In this section
Rural Columnists
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 25835
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 364
- ››
Rural news stream
Latest news
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Downgrades coming ? 4
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Just add water 54
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Sinking data 2
- Purse strings loosened in Budget 2013 3
- Lowest since 2008
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Market jungle juice 16
- The Weekly Livestock report
- Tradable slaughter rights idea useful but may not be the answer 4
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Diverging tracks 19
Most commented
- Going back is not going forward 77
- Rainfall missing in some areas, like some economists’ logic 55
- Just add water 54
- What the RBNZ's OCR decision means 54
- RBNZ holding OCR 'through end of 2013' 33
- Electrifying politics 30
- Go farming, young Kiwis 25
- Mortgage rate rises may follow opposition power policy 23
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Fake lamb in 'NZ' brand 21
Most viewed
- Tradable slaughter rights idea useful but may not be the answer 4
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Downgrades coming ? 4
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Just add water 54
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Sinking data 2
- Purse strings loosened in Budget 2013 3
- Lowest since 2008
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Market jungle juice 16
- The Weekly Livestock report
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Diverging tracks 19
Farmers rankled by "uninformed opinion" on what the detection of DCD in milk means
Federated Farmers says New Zealand’s continual testing for impurities and open disclosure is why New Zealand primary exports are of the highest quality.
“We are aware some media reporting seems to have moved beyond facts and into uninformed opinion,” says Dr William Rolleston, Federated Farmers spokesperson on food safety.
“Residues of DCD (Dicyandiamide) nitrification inhibitors were detected but the levels recorded were in the order of parts per million. These residues only came to light because New Zealand continually tests for and refines testing for impurities."
“I doubt many countries test to the level we do but once DCD was verified our consumers and trading partners were notified. We take this seriously, very seriously and any suggestion otherwise is scurrilous."
“We are not hiding from genuinely informed criticism but uninformed speculation and innuendo is irresponsible. It is like yelling ‘fire’ in a packed theatre."
“The last DCD based nitrification inhibitors would have been applied in the Spring so it is most unlikely any DCD would be detected in products now coming off the production line."
Extensive testing by the processors found no traces of DCD in processed dairy products like cheese and butter.
“It is vital to remember that DCDs are considered safe and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We are here now because there is no internationally agreed acceptable level for DCD residues meaning the default becomes the level of detection."
Related Topics
“DCD based nitrification inhibitors have been applied on around 500 dairy farms out of the 12,000 we have in New Zealand. They were not widespread because most farmers had adopted a wait and see attitude to see if they worked in the field."
“As farmers we know any detectable level presents a trade risk, no matter how small. Once verified the authorities and processors got on the front foot and it is concerning to see this now being criticised. “People should have no issue in consuming dairy products because farmers don’t,” Dr Rolleston concluded.
31 Comments
What is concerned here is to
What is concerned here is to use DCD without testing its impacts on cow, milk and human health before industry level application, and without informing consumers.
A lack of international standard on a matter does not mean that it can safely used in food without exhaustive testing.
Its just a matter of trust.
Its just a matter of trust. Why wait to tell the consumer, commecial sensitivity doesn't cut it with me. What if they had been widely used, say by %70 of farmers what would the levels be then? Would fonterra have told us sooner?
What about all those hormone sprays farmers use and dont shift stock off the paddocks, so the animals digest the stuff, like to see you get a farmer to eat that grass just after its been sprayed
. PR bull, wont wash with me.
Is is all a matter of trust and this doesn't make me trust Fonterra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxr8pFCVKKM
Hey Aj - what speciffically
Hey Aj - what speciffically are the hormone sprays you are referring to?
MCPA etc
MCPA etc
What is concerned here is to
What is concerned here is to use <name yer bogey-du-jour here> without testing its impacts on rare snails, wetas, tuatara, vertebrate animals, all species of plants, and humans before industry level application, and without informing consumers.
Suggestions for bogeys are invited. My quick and not exhaustive list:
Makes me think twice about
Makes me think twice about the 30l of milk a week we consume...
I find the bit that says "As farmers we know any detectable level presents a trade risk" interesting. So if something can't be detected, it's all good to do it - nobody will know about it and who cares about the consequences right (it's all about money after all, isn't it)?
My faith in Produced in NZ is
My faith in Produced in NZ is still high.
Elley our council provided
Elley our council provided potable water supply doesn't meet WHO standards for arsenic. It is considerably higher than recommended. So what is the Council doing - 'oh, it will take five years before we can get a new supply going'. Seems Councils are exempt from meeting quality standards and yet my understanding is that arsenic accumulates in the body.
So if something can't be detected, it's all good to do it - nobody will know about it and who cares about the consequences right (it's all about money after all, isn't it)?
If it cant' be detected then it in all likelihood doesn't exist ;-) In this particular case it isn't about money as using DCD products, in my analysis of it on scoping whether to use it on our farm, was it didn't pay financially to use it even though it was being touted as the 'environmentally right thing to do'.
CO, following your logic
CO, following your logic Lance Armstrong's doping is a myth because it went undetected. Usually, those things come back to haunt you. So long as it's "you" it's fine, the problem is when it hurts others.
Not about money? All right. Then why do Fonterra not sell milk to NZers at a cheaper rate than they export it? After all, less costs (shipping etc) and even if there weren't less costs, it'd still seem to be the right thing to do to me with so many families struggling financially. The argument I've heard is that if they wanted to they could export 100% of the milk so why make less profit when they can make more. If that's not about money, what is...
As for the arsenic in water, I am not informed on that particular topic so all I'll say is that it does not surprise me in the least to hear it, seeing what a joke councils are.
Don't mean to sound rude or negative, just my unedited thoughts.
Mmm... not going to get in to
Mmm... not going to get in to a debate on the Lance Armstrong example Elley. ;-)
There are two very separate parts to your comment. DCD product use by farmers I know who used it, wasn't motivated by money but by wanting to do 'the right thing' environmentally. It's use has nothing to do with the price of milk paid by consumers. Let's not mix the two issues up.
There are choices with regards to milk Elley. I buy my Dairy Dale (Fonterra) milk at the local BP service station 2 x 2l for $6.50. I could choose to pay $4.25 for 2l Anchor or $3.79 for 2l Pams at the local supermarket. Or I could choose to buy milk powder and mix it up, which is the cheapest of all. Milk has come down in price so how low should it go to make it affordable?
What does affordable mean anyway when it comes to food pricing? What is an affordable price to a family of two may not be affordable to a family of eight.
Fonterra is rolling out a 'free milk to schools' programme, but even that has it's critics, so it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. It is the EPA's responsibility to oversee food safety in NZ. Yet it was Fonterra who 'blew the whistle' on finding minute residues and requested the fertilser companies withdraw their products. So they are damned for doing something that actually was the responsibilty of someone else. Ah well, once again damned if they do, damned if they don't. Getting kinda used to that. ;-)
I agree Co. My initial
I agree Co. My initial comments were general rather than specific to the topic at hand:
1. This type of stuff that "comes out" in the press makes me think about how we are treated as consumers. I'm happy to be sold a product but I expect to be told about what's in it and in the case of milk, I don't expect that much on the list of ingredients.
2. The world in general seems to be all about money (and power). As per post below, businesses do have to make a profit but I don't think money and making a profit should come above all else.
Elley, If a manufacturer was
Elley,
If a manufacturer was forced to sell it's product to local suppliers cheaper than it can sell ALL of it's product to foreigners, then why would they even _have_ a local market?
What other private companies should be forced to sell to locals at cost (or significant discount).
All of the product on NZ shelves can just as easily be sold offshore - in fact it would be cheaper to sell everything offshore and drop the local market, because having a local business as well as logistic supply lines to established foreign customers is a double up of handling and requires extra storage etc for Fonterra. It would save Fonterra money to drop the wee local coolstores and distribution and fire all those staff and not have to worry about NZ compliances etc, considering how little Fonterra makes from the local supply chain (most of the shelf price comes AFTER Fonterra, and well after the farmgate)
As to why families are struggling.... WTF does that have to do with Fonterra (or it's farmer suppliers - many who are struggling too). Do you expect other private manufacturers to have to give away stuff just because the NZ government and population can't do their jobs??? (hint: a clue to the cause of the problem is in that sentence, extra hint: It's called culture of entitlement)
Re-the profit side of it, you
Re-the profit side of it, you are right and that's precisely my point: it is about money (speaking generally, not specifically about the issue being discussed in the article). Private companies have to make a profit, that's the game. That's why denying it by illustrating that not using DCD in this particular case wasn't cost-effective puzzles me.
In saying that, I can't imagine, say, the French buying their wine & cheeses at the same exhorbitant prices the Brits get charged for them when France is a big producer of such products. So maybe yes, seeing that farmers use a lot of NZ land, then maybe it's just fair enough that they are "forced" to sell a tiny portion of their production to their fellow citizens, who are the ones after all ending up with the consequences of an intensive farming regime (see decreasing water quality in rivers etc).
As for the culture of entitlement, you're quite right, it's alive and well although I don't think NZers are the worst, far from it. You should try & see French people getting up in arms if the govt even just hints at cutting a benefit or another... And the struggle of NZ families, well I am not personnally affected so I am not in the best position to comment but reading/hearing some stories makes me wonder how things can be like this in a (so-called) developed country.
Farmers and Fonterra and
Farmers and Fonterra and other Primary Production Companies ALREADY pay their fair share, through taxes. Just like everyone else.
". So maybe yes, seeing that farmers use a lot of NZ land, then maybe it's just fair enough that they are "forced" to sell a tiny portion of their production to their fellow citizens, who are the ones after all ending up with the consequences of an intensive farming regime "
NZ farmers dont "use" a lot of NZ land. They _BUY_ (often at exorbitant rates) that land, and annually pay a large portion of a narrow profit for doing so. Then they have to pay huge amounts to service and make that land return anything - Perhaps Henry Tull has a figure for just what it would cost to setup a farm from unutilised land.
When those NZ Citizens contribute something (anything!!) to that purchase or the development of the land, then perhaps they are entitled to some consideration - when farmers want work done for the land, or it's supporting business they have to pay top dollar for it.
Plenty of those famous NZ Citizens demanding better stream water that most never go near, except perhaps to plonky their stinky bodies and dogs into, or their town and city councils to sneak their effluent into. But how many of them turning up with a bunch of posts, wire and shovels to protect "our" waterways???? How many of them buying and doing plantings and caring for riperian plantings.... Yeah Right. It's all "Ours" until the work/bill comes. Heck they won't even compensate for the bare land brought by the farmer now clawed back to the "our rivers and creeks". And yeah now we're fencing everything off - we were 100% compliant, 3 years ago, then they changed the way the rles were read, so now we're only 70% compliant. (personally it's low yield land, and I'd rather have cow effluent on paddock where it'll do good, and the inline doser needs water ways fenced off anyway, but now we're having to fence off "dry" waterways that only run part year round, and ones that are only a trickle but have wide shallow beds). We're also doing the runoff for similar reasons but we had to reticulate several thousands of dollars worth of pipes and portable troughs, so that the animals can reliably get water in paddocks that get checked only once a week - those thousands by the way, come off my wages. So where the heck is MY discount for my services to OUR NZ waterways and stewardship of the land (Kaitiaki)...........................
When those NZ Citizens
When those NZ Citizens contribute something (anything!!) to that purchase or the development of the land, then perhaps they are entitled to some consideration - when farmers want work done for the land, or it's supporting business they have to pay top dollar for it.
Nah - they borrow my not insignificant bank deposits on the cheap - because a non-elected technocrat says they can.
But like the rest of us they pay the most:
Kiwis pay more than Brits for flights
NZ wine sells at half the price in US
Brits say NZ third dearest to visit
How did they get them "on the
How did they get them "on the cheap".
We're still paying over residental loan rates, for developed land with productive value.
Slightly less, depending on risk profile, than "Goodwill" type businesses.
Generally the best deals were Rabobank because they only went for big land backed mortgages/securities. Which kept their overheads per deal (per loss) down, and gave them a better bid rate for leveraged borrowing.
And if you do actually have "not insignificant bank deposits" and you don't want losses to the middle man for the convience of broading your risk pool and faster liquidity access, what's your lend rate % for 1M; 5yrs & 10yrs?
How did they get them "on the
How did they get them "on the cheap".
We're still paying over residental loan rates, for developed land with productive value.
Yes, you are right, but hopefully the RBNZ is about to address that anomaly.
And if you do actually have "not insignificant bank deposits" and you don't want losses to the middle man for the convience of broading your risk pool and faster liquidity access, what's your lend rate % for 1M; 5yrs & 10yrs?
I don't normally lend to banks without a government guarantee, but Government debt yields are so low I dare not take such high levels of interest rate risk. It's a nasty and uncomfortable tradeoff between that and credit risk. I guess you fall into the latter category given that you claim a trading loss for the most recent fiscal period. Hence I decline to quote a lending rate.
Those are indeed the
Those are indeed the trade-offs.
And as pointed out the trading loss is due to a change in balance date (We were matching normal dairy practice of May 31 balance date (lines up with Gypsy Day), and found that it didn't suit the cow trading business. Changing to 31Mar lines up much better, as it puts the buying stock and selling stock into Q1, which lets us "black box" all the connected costs ete (we use some trade credit to keep things smooth). Previously that meant that the sales were at the first days of the financial year, as were all the repayments of tradecredit and expenses, and all the relevent buys and borrows were at the end of same financial year. And worse, it was effectively previous years sale, and next years inventory. And then, being a company imputation credits had to be dealt with (31Mar annual cycle) with a out-of-sync Provisonal/Terminal tax dates. As you can see this was not conducive to a decent view into the business, but was proposed by my original accountant... the one who also said I didn't need to open a separate bank account for the company, and they'd just use the figures off my personal account and credit cards. (I was surprised and doubtful then and tempted to leave, but he was the expert. Years later, looking back, I should have run!)
But we are back in shape, Xero does in a hour what used to take 2 days, and a better chartered accountant handling that side of the business, now that I final got things caught up and able to hand them over. This year is definately profitable, and provisional taxes all well paid.
So I do understand you not wanting to put forward the money, after all 1M is quite a challenge for most kiwis. However, not quoting a rate, considering that you claim the bank is lending your money "on the cheap", is a bit of a cop-out. How much do you think you should be getting from them? And what rate should the banks be asking? And thus, what risk adjusted rate do you think the banks, who ARE prepared to take on that risk you declined, should be talking about. Nothings final until it's fully contracted, but if you're going to make a claim I do expect you to be able to back your comment (not actually commit to contract - as that has lots more due dililgence).
Re-taxes paid by farmers,
Re-taxes paid by farmers, I'll just refer you here http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/53495/dairy-farmers-pay-lower-tax-couple-pension-ird-says-fonterra-gets-tax-credits-fair-
As for my stinky body, I'd rather use my 18m pool thanks very much. Not that I don't like swimming in the river, on the contrary, but there was a notice earlier this summer not to use it due to the high level of fecal matter found there, and it wasn't human. But I agree about the dogs (let's not get into how crazy people are about them here, in particular breeds generally accepted as dangerous and the appalingly high number of maulings each year). Oh and what about all the dumb people thinking the river banks (and beaches) are just the perfect roads for their 4-wheel drives... Gotta go, enjoy the rest of your day.
You've made my
You've made my day.
"Re-taxes paid by farmers, I'll just refer you here http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/53495/dairy-farmers-pay-lower-tax-couple-pension-ird-says-fonterra-gets-tax-credits-fair- "
As the bloke whose private information appears to be that quoted by the minister in question....
(1) Fonterra and it's farmer supplier/shareholders are very different entities.
(2) The Honorable Minister doesn't know the difference between REVENUE and NET PROFIT. let alone between revenue, net profit and wages.
(3) Any one in NZ can choose to be a farmer, just do what all the other farmers did...bid for farm and offer enough for someone to accept it. That includes pensioners, because nothing stops them from being Queen St "farmers", buying and then hiring staff, like all the "farmers" on the Fonterra board.
(4) The pension couple, if they're lower earners, qualify for discounts off their rates (I wonder who has to pay more to cover the discount - for services they don't use or want).
and lastly
(5) The "couple on a pension" actually got paid 50% more than I got in wages that year, each. And did 110 hours work less per week. Plus they got to live in a serviced location (shops, water, buses, entertainment, family, friends, medical, hairdressers).
(and 6) last year the farm paid NO tax (OMG!!! farmers get so easy).... but we did have a net loss of $30,000. Now how much tax do your pensioners pay when they lose thirty thousand dollars _each_??
* for the curious, the first year of operation involved buying stock at full price (1300) and selling at market (1400) which is not per model, but an offshoot of previous boss promising animals then putting them all in works a week before transfer. He got offered top dollar in the works "then and there" so can't agrue but it left me scaping for milking cows to pay the rent. Business model not designed work with 7.7% gross margin!
* last year includes change of balance date as the YearEnd was on top of our major contract sale date (so we'd invoice in one financial year and get paid in the next, a week later - or not, depending when the office people put the forms through)
* sorry 'bout the detail but if you're curious is nice to have the data, if not skip the details. :)
if its not detectable how do
if its not detectable how do you know its there?
If theres no detectable effect to find, hows it bad. I had last nights dessert for lunch, but that won't show up in the milk from this farm, does that make it good or bad?
In the case of LA doing drugs and/or masking agents, he was deliberately circumventing known laws against what he was doing. As were the chinese Sanlu people using "not for consumption" products in their milk/baby formula. And in both cases, they kept trying it on, rather than fixing the problem - and that IS bad.
The comments about the
The comments about the residues are correct, they are very small and present very little risk.
The detection of DCD residues though shows how disjointed our agricultural chemical approval process is in New Zealand, and this should be fixed if we wish to ensure that NZ's food supply is considered SAFE. DCD was approved by ERMA (now called the EPA) under the HSNO Act 1996 in 2006; Approval HSR002717. The HSNO Act 1996 administered by the EPA does not look at food residues and the effects on trade, if these products are used on our farms. That is the responsibility of the NZ Food Safety Authority and the ACVM Act 1997, and since the 90s products considered fertilisers are exempt from scrutiny. Farmers can apply any chemical to their fields if it is called a fertiliser as no residue studies are required, and DCD was considered to be a fertiliser additive.
We reap what we sow, and if we do not regulate we will have more chemicals detected in our food residues.
Don, I agree with you. EPA
Don, I agree with you. EPA should be doing it's job properly and not relying on Fonterra to do it for them.
I have often wondered about the safety of 'natural' fertilisers being used commercially when it comes to the food chain. Interesting that fertilisers are exempt from scrutiny. :-)
It bugs me that Fonterra do
It bugs me that Fonterra do so, for political point scoring.
And that it comes from our paycheck.
DCD was checked for many years, and in a range of soils.... a small range in certain test areas. but transfer to milk is checked and in the scientific white papers. It was pretty much threshold of detection material, and that's on first grazing, science and expectation predicted that following grazings would be very unlikely to show worse levels.
However, those tests are tightly controlled and rigorously limited in their process. In the field (if you'll pardon the pun) things are far less predictable.
PS: The hormone I think they're refering to is Gibb acid. A naturally occuring grass product (and common in summer compost). It's the compound which triggers the cells to product the longer, harder cells for seed. It also has the side effect of triggering higher sugar production (towards the plant vs towards the roots). That's why if the temperature is above 13degrees the rye will start to try to seed when it's used. But if there's a high presence of Nitrogen during the time the grass wants to seed, then it will produce high levels of folage instead (as the leaf cells draw the extra sugars and N (and thus water)) .
It takes a bit of energy off the plant - you don't get something for nothing - but theory is to use it sparingly and target grazing and use around the seasons and other nutrients. So late autumn when it cools, and the grazing round is going to be much longer. Or in early spring when it's too cool but lots of nutrient is still mobile, and the next round will see higher temperatures etc so energy will be recovered easily.
GAcid is plant (leaf) active, so it is best applied when there's already a little production underway, and it's effect is totally stopped when the plant is grazed. I think it goes before grazing, but by then the surface area of the leaf is developed and working. As opposed to Urea or ground fertilisers, which must be dissolved or enter microbial cycles before becoming plant available, and persistant after one or more grazings.
Yep modern farming is so easy....
Kind of ironic that there are
Kind of ironic that there are issues when its a direct result of farmers trying to be more environmentally astute and trying to appease the green looneys such as the Green Party and Dr Mike Joy .
It also highlights that every action taken has a consequence no matter how worthy the intentions . Maybe Urea and planting of waterways may be best
I think the byline "N.Z food
I think the byline "N.Z food is safe and our systems work"....is in dire need of correction.
N.Z. food is as safe as the guidlines determine they should be, and within the range of the acceptable levels of unacceptable toxicity. Untill such time clinical studies find adverse affects on humans through consumption or indeed exposure to these permissable levels of unwanted toxins, we will regard the product safety guarantee to be valid to the best of our knowledge.
of course hindsight a great thing...............245T.
Were you at the Winton
Were you at the Winton meeting a few years back, CO ?
Someone warned that this exact thing would eventuate with this product.
No pdk, never been to a
No pdk, never been to a meeting in Winton. Ususally meetings down south were timed when I were back up north.
It's a bit like using Gibberellic. It has been touted as been a tool in growing grass. It's a 'natural' plant hormone. So that makes it ok. Won't touch it myself and I know many farmers who won't. How many people buy Thompson seedless grapes from California in the NZ supermarkets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibberellic_acid
That's why there is a growing
That's why there is a growing :) trend to growing your own, back to basics and locavoring.
At least you can control some of what you put into yourself. Doesn't help with trace DDT, and god-knows what else - but it's a start.
With environmental
With environmental (atmospheric and hydralic) contaminants, residues from lawn and garden chemicals, and anything else from roaming animals to construction material leeching (including storage and destruction events)..... most town and city folk are safer at McD's & KFC.
My curiousity about the DCD
My curiousity about the DCD is how it got to sample point.
Some farmers use methods that are used in Europe and the US, and actually feed Urea and Phospates directly to cows/cattle because the ruminant will absorb what it's body needs and pass the rest into effluent, which is then placed in the soil.
I'm wondering if someone has tried this with DCn / ECOn and that's how it got to significant levels. Another point of notice is some of these thigns are only become important now that Fonterra has new milk concentrator plants. Previous samples which _might_ have been parts-per-trllion (ppt) are now become detectable parts-per-billion/parts-per-million (ppb/ppm) in a liter of concentrate.
Also coming out soon is Fonterra's efforts to reduce ALL POSSIBLE residues. Including normal sanitisers, many of which are still used and approved for food surfaces.
I was talking with De-Lavel yesterday about possibilities of new product without such items, although they say it's difficult because even small alterations get stringently checked before being approved for food and dairy use - checks which take considerable time to do.
I'm doing test runs of different system and monitoring the levels, but since I'm a private farm and not a big supplier, Fonterra and DairyNZ don't really help (although Fonterra are friendly enough about it). But under the New Fonterra, unless you've got 600 cows, no one really wants to bother with you.