Dairy industry takes tentative step down road to reform

Cows near Clydevale, South Otago. Photo by Craig Baxter.
Cows near Clydevale, South Otago. Photo by Craig Baxter.
Agricultural scientist John Lancashire says the dairy sector has been dragging the chain environmentally and in how and what it produces.


A recent newspaper article on the New Zealand dairy industry was headlined "Fonterra gets a pass mark but there is still a long hard road ahead".

This must have been disappointing to Fonterrra, as there has been a recent outpouring of "good news" stories about the industry from the company itself and supporting commentators, including a $4 million PR campaign through Dairy NZ funded by dairy farmers.

In justifying this large expenditure, a spokesman for Dairy NZ said they could not understand why the sector was thought of so poorly by many New Zealanders, so their sometimes misleading campaign had been designed to correct that impression.

If this lack of understanding is genuine, it shows a very serious lack of empathy for the obvious damage done to our waterways and lakes by dairy cows.

This failure to recognise the cost of the sector's environmental footprint has been well illustrated by Dr Mike Joy, of Massey University. Unfortunately the industry, aided and abetted by much of the rural press, has taken the position of shooting the messenger rather than confronting the message.

From the point of view of the general economic wellbeing of the country, these real concerns are often diminished or ignored, because criticism of an industry contributing 25% of our GDP is seen as disloyal.

But unfortunately, the dominance of our primary sector as the so-called backbone of our economy, particularly dairying, in the past 30-40 years, has coincided with a very rapid fall in our relative economic performance in the OECD.

This is largely because our primary sector businesses show a lousy return on investment. In sheep and beef enterprises it varies between 1% and 3%, and even on dairy farms the return on all capital employed rarely exceeds 4%. The bank would provide a better return. The only reason we keep on farming is because of the high rate of capital gain on farmland, with the doubling of dairying land prices between 2004 and 2008 the main cause of the $30 billion debt now carried by the sector.

This is not a sustainable position for a wealthy New Zealand and the banks must take some responsibility for this development. However, the situation is not new and the obvious solution of improving product prices has been suggested many times.

But Fonterra remains largely a commodity trader trapped in low and volatile returns. What is needed is a much stronger incentive for farmers to demand a higher payout from the companies, but this will only come about if the return from land inflation is reduced.

This could be achieved by a gradually increasing capital gains tax on land, which has generally been welcomed by most commentators, but not by Federated Farmers and some academics. This is not to suggest that Fonterra and other New Zealand dairy companies try to become a Nestle, but just diversify sufficiently into added value products to significantly lift returns to farmers.

This would also have the advantage of reducing price fluctuations, as it is generally recognised that the price of added value products is less volatile than commodities. Certainly, I have not noticed the price of Kikorangi blue in my local supermarket fluctuating wildly!

Unfortunately, unless the dairy industry and the country do not seriously discuss this dysfunctional situation with the primary sector, then New Zealand must start to look at alternative forms of investment.

Value add

Value add making any sort of significant contribution to Fonterra's payout is an illusion. The industry has been pursuing value add for more than 20 years and to be fair the current payout includes a value add portion but the idea that Fonterra which produces over 2 million tonnes of commodity product can have significant payout improvement by pursuing value add is simply mathematically spurious. For example Fonterra are the largest producers of nutritional formula powders in the world (outside of the major brand owners) producing over 80,000 tonnes of these products, but even if these returned double what the commodity products do, the additional revenue could not make a significant difference to payout across all the milk processed, a few 10s of cents perhaps but not the stepchange that is talked about. It is the same ridiculous notion as Fonterra should go all organic, there is no market for 2 million tonnes of organic dairy products. There is simply no available market for value add dairy products large enough to shift the dial for a dairy company the size of Fonterra...