewhere. The Roman Empire and the British Empire were once great and the Vikings were once great raiders/settlers. They have all come and gone. In my own history I have among my descendants those that were part of the Irish potato famine,another had their Island economy decimated and had a mafia type organisation controlling most of the remaining economy, another was the result of soldier rape in Eastern Europe unrest, I look at those situations and look at the world today (100+ years later) and I think - not a lot has changed. All those situations are still evident in the world today in different locations. Be aware of global situations but take care of the local ones.
We can chose to spend time fretting over things we can not change or we can spend our time taking care of family and community. That was the kiwi choice, until we became over run with materialism.
Yes CasO....I see where your at on it.....and appreciate you've been ,as I have, to see the misery of those who cannot compete.
You kind of side stepped my point though, you see ,unless we address the over population of the species , it will be addressed for us and more likely by "new plague" than Nuclear fallout.
Meanwhile no, nature does not keep the balance of our species , we are the odd one out, the one that bucks the natural order of things, many millions born into severe poverty will live out varying existences of misery for varying lengths of time.
That is not to say they are not deserving of a shot at life.......But I often think back to the Sth American Man standing outside of his tin shack with his wife and 9 children, while the Christian Charity asked me to send some money to help feed and educate his children, and I'm thinking at some point this man had a reponsibility to cease his activity that was exacerbating his circumstances.
The global impact while I agree is a distant somebody else's reality in terms of our geography, but inevitabley it reaches us on a number of levels.
I like and agree with your idea of communities, but in congested cities the prevailing mood is one of isolation more as a byproduct of the Modern city dwelling family.....
Holding this position as I do is not popular with many people for so many different reasons...and I respect that, but firmly believe a reduction in the number of our species will only benifit this world and future generations quality of life.
it will be addressed for us and more likely by "new plague" than Nuclear fallout. I agree entirely - and I don't have a problem with that at all.
As a farmer I am acutely aware that I need to be aware of global conditions - but as the prayer goes
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Go well Christov - we really agree on more than we disagree - just approach it differently. :-)
"Who is going to make that decision" - it seems we have abdicated this correction to nature.
"Big corporations control a significant amount of food supplies of the world" hence when we say things will get local we mean just that....these global entities will go bye bye.
"as all that was sustainable after the soil was trashed, primarily to pay off huge debts run up by land hungry farmers was sheep stocked at a low rate." see my first sentence..
"the long term future" A lot of the long term past was humans moving to virgin lands. Take the 1800s as an example, ppl moved from say the potao faomin in Ireland to NZ and exploited it so we had a pressure relief value, this time just where do we move to next?
regards
"Oh, such a doomsayer pdk! the only valid way to long-term sustainability is a drastic reduction of global population. So how are you going to acheive that pdk? Who is going to make that decision - who lives and who dies? You?"
Nature will decide.
The only country doing anything at all significant in this area is China, and their population is still growing I believe.
China's take on its population.
How to meet population challenges
China Daily - 9 Jul 2012
China's first demographic dividend is coming to an end as the size of working age population is peaking and will soon begin a rapid decline.
The decline is expected from 2015
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-07/05/content_10056042.htm
Casual O - there is a clear difference between us.
I see what is happening, and - unlike your potato-mate - refuse to be part of it (or at least, short of being jailed, which is where you'd end up if totally sustainable in this society - the fearful always remove their conscience-bearers).
He - and you - are comfortable being part of it.
Long term sustainability. I suggest that if we think of ourselves as intelligent, we ought to be able to avoid overshoot. Heck, Will Catton wrote the book over 30 years ago. Here. Mother Nature will limit us if we don't - I just think controlled is better. Part of controlled, is 'precautionary', otherwise you're just pulling the trigger and it's a matter of time.
The truth as such is maths and physics....so PDK follows those as do I...cant see an alternative truth myself out of those. Future, I agree on that but its sure going to be different.....
Sweet spot, indeed....to get there by what destination is indeed the issue...though I think a lot of ppl who dont see the sweet spot any where near PDKs. Personally I cant see a sweet spot as yet.....so its a case of riding the slide to it as well as possible for me....or you could resist and end up falling off a cliff which means a huge undershoot.
regards
Interesting the two world views: cornicupian and "doomer". I heard Alan Gibb on The Panel with Jim Moira. He has been travelling around the world by helicopter and observes that human urbanisation is tiny (or similar word); there are "vast tracts of land in Africa and the Ukraine..", and in Europe there are forests everywhere (?). People are declaring peak oil dead thanks to George Mombiot and yet the reality is that the system will/is suffering from something, perhaps akin to angina or hardening of the arteries (not to mention changing weather).
Actually Mombiot was focused on Peak oil as a decline in the burning of hydrocarbons more than energy and it's effect on the economy, but that doesn't stop people reffering to his article applied to the latter.
I think the people who are doing well will be the last to have a paradigm shift.
But AB it was all going fine until:
If we wish to continue exporting high value products to the EU, New Zealand’s challenge is to grow environmentally acceptable agricultural produce efficiently and present it in a way that meets sophisticated consumer demands.
Lets deconstruct this:
If we wish to continue exporting high value products to the EU:
1. If we wish ...: By all accounts we wish NOT to. Look at Fonterra stratgey to withdraw from some markets. Most of the paperwork we see today has Asia, Latin America, ANZ on it.
2. exporting high value products: What are these?, have we ever?. Or is this somehow comparative, do you mean a block of cheese or a lick of butter. Do you mean branded consumer products, like say what Nestle do?
3. exporting ..... to EU: Have we ever, everything stopped when UK joined the Common Market. What, AB, look east, there is some lovely country in Hungry, and the black earths of Russia. Land is cheap & deep & close (via truck) to the EU.....
and
4. sophisticated consumer demands: Talk about the power of the supermarkets - please (perhaps start with the UK example) for they are the buyers, and the gate keepers above the EU public.
While we are happy to see AB taking a break, why not talk about some of the German/Swiss (processing & farm) manufacturing & equipment we can build upon......
Henry
1) Europe, including UK, is still an important market for NZ in spite of the present Eurozone crisis, but there is certainly a need to diversify to other markets.
2)I agree we have exported mainly commodity products, but this has improved dramatically over 30 years. However there is a realisation we need to develop more high value products to compete with Nestle, Kraft etc.
3)We can still export to the EU despite the availablity of cheap land/production close by, but we must move to differentiated, branded products, if we want to increase exports significantly.
4)Yes, the supermarkets control what is offered to consumers, but they are influenced by their customer base to offer products they want to buy.
I'm happy to acknowledge the excellence of German/Swiss equipment, but my article was based on a random set of observations while I was moving across the countryside by car, coach and cruise ship (yes it was absolutely a holiday, not work). If I were to write specifically about more technical matters, I would need a generous employer or publisher to sponsor me!
Allan
I am horrfyed at some of the comments pasted these people have been fooled buy the PR machine
I am a farm researcher and adviser who has just returned from the EU I can tell you that if you go on the farms and into the feedlot barns as I have you would see EU farm sustainability is a grand lie just like there financial system in the barns you will see a very high carbon curel system feeding concentrates that should not be feed to grazing aminals remeber the mad cows carting the feed in and the dung out is not sustainable and well collapse when the support ends the cows will then graze grass and be much healther and happy and there milk might be safe to drink Likewise the cropping is unstainable with no break crops like NZ and needing high inputs of pesticides and nitrogen to prop it up I feel sorry for the EU because when the money go round stops there farmers will have to learn how to farm without support food production will crash and the poor in the citys will stave bewere the smoke and mirrors and seek the truth
I certianly do not think that (many) ppl are fooled by the "PR machine" ppl like to buy NZ produce for a reason. Yes there is little sign the farms in the EU are sustainable but then neither are NZ farms....its just a question of degree....all are not sustainable unless they are substantially organic. Yes, GE also needs the correct level of pesticides and fertilizers, not enough and the yeild is poor. That is my worry for the future, a monoculture of GE and not being able to get enough of the two above =s poor crops to feed too many of us.
"money go round stops" yes indeed....that applies to us as well...lots of mouths to feed, not enough food...
regards
This is interesting take on Ethanol, its on page 3.
http://www.milkproducerscouncil.org/updates/072712.pdf
the original atricle, with more depth
http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/study-supports-need-to-reform-eth…
Except its by a "coalition of livestock and poultry groups" as ethanol is making their feedstock expensive. Ethanol is certianly a bad joke....so I can agree with what they are saying, but all they want is a cheaper feedstock for their own un-sustainable process......
"It’s gotten so ridiculous that we now have more
corn being consumed by ethanol plants than by livestock agriculture."
food v fuel......
regards
PS This was fasinating as well,
http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/industry-issues/vertical-integrat…
Shows how this "council" is nothing more than a mouth piece for the corporate owners if the pieces Ive watched on youtube are any fair indication.
So you get 5~7.5% of the return....yet really from what ive seen the contract farmers get screwed over. I mean if there was a real % there of that size why wouldnt the corporation just do it all?....
and then the claims of
"A reduced growing period to produce a market broiler chicken, meaning reduced space, labor, equipment and a much smaller environmental impact"
Except when you want to dispose of the chicken poop....then you just dump it on the land and let it wash into the rivers........its toxic....really its a density thing again too many ppl.
regards
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.