Behind the FARM GATE

Forest and Bird, Volume 21, Issue 1, 1 February 1990, Page 29

Behind the FARM GATE

Farmers in New Zealand are little different from farmers elsewhere. While many subscribe to a conservation ethic, all too often their farm practices are non-sustainable. Farmers cultivate land too fragile to support crops, causing soil erosion; they irrigate wastefully, causing water tables to drop; and they readily spray their crops with pesticides and fertilisers which are injurious to health. Nigel van Dorsser takes a philosophical look at New Zealand agriculture.

| Peeled A COLLEAGUE asked me: Can our present rate of production continue beyond our great grandchildren’s time? Will the soil we use now be in as good condition if not better then? My colleague was really asking: is New Zealand agriculture sustainable? My reply was that sustainable agriculture will be achieved when conservation is oe with production. More than half of New-Zealand’s land area is used for agriculture; about 35 percent of our total land is "improved" pasture, cropping land or orchards. Combined, these account for about 70 percent of our overseas earnings. The desire for profit and Government policies are the two forces which have mainly affected agricultural land. Over the last two decades, and especially during the Muldoon

era, farmers were invited by incentives and taught by Ministry of Agriculture officials that they should increase production by whatever means were most expedient. During these buoyant times land values soared to levels far in excess of what farmers could earn off their farms, and many farmers were able to borrow heavily at low interest rates. Non-interest bearing Land Development Encouragement Loans were handed out to farmers to cut bush and scrub from marginal areas, and often vital habitat for species such as kiwi. When combined with suspensory Livestock Incentive Loans, fertiliser subsidies and supplementary minimum prices (SMPs), the damage done to steep hill ’ country was often critical. There was scant regard for water run off or soil conservation. Government policies have now changed.

Subsequently many farmers have gone out of business, unable to service their huge debts. We are left with a legacy of steep hill country insufficiently protected from major storms, and many farmers who have no funds to invest in soil conservation. Cropping rotations have intensified, with consequent depletion of soil structure and fertility levels. Maximum production continues to remain the ultimate goal for most farmers: either because they are forced to in order to pay off their debts, or simply because they are still infected with the maximum production mentality. What all this adds up to is: @ The soil is perceived as something used for business, not as a living system. When farmers speak of "asset maintenance" they are not referring to the topsoil, its fertility or the stability of the agroecosytem, but rather

the Ford Falcon! e Any area of land that does not directly generate income is often considered undesirable, even embarrassing. e If environmental considerations stand in the way of profit, they are avoided, often despite the long term economic benefit. Examples include the loss of potassium from disposal of dairy effluent into waterways, and the loss of carbon compounds from burning crop residues. e Much research has gone into developing technologies to combat problems which are more the fault of inappropriate land use and management. Instead of analysing the agroecosystem and questioning whether pests and disease are the result of poor nutrition, the use of mono cultures, the wrong species or stress, farmers typically look for a chemical solution. Universities and government research bodies appear to support this approach and have been the "trailing edge" in many ways, simply responding to

cries for "cost effective symptom overpowering technology." A MAF scientist wrote in 1983 "everyone knows that what any farmer is really interested in is profit per hectare." Even if that is the case, there are many ways of achieving realistic levels of profit but in an environmentally sensitive and resource conserving fashion. Some of these include not burning crop residues, avoiding soil fallowing over periods of high rainfall in order to minimise leaching losses, conserving soil by minimal cultivation, using appropriate vehicles (motorbikes rather than tractors for everyday transport, for example) and so on. The "profit per hectare" mentality has had unfortunate side effects. Take the case of DDT. Much of New Zealand's grasslands were treated regularly with DDT during the 1950s and 60s. Now, nearly 20 years since most pastoral spraying with the chemical ceased, approximately 25 percent of New Zealand's and 40 percent of Canterbury's lamb exceeds

the European Community maximum residue level for DDE (the breakdown product of DDT). New Zealanders are rightly proud of their record as efficient food and fibre producers, but claims that New Zealand is "clean and green" and our produce fresh and natural are to a degree unfounded. On average 3,500 tonnes of pesticides per year are used in this country. A large proportion of these pesticides are applied to comply with the requirements of overseas consumers, who are more interested with the way that food looks, rather than how healthy it is. Growers often must follow spray schedules supplied by producer boards which have a monopoly over exports, protected by law. Failure to spray might mean crops are rejected for export. The other side of the coin is that produce with spray residues above the importing country’s maximum residue levels is also turned away. The Ministry for the Environment's recent pesticides report concluded that, given New Zealand's levels of pesticide use, problems such as residues in domestic food, groundwater and soil contamination, spray drift and pest resistance were inevitable. Every year around the world up to 20,000

people die from pesticide poisoning, almost all of them in developing countries, while a further 1 million suffer seriously. Perhaps up until now most conservationists have been content to see conservation in terms of setting aside areas of bush and not bothered themselves with what goes on behind the farm gate. Such attitudes are changing fast. It is inevitable that the green consumer tide sweeping around the world will soon wash up on New Zealand's shores. Farmers will not change unless consumers start to demand organic produce, and once supermarkets see there is money in selling food with a Biogro or Demeter label on it, they will help accelerate the trend. Commercial agriculture is a legitimate land use essential for the well being of urban New Zealanders. But until the community recognises that agriculture must be sustainable to be viable, it will not have a guaranteed future. Nigel van Dorsser is a self-employed agricultural consultant from Christchurch, integrating soil, plant and animal nutrition. He Is also an organic farm inspector. f