Issues and Trends
The rapidly increasing costs of compliance with the overseas-based quality assurance (QA) schemes are becoming a concern. While growers have no problems with the general thrust of the schemes, two of them, British Retail Consortium (BRC) and Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practice (EUREPGAP), are proving to be expensive to implement. The former can cost up to $5,000 while the latter is about half that amount and this expense contributes nothing to increased production or returns. There is considerable duplication in QA schemes and growers really only need one scheme that is recognised by all parties.
Several growers interviewed expressed concerns about the perceived minimum defect tactics apparently adopted by some packhouses. This is where the fruit is graded to the absolute minimum defect level, which results in significant quantities of fruit being dropped out of export grade. One grower believed this practice was costing producers thousands of dollars in lost revenue and that it occurs because packhouse QA staff are endeavouring to avoid the possibility of any line failing stringent export inspection.
The increasing costs of registering new agrichemicals under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 is proving to be a barrier to the entry of much needed new "soft" products into the summerfruit industry. The industry is a small market for agrichemicals, which makes it uneconomic for chemical companies to attempt to register new products. At the last summerfruit conference, a chemical company representative even suggested that growers might be prepared to fund any trial work required in New Zealand, such is the financial burden of registration. Growers felt that, as the industry and government both wanted "clean green" production, then perhaps the Government would consider assisting in the process by lowering fees such as those levied by the Environmental Risk Management Authority.
The trend to bigger orchard holdings continues with new growers, who buy existing small orchard operations, finding the increasingly complex "paper war" of fruitgrowing a real barrier to continuing in the industry. QA schemes and audit requirements are not written or costed for small operations, and are proving to be a daunting regulatory hurdle to the continued viability of the traditional smaller family orchard operation.
Competition on export markets was hotting up with the sheer volume that competitors could move onto the market floor making marketing very difficult at times, e.g., in one week Chile exported 900 tonnes of cherries compared with 24 tonnes from New Zealand.
The casual labour supply was sufficient to harvest the summerfruit crop, but this was a 70% crop year. Several of the interviewees felt that if casual labour became a problem in future, the Government could consider waiving work permit requirements to help the short-term situation. The lack of staff with technical training is considered to be an increasing problem and, while the graduating polytechnic students were helping, there is a lack of young people being attracted to the industry. Better employment conditions need to be arranged and publicised.
Implementation of quality standards is still poor among some brokers and wholesalers in the market, leading to substandard fruit getting onto the market and dragging down overall prices. Supermarkets are tending to sell fruit type rather than specific varieties.
Carpophilus beetle continues to increase in Hawke's Bay when seasonal conditions favour it. This is a major factor in fruit rot problems. More awareness of this beetle and control measures are required among Hawke's Bay summerfruit growers.
There is a need for the process industry to lift its profile so landowners become aware of process summerfruit as a potential crop.
Table 5: Summerfruit Gross Margins
Crop |
Market |
Marketable Production |
Gross |
Gross Margin |
Variance | |
2002/03 |
2001/02 |
|||||
Otago: |
||||||
Apricots |
Export/local |
14 400 |
57,600 |
21,232 |
8,416 |
+152 |
Process |
15 000 |
11,100 |
-1,700 |
550 |
-4 | |
Local |
14 400 |
43,200 |
15,040 |
6,094 |
+147 | |
Cherries |
Local |
15 000 |
93,750 |
25,635 |
-9,850 |
+360 |
Export/local |
15 000 |
157,500 |
78,200 |
42,080 |
+86 | |
Nectarines |
Local |
30 400 |
89,680 |
32,037 |
-5,340 |
+700 |
Plums |
Local |
14 000 |
56,000 |
28,020 |
13,380 |
+109 |
Greengage plums |
Export |
12 000 |
78,000 |
40,720 |
55,900 |
-27 |
Peaches |
Local |
18 000 |
53,100 |
18,406 |
1,570 |
+107 |
Hawke's Bay*: |
||||||
Apricots |
Local |
6 000 |
20,100 |
2,450 |
6,780 |
-64 |
Nectarines |
Local |
6 300 |
22,635 |
6,613 |
6,084 |
+9 |
Plums |
Local |
7 500 |
30,000 |
12,050 |
6,780 |
+78 |
Peaches |
Local |
5 250 |
18,640 |
3,848 |
2,280 |
+69 |
Process |
5 000 |
2,500 |
-200 |
4,500 |
-104 | |
Sources: AgFirst Consultants NZ Ltd and Central Horticulture Services
* Hawke's Bay figures are based on estimated district average production. Growers with good frost protection would have had gross margins of $20,000-$30,000 for nectarines, peaches and plums, while those without frost protection would have had negative gross margins.
Contact for Enquiries
Farm Monitoring Programme Manager
Monitoring and Evaluation
MAF Policy
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0623
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person
