sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Peter Kerr points out that our pasture-based farming systems should be contrasted with feedlot systems and the differences will impress consumers - if we tell them. Your view?

Rural News
Peter Kerr points out that our pasture-based farming systems should be contrasted with feedlot systems and the differences will impress consumers - if we tell them. Your view?

By Peter Kerr*

Forget the science, briefly, about our agriculture, even though that’s the wonderful legacy that has got us to where we are today.

Forget the rational.

Forget the food safety, the genetics of plants and animals, the fertiliser ... all those things that are objective or measureable in their input and output.

For many of us, myself included, that’s a difficult thing. We’re programmed, almost obliged to look at the facts, to deal with what’s real.

Instead think emotions, hearts and minds, soul even when it comes to our farming.

Because that’s the trigger, hook, main consideration (even if they don’t realise it) for consumers.

In a sense, they don’t care about how a piece of meat ends up on their plate. They assume (correctly) that those technical aspects of creation and distribution take care of themselves.

(Heaven forbid that there’s a whole slicing and dicing industrial process that delivers that piece of protein – in a sense none of us want to overly dwell on that).

What they do care about is the imagery. The spirit. The essence.

And it is these intangible aspects that we’re completely failing to capture.

If we slightly modify what it is we think we offer to consumers (at least those with discretionary income who have a choice beyond cheap) we have an opportunity to prompt a passion, elicit a feeling.

That’s because consumers have a mental image of what a pastorally-based system looks like. The sun is shining, the water is clean, the animals are happy.

Indeed for the most part, the image matches the reality.

From that point of view, we, our pastoral system, pasture Harmonies, is the only protein production system that can say VISIT. (It is also part of the reason you don’t see a picture of a beef feedlot or a chicken broiler barn, or soybean farm on advertising for these forms of protein).

We have nothing to hide, and from my experience, most NZ farmers welcome visitors. What you see is what you get and we don’t have to make up a story to match the reality.

We have the opportunity to globally represent responsible pastoralism.

We can own the word VISIT.

We can link into consumers’ emotions, and operate in that market space where price is less of an issue than perception.

To do that, we need to own our story.

But perhaps we’re too straight, too dour, too emotionless to go down this path, while all the time repeatedly trying to reinforce the science behind image.

Are we capable, as NZ Inc, of responding to the emotional cues consumers display in all their other purchases?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Kerr is a writer, specialising in simplifying science and technology. He has an agricultural science and industry background. You can contact him here »

This is the second in a series about pasture Harmonies. The first one is here »

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.

12 Comments

Yes its a good idea and no....the no is I recall some comments that NZ farmers were now starting to import palm kernels....I guess the saying is those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.....IF we are going to sell NZ produce as "green" then we have to have verifiable systems that are indeed green.

Now that might seem overly pedantic in some ways but I'd bet that the politics of foreign nations and the US in particular will look for reasons justifiable or not to tarnish us.  I also expect that the EU states will also look for ways to "control" our imports in the future to "protect" their industry/agriculture.

regards

Up
0

I can't see what the fuss around PKE is all about steven - what about the GMO's we've been importing and feeding to dairy cows...the roundup ready soy protein, the GMO cottonseed? Milk in NZ can no longer be guaranteed to be a product of pasture only.  

I discovered this when I noticed our calf meal no longer had 'NO GMO' written on it...rang up a few feed companies and discovered the dirty truth. PKE is lilly white by comparison...won't make an difference to what happens in Asia if we stop using it - it's a by-product; a waste product which would otherwise by dumped on the land.

Up
0

Pikowai - that's the second time I've seen that statement hereabouts recently, and it's wrong. If you take something off land (or out of the food-chain) then it's a nutrient loss.

 

A waste product, then, it is not. That's spin or denial.

 

Why do folk not get this? Vested interest in not knowing?

Up
0

No vested interest here - don't use PKE. We are one of the few all grass farmers still around...But any feed imported is a nutrient loss to the country which exports it.  As of course, all the food products they import from us are nutrient gains for them - and nutrient losses to us. 

Oh hey, let's ban any movement of potential nutrients...

Up
0

Pikowai - so close.

 

Lets actually ban the removal of nutrients, without provable replacement.

 

I don't care about transfer, merely about depletion. Which PKE buyers are aiding and abetting.

Up
0

So what's the problem with the PKE then, pdk? We import their by-product and sell them our dairy products...and a few ship loads of other goodies which puts the balance squarely in their favour, not ours...

CIn 2011 commodies imports from Indonesia totalled NZ$662.2mill, while exports to Indonesia same year NZ$855.8...http://www.asean.fta.govt.nz/top-20-new-zealand-imports-from-indonesia/

Up
0

Pikowai - why can't/won/t you see it?

 

You make the same mistake that Misty-boy always does, back to money comparisons with no relativity to anything at all.

 

I'm talking about cleared rainforest-land. As you may know (take a look at a Beech-forest slip) there is not much to a forest, extract the nutrient and you stop growing pretty soon. That's why they keep moving on in Brazil.

 

You aren't putting back what you took out. Sending something in lieu is not alleviating the depletion; it has to be done directly.

 

Pertinently, you both, of course, are depleting fossil fuels by your actions - neither of you are ensuring that those are replenished. Selling milk to Saudi Arabia wouldn't do that either.......

 

Was that genuine no-comprende, or spin?

Up
0

Some info on palm kernal - I don't expect pdk to accept any of it as his views are somewhat unique, but for those of you with a more open mind you may find the following link interesting.  RD1 are probably the biggest importer of PKE, though not the only one.  With a reduced payout, and higher PKE cost this season, there is a reduced demand from dairy farmers for this feed - and in some cases they are swinging back to maize feed due to the cost efectiveness.

http://www.rd1.com/dairy/rd1-nutrition/the-truth-about-pke

 

We noticed our first delivery of calf meal this year contained copra - a useless filling ingredient - so we changed meal after that.  As farmers we have to be ever vigilant on things like calf meal/stock feed etc.  We may buy the same brand year after year, but then suddenly one year they change the makeup - without advising such.  It's only by reading ingredient labels that you pick it up.

Up
0

pdk why can't/won't you see what I just said - we do not use PKE, we use grass. Thanks for your insight CO - I'm learning...LOL.

And so our cows are producing that milk and meat with the wonderfully health giving properties grass-fed animals are known for...conjugated linoleic acids (and other expensive fatty acids), to help city dwellers who don't get enough exercise stay healthy.  In fact, meat and dairy products from grass-fed animals can produce 300-500% more CLA than those of cattle fed the usual diet and 50% grain...is that not something to trumpet?

And once upon a time in an earlier life I climbed a tree in the Pureora Forest to stop the logging of trees which sheltered our kokako...does that qualify me for anything? 

Up
0

Fuss is do we go for lowest cost commodity, which just puts us in the same "cheap" basket as others except with the dis-advantage of the fossilied cost of transport or do we negate that with a "green" product that  ppl are prepared to pay a premium for, mitigating the food miles argument?

I'd suggest the latter, yes sure that includes stopping using GMO products or ecological damaging feed like palm kernels...its our choice, not a cake and eat it choice btw.

PKE = palm kernel's? yes it does actually....I refuse to buy products with palm oil in it or part of it...and Im not alone.  So if I find out that milk "A" has a winter feed of such stufff I wont be buying it again, ever. The Cadbury's fiasco springs to mind.....I have choices and I wont be back.

I find it incredible that time and time again ppl cant see that value add is where the real profit is.  Meanwhile we sell our logs and milk solids as cheap commodities to those who make the profit in the final goods....

regards

Up
0

Welcome folks. We'd like to show you our version of unsustainable agriculture.

 

So much better than your version.

 

What do you mean you can't get here?

Up
0

With NZ more than willing to sell their IP on grass farming methods, we are not the only ones using this system.  In dairy we are just well off to push the 'no growth hormones' used on dairy cattle, in our promotions. Except of course Monsanto took that battle (they argued against producers being able to label food 'hormone free')  to court and won. :-(

 

 

Up
0