3.2 Deer

3.2.1 Prioritisation of issues

For converting to organic deer farming, the major issue agreed by all workshop participants was how to control lungworm. This technical issue is likely to prevent many farmers from converting to an organic system, even if other factors, such as premiums were increased. The discussion on potential options for lungworm control highlighted that extensive deer operations have a greater range of options for tackling lungworm than intensive deer finishing systems. Some considered that in an extensive grazing system lungworm could be managed. For intensive systems a high stock density and more emphasis on single species grazing appear to constrain management options. Another important technical issue was the need to develop an alternative technique for velveting that does not require the use of drugs. Research on the use of compression acupuncture anaesthetics is well advanced, but questions remain about its effect on successive crops. One lingering view held by participants at the workshop was the perception that an organic system is less caring of animals and more vulnerable to pest outbreaks and extreme climatic events.

Better management of the land resource, watercourses, and indigenous vegetation would be needed in an organic system. Discussion on this reflected issues for the wider industry. Control of woody weeds again emerged as a very important issue in converting to organic production. The lack of organic certified processors is a potential limitation to growth, as is the current small supply base.

Information on market premiums was considered to be limited. The perception of many customers that deer and venison production is natural and therefore close to organic might suggest that organic venison would command only a small premium in the market place. Organic certification may therefore be useful in reinforcing the "natural" branding the product already enjoys.

In summary, the major issues for the deer sector are the control of lungworm, the need to develop an alternative method for velveting, and the ever-present issue of woody weed control. Once these issues are resolved, it is likely that the perceptions of the organic deer industry, and the industry infrastructure and supply issues will follow suit.

Constraints to conversion to organic deer production identified by the Focus Group are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 Constraints and their relative importance to conversion to organic deer production, as identified by the Focus Group, are listed below

Issue Comments Rating1
Technical    
Long-term soil fertility/ biology of soils Fertiliser/trace element options, DDT level Many
Physical health of soil Heightened concern for water/soil erosion

e.g. deer and soil erosion, wallowing in stream beds, treading along fence lines, etc

Few
Animal health Lungworm control

Others: Yersiniosis outbreaks, control of ticks, possum/Tb vector control

All
Pests Tb vectors Few
Disease Few
Weeds Woody weeds

Herbaceous weed control, esp. nodding thistle and ragwort

All
Genetics/adaptation Genetic selection for disease control versus production

Breed type, Fallow, Red, Elk. Are any more suitable?

Many
Animal nutrition/ feed/ stock Pasture quality control as a result of lower stocking rate

Lack of grazers

Few
Animal management Velvet removal techniques

What stocking ratio and overall intensive level is appropriate in an organic format given climatic changes?

Few
Pasture seed Availability, pasture options Few
Skills and knowledge of manager Lack of knowledge e.g. on interactions between fertilisers and soils, animal remedies and end products, pesticides and residues, so-called natural products and their effects Few
Infrastructure and industry
Signals on premiums/market stability What are the market premiums (especially in relation to carcass weight). Markets - tonnage available Few
Standards Validity of certification, integrity of system, testing of products to maintain standards, adherence by farmers to standards, sensible specifications Few
Industry infrastructure and strategy Certified processors and critical supply base Many
Services Certified meat processing, issues with booking organic kill space especially in busy times.

No advisory structure

People and network, almost no practical farmer support system e.g. discussion groups

Few
Perceptions on organics Image that the system is less caring of animals and more vulnerable All

1 The words "All", "Many" and "Few" rank the importance of an issue in terms of the proportion of votes it received by the workshop members.

3.2.2 South Island deer model

This model is representative of deer farms in Southland and South Otago. It is based on a farm running only deer and the base numbers are 520 mixed age breeding hinds with 120 rising 2-year hinds (Tables 8 and 9). Seventy of the rising 2-year hinds are retained as breeding herd replacements. A herd of 90 mixed age stags is run for velvet production. Progeny from the breeding hinds that are not required as replacements in the breeding or velvet herds are sold for slaughter. Most are slaughtered at 10-18 months with final culling of replacements at the two-year-old stage. Not all rising 2-year hinds are mated. The model is based on running predominantly red hinds in the breeding herd.

Table 8 Model in summary 1999/2000

Effective area 180 ha      
Stock wintered:
Breeding hinds

640

R1yr stags

230

R1yr hinds

230

R2yr stags

55

Total stock units opening

2,115

su R3yr+ stags

100

Closing stock units

2,136

su      

Table 9 Key parameters of the Model

  1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01f*
Fawning %

86

85

85

Velvet (kg/stag)
Farm average (incl. regrowth and yearling velvet)

1.14

1.16

1.22

MA

3.2

3.3

3.3

3-year-old

2.6

2.7

2.7

2-year-old

1.4

1.5

1.5

Carcass weights (kg)
Cull MA hinds

50

52

52

Cull 2-year-old hinds

51

52

52

Cull MA stags

92

92

92

2-year-old stags

65

65

65

Yearling stags

56

56

56

Gross farm revenue ($)

161,338

216,759

247,617

Cash farm surplus ($)

51,738

107,159

132,377

Net trading profit ($)

48,018

109,659

113,537

* Forecast at May 2000

The South Island deer model (MAF, 2000) was used as the base on which to examine the financial implication of addressing the major constraints to organic venison and velvet production. The assumptions and changes made in stock policy, production levels and timing of supply are considered in the next section.

3.2.3 Assumptions for conversion to organic production

In the construction of the organic South Island deer farm system, changes and assumptions were made to accommodate the constraints identified by the focus group including:

Stock management

  • Effective area: a quarantine area is required which reduces the effective grazing area by 2.8 percent (5 ha).
  • Stocking rate is reduced from 11.86 to 9 su/ha. This lessens stress on stock and results in better animal health, growth and social behaviour, etc.
  • Levels of venison production remain the same because of the lower stocking that reduces stress on stock giving better animal health, growth and social behaviour, etc. on the organic system.
  • Reproductive performance is the same, as are the numbers of culls and deaths.
  • In the organic system calves will be weaned later (May/June), compared with 75 percent weaned pre-rut in the MAF base system.
  • A high proportion of adult stock aids animal health. Velvet production per head will be similar given the same feed level per head. The effect of compression acupuncture on subsequent velvet growth may be a factor that needs to be considered.
  • Velveting will be carried out on organic properties based on non-chemical antler removal e.g. compression acupuncture anaesthetics.
  • Slaughter dates maybe slightly later in the organic system, but have no effect on price.
  • Grazing of outside stock: 100 cattle from another farm must be grazed for six months to control pasture surplus and maintain feed quality on the organic system (100 cattle for six months. 180 days @ 0.7 kg lwg/day = 126 kg lwt. Carcass wgt = 65.5 kg @ $3:00/kg).
  • Less work involved with animal health. More work associated with controlling pasture, controlling weeds, and monitoring.
  • Stock purchases: organic producers will want to source stock that is suitable for this system. As there is a small pool breeding for organic production, the costs may increase. Stock may also come from further away.
  • No difference was made in the percentage of stock or product produced to BIO-GRO or CERTENZ specification. There is a small difference in the cost of the certification systems.

Agronomic management

  • Conserved feed: more supplements are made to control surpluses.
  • Fertiliser: the chemical fertiliser used in the MAF base system will be replaced with RPR and elemental sulphur. Trace elements will be the same if reason their for use is shown. Liquid fertilisers will be used. More monitoring and testing will be needed to keep soil health up. Slightly less lime used. No change in costs.
  • Pasture management as a result of the lower stocking rate will require more mechanical topping to maintain pasture quality.
  • Organic deer farms are likely to have more shade and shelter trees.
  • Organic forage and grain supplements are not easily purchased so will need to be made on the farm.

These changes, along with the cost structure listed in Table 10, have been incorporated into the organic deer model.

Table 10 Assumptions for conversion to organic production

Category Reasons for change

MAF base

Organic

Wages Less work involved with animal health. More work associated with controlling pasture, controlling weeds, monitoring

$3,600 pa

$4,320 (> 20%)

Animal health Cost will decrease for medicines but Tb testing and pregnancy testing remains. Fewer animals in total to treat

$4.24/su

$2.97/su (< 30%)

Electricity No difference anticipated

$1700

$1700 or $1.10/su

Feed Hay and silage costs could increase due to controlling surpluses mechanically rather than using animals to clean out paddocks

$5.82/su

$6.40/su

Any imported feeds would be 60-90 percent organic These may be up to 50 percent more expensive

$0.59/su

$0.81/su

Grazing off-farm would not fit the certification criteria. This would be replaced by purchased feed

$0.69/su

$0.90/su

Total feed costs.

$7.10/su

$8.11/su

Fertiliser Current rates are 250 kg/ha 0-9-0, some DAP plus 40 kg of nitrogen per ha. This will be replaced with RPR and elemental sulphur. Trace elements will be the same if reason for use is shown. Liquid fertilisers will be used

$108/ha

$8.88/su

$107/ha

Seeds Organic seeds may need to be sourced. Mixes will have a higher proportion of more expensive species like tall fescue

$11/ha

$28/ha

Freight This will need to be done by a certified carrier which may be more expensive

$1.48/su

$1.50 /su

Weed and pest Less spent on chemicals

$1700

$1000

Tax This is the amount payable on current year’s income

As calculated

As calculated

Levy BIOGRO has a 0.5 percent additional levy to use their label

Nil

$872

Administration No additional admin. for MAF base model

CERTENZ = $800 to $1200 per annum
BIOGRO = $1181

No change

Same as conventional plus

$1,000
$1,181

Consultancy More time spent getting advice, attending field days, joining organisations, Internet, more monitoring of feed budgets, soils and animal health

$450

$600

The organic system sells $31,800 of velvet. If a non-chemical, ethical method of removing velvet is not found or it is banned on philosophical grounds, this also changes the analysis. Velveting stags would be replaced with hinds, and breeding stags only would be run.

3.2.4 Financial outcomes from the organic model

The financial results (Table 11) are based on the changes discussed above and the costs reported in Table 9.

Based on changes to the MAF base model and in the absence of grazing, the organic systems cash farm surplus is reduced by $228/ha. The reduced stocking rate drives this, rather than a drop in per head performance. A number of costs are the same even though stock numbers are reduced. These include wages, electricity, re-grassing, rates, sundry, repairs and maintenance, and administration. To maintain pasture quality in the organic system, however, additional grazing must be included in the spring and summer to maintain the viability of the systems. If the value of grazing is included then the organic system returns improve by $109/ha.

Grazing is based on using young cattle (yearlings). Venison price per kg under an organic system would need to be an additional $2.11/kg (a 29 percent premium) to achieve the same value as the MAF model venison sales. This provides an indication of the premium required by the organic system in the absence of grazing income to generate the same gross farm income generated by the MAF base model. If grazing is included in the income of the organic system, the premium required drops to $1.03/kg (a 14 percent premium).

Velvet would need to be an additional $17.25/kg (a premium of 20 percent) to achieve the same value of velvet sales.

This is a guide only, as each farm needs to do its own analysis of returns under an organic system.

The additional costs between BIOGRO and CERTENZ are insignificant and the production is assumed to be the same.

Reducing the stocking rate will reduce stress not only on the animals but also on the operator. Time originally spent on administering animal health may now be taken up in non-chemical ways of reducing weeds.

No account is taken of the expected environmental improvement under an organic system resulting from the lower stocking rate and the lower levels of chemical use. Existing organic farmers also appear to have a greater goodwill factor from the wider population that organics is a "better" way to farm.

Table 11 Key financial indicators of the MAF base and organic models

  MAF base model Organic policy
Effective area (ha) 180 175
Stocking rate (su/ha) 11.8 9
Total stock units 2,136 1,624
Calving (%) 85 85
Velvet price ($) 86 86
Venison price ($) 7.16 7.16
Total venison sold (kg) 29,004 21,867
Total velvet sold (kg) 444 370
Gross farm income ($) 233,426 178,484
Farm working expenses ($) 92,523 90,790
Cash farm surplus ($) 140,903 87,694
Cash farm surplus/su ($) 66 54
Cash farm surplus/ha ($) 729 501
Cash farm surplus with grazing surplus/ha ($) 729 610

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

 

Contact for Enquiries

Kay Brown
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0695
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0746
Contact this person

 




WebSite survey