Keith Woodford calls on NZ dairy farms to wake up to what is happening with A2 milk. Despite the NZ science base, local farmers have missed the boat and the economic benefit

Keith Woodford calls on NZ dairy farms to wake up to what is happening with A2 milk. Despite the NZ science base, local farmers have missed the boat and the economic benefit

By Keith Woodford*

Towards the end of 2015 there was a massive re-assessment of A2 milk on the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges. The shares of ‘The a2 Milk Company’ (abbreviated hereafter to their NZX code of ATM) closed the year at almost four times their price back in May, and with market capitalisation at $NZ1.35 billion. For a few heady hours the capital value was close to $1.7 billion – more than Trade Me and almost double The Warehouse. Since then the shares have settled back somewhat, but still showing a three-fold gain from 12 months earlier.

In essence, the drive was fuelled by several major Australian institutional investors building their stakes, and then hundreds of smaller investors climbed on board. This was in response to ongoing good news stories from ATM, based on sky rocketing sales of infant formula in Australia and China, with this news particularly well reported in the Australian media.

Share markets tend to ebb and flow, and I never advise people whether I think the ATM shares are a good or a bad buy. Share market sentiment is unpredictable. But there is no doubt that the dairy world is changing.

Back in September, ATM was reporting that 28% of pregnant Australian women were drinking a2 MilkTM, with this then flowing through to a demand for the a2 PlatinumTM infant formula produced for ATM by Synlait. This was and is despite the ATM products being about twice the price of other brands. Chinese mums were then responding on the basis that if that was what Australian mums were doing, then they would do the same.

Unlike New Zealand, where A2 milk is hard to find and with poor keeping quality, the Australian-produced milk has excellent shelf life and is clearly the top premium brand.

In this article, my aim is not to tell that success story in any more detail. Rather, my aim is to say to New Zealand farmers, it’s time our industry woke up to what is happening. What is wrong with our industry that science, initiated here in New Zealand, is being ignored in this country? And much of this is at the expense of New Zealand’s 11,000 dairy farmers who have missed the boat.

In theory, ATM is still a New Zealand company but increasingly the investors come from Australia and beyond, and that is where all the top ATM executives are. Here in New Zealand, there are about 35 farmers supplying A2 milk to Synlait, for which they receive a paltry premium of 15c per kg milksolids. And Synlait will also be clipping the ticket nicely (and legitimately) for the processing and packaging services they provide. But in the main, the benefits are going elsewhere.

It is ironic that Fonterra owned a 50% share in the first of the A2 patents. This patent, amongst other things, prevented farmers in most parts of the world from selecting for A2 herds – unless either Fonterra or ATM gave a license. How such a patent could ever be issued is another story. It should never have happened, but the ‘herd forming’ component somehow slipped through into the American patent and then was rubber stamped elsewhere across much of the world.

Despite co-owning this key patent (initially with the Child Health Foundation, and subsequently with ATM), Fonterra decided to downplay the A2 issue – something that they must surely be now wondering about.  So they ignored the asset they held.  It could have given Fonterra a big ‘early mover’ advantage.

In late 2015, the herd-forming patent ran out, and now there is no patent restraint on anyone anywhere in the world setting up A2 herds. And indeed it is starting to happen in a significant way. There will, however, be trademarks, brands and some specific testing methods that are still protected.

All of the international semen supply companies have had their bulls typed for A1 and A2 for several years. Accordingly, If clients asked, these companies could always advise which bulls were A2A2 (i.e., carrying double copies of the gene variant which needed to produce A2 herds). But now some of these companies are actively advertising it.

Several years ago, when travelling in an overseas country, I visited a farming group comprising three families who between them produce a billion litres of milk per year. That is more than all of the total milk products we consume locally in New Zealand. My visit was unrelated to A2, but at the end of the visit I did bring up the topic. A smile came over their faces. I said I would go out to my car and get a copy of my book on A1 versus A2. They said ‘‘No need. We now realise who you are. And in any case we already have several copies of your book”.

They explained to me how they had calculated that, when the patent situation changed, they could, and if necessary in a matter of weeks, be producing more than one million litres of A2 milk per day. At that stage they saw the A2 issue as a potential threat to their business and were planning accordingly. My guess is that they have been quietly getting organised ever since.

In recent weeks, the somewhat renegade ‘Milkweed’ journal, which goes to more than 5000 American farmers on subscription, has told its readers that now is the time to go A2. At least for some of them, it is going to happen.

Unfortunately for New Zealand farmers, it is going to be easier for the big American mega-farmers to shift to A2 milk than is the case for New Zealand farmers.  Four key factors are:  1) they have multiple herds and can therefore easily segregate the A2A2 cows; 2) they artificially inseminate their 15-month heifers and this gives them more replacements to work with; 3) sex-selected semen works better in their systems than our seasonal systems; and 4) high replacement rates are economically positive for them, given the price of cull cows relative to the cost of raising replacements.

The one advantage New Zealand farmers have is that they are starting ahead of many countries in relation to their baseline A2 status.  In all likelihood, New Zealand is starting ahead of the USA, China and much of Northern Europe – but not southern Europe.

In a logical world, Fonterra would have been acting a long time ago. But Fonterra is locked into historical positions and is unlikely to change in the near future. Fonterra will argue that the science remains unproven.

Well, the science is increasingly proven.

I began studying these issues back in 2003 and quickly realised there was a smoking gun. By the time I wrote my book ‘Devil in the Milk’ in 2007, the human clinical trials were still missing (they are very hard to do) but the underpinning science was growing fast. Of course the mainstream industry did their utmost to discredit me – they saw it as a threat – but in the long term they have only fooled themselves.

In the last 18 months, there have been papers published in Nutrients, the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, Nutrition and Metabolism, and Nutritional Biochemistry. I am linked into some of this research – I am a co-author on three of those papers. There is more to come. Quite simply, the share-market tide may ebb and flow, but the science is becoming a river.

So what can New Zealand farmers do? At the very least, New Zealand farmers should be using A2 semen as a de-risking strategy.

It should be easy to use A2 semen, but for that to occur LIC needs to come to the party and set up an A2 ‘bull of the day’ service for each of the three main breeds (Friesian, Jersey and Kiwi Cross). In the past, LIC has been unwilling to do this, but now is the time for farmer members to put the pressure on.

A second step – and this is so easy to do – would be to prominently display the A1 and A2 status of all bulls in the LIC catalogues – both hard copy and online. LIC have all of this information, but they make it hard for farmers to find.

These simple steps will not be enough to bring New Zealand up to speed and get the early mover advantage. It is too late for that. But at least they will help prevent New Zealand farmers getting left further behind in the dust.

The counter argument is likely to be that New Zealand dairy industry will lose potential genetic gain by doing this. Well, together with Lincoln University Master of Agricultural Science student Italo Mencarini, I have studied that as part of broader analyses of converting herds to A2, and we have published that work through the New Zealand Society of Animal Production.

If everyone goes A2, then it is possible that the genetic gain we could otherwise obtain in the next ten years might take us an extra year or so. But that is only if everyone is using A2 bulls, and as a consequence we need to drop well down the ranking list to get sufficient supply. However, farmers do not currently maximise genetic gain. If that last drop of genetic gain is so important, then one of the first strategies farmers should be using would be to artificially inseminate their 15-month heifers, like farmers almost everywhere else do, rather than using bulls. That will more than compensate for any slight reduction in the rate of gain from moving to A2.

So my call to action is for New Zealand dairy farmers to ring their LIC directors and tell them what they want. After all, LIC is indeed a farmer-owned co-operative. It is up to farmer members through their LIC directors to set the policies.

And as a final reminder, don’t forget that ‘The a2 Milk Company’ sells its milk across Australia as the leading branded milk at more than twice the price of Fonterra’s milk.


Keith Woodford is Honorary Professor of Agri-Food Systems at Lincoln University. He combines this with project and consulting work in agri-food systems. His archived writings are available at http://keithwoodford.wordpress.com

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.

20 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).
11
up

You point to a fundamental failure in national industry thinking. We know what yesterday looks like, and we think it is still there - a world in which New Zealand could produce largely undifferentiated commodities and make a first world living.

The study of intangible asset value - as well as the formidable creation of this value - has been going on for decades. Instead of developing areas such as reputational opportunity, inventive culture and capability, intellectual capital, distinctive competency, brand authenticity (all of which are the day to day currency of successful contemporary business), we have preferred to milk the same old business strategies that did well for us through British dependency and the Korean War.

Finance in the industry, though of a vast scale, has been largely wasted on hoped-for capital gain. Instead of application to industry development, much of it is now merely non-producing debt. Our current government's desperate dairy diplomacy - for which all other international engagement appears the flimsiest of screens - will not burn this debt away nor turn yesterday into the future.

Again and again, there are calls such as you make here for forward looking value-thinking. Instead a misplaced critical mass looks and turns resolutely rearwards. And drags the national economy with it.

Indeed, good post.

The NZ brand is so respected around the world that organizations and governments try to take it down with advertising. NZ commodity industries are hugely advanced and power an immensely efficient high quality engine that absolutely has obtained a first world standard of living for NZ. NZ ranks second on the UN education index, is in in the top 10 on the human development index, 3rd on economic freedom, we have free healthcare. NZ has half the dangerous air pollution of average OECD countries, lives longer than average OECD countries and is more satisfied with their water and lives than average OECD countries. NZ does make a first world living.
In terms of capital investment, farmers have extremely efficient and high end technology and practices. What leads you to think otherwise?
They are not hoping for capital gains, they have them. Where have you been for the last 40 years? Should our extremely efficient and well run farms be sold for pennies?

Yes, Laminar, New Zealand has formidable advantages. But we cannot support these developed-world advantages via a commodity economy. Either national income must rise or national living standards must fall. The gap between these is financed by ballooning debt, and this flood of finance is not always going to be available. Our fortunate environmental qualities require considerably more care and attention if they are to continue at any acceptable level - again a crucial economic issue.

Our well run farms should not be sold for pennies, but successful businesses do not have emotions.( ie banks). When it comes to saving their ass or yours, I fear I know which party would benefit.

I know very little if anything about A2 milk,however i do recall research done by the British saying that the benifits of A2 milk were minimal or words to that effect.
The other thing is if everyone turns to producing this A2 milk then surely the price will come down.

NG, on A2 milk, it doesn't appear to be toxic and it has an approving scientific and consumer following. And like soya milk, almond milk, coconut milk, etc, it fetches a premium. It's a choice.

On your second point, plenty of others can produce milk (A2 or any milk), but no-one else can produce New Zealand milk (unless we've sold the means of production). Just as anyone can make chocolate, but only the Belgians can produce Belgian chocolate.

But then the imperative is to ensure some persuasive New Zealand quality attaches to what we produce. And here we're getting into trouble fast. We seem hell bent on destroying the crucial and most important means of contemporary value differentiation in 'natural' food products - which are environmental care and sustainability.

New Zealand has - or has had - environmental qualities other countries would have their teeth pulled for. If we lose these, we lose just about everything. At that point, all we can produce will be commodities, A2 milk or anything else.

As i have said ,i know nothing about A2milk, you say that A2 milk doesn't appear to be toxic.My point would be , doesn't appear to be toxic is different to it is toxic or it is not toxic,you can't have it both ways.

workingman, Agree it is a choice. But it doesn't appear to be a large enough market when only approx 20-30 farms in each Australia, UK and New Zealand are producing the milk required for the market. (Though Synlait is currently advertising for more)

Australian a2 milk comes from Australian cows so, is there really any 'NZ premium' that can be attached to it?
https://a2milk.com.au/our-farms/

UK A2 milk comes from UK cows. https://www.a2milk.co.uk/?s=a2+farmers
We have 20 farms certified to provide a2 Milk ™ throughout Shropshire, Cheshire and North Wales.

The mythical 'NZ Premium' does not exist, probably never has with the exception of Kiwifruit. Just saying. We are not Champange in France, or Balsamic in Italy. We are a tiny country most people never even heard of, let alone willing to pay extra for. It took me a while to admit that, but all you have to do is look at the price of our milk compared to elsewhere, and you will see our milk is some of the cheapest. Don't forget we are also far away from shipping lanes and markets, making transport and marketing far more expensive.

I disagree, Skudiv. The New Zealand environmental premium has built our largest industry - tourism - it is what brings 3mn visitors here every year. Zespri has captured this premium and projects it in its brand - as do smaller outfits like Comvita, Icebreaker, and our host of 'natural' cosmetics companies. A New Zealand company, ZiwiPeak, has built possibly the world's most expensive pet food brand on the projection of environmental and sustainable values. Switzerland has or had a similar environmental premium in its dairy products.

To my mind, the point is that the dairy industry has squandered the potential premium value available to it via its lack of deep concern with environmental care and responsibility. Moreover, its record or its impacts are such that it is damaging other brands and sectors - such as kiwifruit, as I've been told at the highest levels of that industry.

Was talking to a chap recently who said that placing of plastic under horticulture/viticulture crops is becoming more used as weed control, due to the amounts of glysophate used in these industries, and the use of plastic as a form of weed control will become much more wide spread in future. They also said some of the food have tested positive for the chemical. Also some older plantings are dying due to the concentration of the chemical in the soil.

How much glysophate does the kiwifruit industry use in the growing of it's crop? Pot calling kettle black I think there, workingman. If consumers understood how much chemical (fertiliser/weed control/disease & pest control etc) goes in to producing food crops it wouldn't be just dairy they'd go gunning for. The difference is unlike a cow standing in water, they don't see it and wouldn't know what their fruit and vege contain as far as perceived contaminants go. So they think it's production is all clean and green - yeah right.

From Waikato District Council report 'Tuakau Structure Plan area Preliminary contaminated land
assessment

The identification of potentially contaminated land in this assessment has been carried out
through the identification of potential HAIL activities (as defined by the Ministry for the
Environment in their list of Hazardous Activities and Industries (HAIL)) which have the
potential to result in ground contamination.

The assessment identified that HAIL activities may affect approximately 537 ha (40%) of the
structure plan area. Horticultural activities, including market gardening and orchards, cover
the largest proportion of this area

CO, I'm not talking up the kiwifruit industry, which - as you say, rightly - has its own case to answer. Merely that Fonterra's safety stumbles, and the increasing awareness of environmental pollution in New Zealand dairying, have been remarked to me as damaging the New Zealand brand with regard to kiwifruit in China. It is likely a matter of its comparative scale and significance, that has positioned dairy out in front in these matters. Balance is not easy.

NG, on A2 milk, it doesn't appear to be toxic and it has an approving scientific and consumer following. And like soya milk, almond milk, coconut milk, etc, it fetches a premium. It's a choice.

On your second point, plenty of others can produce milk (A2 or any milk), but no-one else can produce New Zealand milk (unless we've sold the means of production). Just as anyone can make chocolate, but only the Belgians can produce Belgian chocolate.

But then the imperative is to ensure some persuasive New Zealand quality attaches to what we produce. This is where price protection - or a price premium - comes in. And here we're getting into trouble fast. We seem hell bent on destroying the crucial and most important means of contemporary value differentiation in 'natural' food products - which are environmental care and sustainability.

New Zealand has - or has had - environmental qualities other countries would have their teeth pulled for. If we lose these, we lose just about everything. At that point, all we can produce will be commodities, A2 milk or anything else.

Very well said. We are reaping what we have sown in terms of piecemeal strategic thinking where it has all been about volume. We are in desperate need of some fresh thinking from our industry and political leaders.

Maybe someone else did the reaping?
If you want to stand you have my vote, I will stand beside,you well not right beside you, six feet away or so to avoid snipers.

Thanks for the support.. I think...? Yeah nah, Id probably end up like all the others, get my feet under the table decide I enjoyed the gig better than crutching and go about trying to justify my existence while not rocking the boat enough to preclude myself from getting the next rung on the gravy train.

It would be interesting to know which produces the greatest profit for Synlait suppliers - A2 or the Munchkin Grassfed incentive?

There are many different options for farmers so farmers can pick and choose according to their philosophy/farm system. To say it should be one option only would be a wee bit simplistic. As ngakonui gold comments above - if everyone went A2 the price would eventually come down. Currently there appears to be little or no competition in the market.

No suggestion, CO, that everyone should go A2.