4 Conclusions
The study identifies and discusses the major constraints behind-the-farm-gate to organic sheep and beef, dairying, deer and arable production. The study also examines the implications to the environment of the widespread adoption of organic practices.
Nutrient and soil management, animal health (i.e. gastro-intestinal parasites in all livestock, mastitis in dairy cows, lungworm in deer), woody weeds, and skills, knowledge and access to information were the major and common technical constraints to growing the four sectors that were examined by the workshop participants.
There were few similarities in the infrastructure and industry constraints. A substantial premium was identified as critical for the sheep and beef and arable sectors, but for extensive deer and dairying the size of the premium was not a major constraint to growth, although it is probably important in attracting a critical mass to the organic sector. The lack of a processing and marketing capability was identified as the single biggest factor limiting the growth of the dairy sector.
Of the constraints facing the sheep and beef sector, loss of premium would have the most immediate and devastating effect on the financial viability of the operation. The single most important factor reducing the profitability of the organic system examined in this study was the radical change required to be made to the stock policy, with a shift to older cattle classes to better manage the parasite challenge in sheep. The MAF base model (Hawkes Bay summer moist) used in this study for examining the financial implications of accommodating constraints to organic sheep and beef production can be characterised as intermediate between the more extensive sheep and beef operations found in the drier or hill country regions of New Zealand and the more intensive sheep and cattle finishing systems found in Southland and Waikato/Bay of Plenty. For the more extensive systems, fewer changes to the existing livestock policy would be needed to accommodate the constraints and hence the impact on the financial performance of the operation would be reduced. In contrast, with a more intensive finishing operation, the changes required to be made to the stock policy would be likely to result in greater loss of income.
A similar picture emerges when the organic arable operation is examined. Both the cropping and livestock components of the arable business require a substantial premium (40-50 percent) to be profitable, because of the changes necessary in the cropping and livestock operations and the low nitrogen environment for crop growth. Funding the loss in farm income during the conversion period therefore becomes a major constraint to both these sectors.
In contrast to the sheep and beef and arable sectors, dairying did not depend on a premium to be viable. The major threat to the organic dairy unit would be animal health, primarily mastitis, as it reduces cows in milk. The ability to maintain soil fertility, particularly potassium, is a medium- to long-term threat, along with weeds. The increased amount of conserved feed in the organic dairy model provides increased insurance against climatic extremes.
Interestingly, the deer workshop concluded that extensive, low-stocking-rate deer operations come very close to complying with certification for organic supply and, as such, require little change and support during conversion. Consequently, only a small premium would be required to compensate for any production losses. More intensive deer operations required a drop in stocking rate to reduce stock pressure so funding becomes a factor that must be addressed in the conversion period.
The threat of a breakdown in animal health on the organic systems (e.g. gastro-intestinal parasite or lungworm) impacts primarily on limiting the range of intensive finishing options that can initially be considered on any one property. A breakdown in parasite management would threaten the ability to finish all lambs to an organic specification, although given that most lambs are finished before the start of autumn when the parasite challenge is at its greatest, the effect on the financial performance of the business can be managed. With cattle sold as rising 2- and 3-year-olds, the need to treat weaner cattle following a parasite outbreak does not jeopardise their organic status as 2- and 3-year-old animals. Similarly, with ewe lamb replacements, a parasite outbreak in their first autumn and winter can be managed without affecting their certification as breeding ewes. The major impact of the parasite threat on the financial performance of the business is therefore on the range of intensive finishing options that can initially be considered.
The long-term threat to all the sectors is a weed infestation as it affects all aspects of land use. For arable producers the threat of weeds can also be immediate and devastating on crop yield, quality and value. The need to use mechanical control as the major technique for managing weeds in an organic arable system creates a series of other threats to the system by impacting on the soil resource. Repeated cultivation will reduce the structure, encourage organic matter breakdown, and reduce the biological activity of a soil. This reduces the resilience of the soil to extreme events, reduces the window when soils can be cultivated, increases the number of cultivation passes to prepare the seedbed, and requires time to return increasing amounts of organic matter to preserve current production levels. In preventing weed invasion, there is a real risk of soil damage.
Organic producers need to be proactive, good planners and managers, and preventative in their management. One of the risks of organic production is that if something unforeseen occurs there is a limited range of allowable responses to fix a problem if the organic status of the animals and their products is to be maintained. Organic producers do not have the same knowledge and management infrastructure available to them as conventional producers. Gaining knowledge can therefore be more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive.
A change in the make up of the agricultural service industry would be one outcome from the widespread adoption of organic farming. The number of suppliers of a range of organic products would increase, along with factory processing capability. Three workshops concluded that labour requirements in rural areas would also increase. This would put more families into rural communities, or at least arrest the current decline, and bring in a new range of skills. This assumes that the organic production systems would be profitable, and that people would be willing to undertake physical versus more technical work.
A greater diversity of land use options, including more forestry, eco-tourism, and mixed livestock and cropping farming systems, is likely to enhance the financial stability of the rural sector by spreading the risk associated with only a small number of enterprises. This greater diversity in land use and enterprises will contribute to landscape enhancement, and an improved vista.
A particular sense of pride is likely to develop in the community if the origin or location of the product is associated with a brand name. The opportunity to integrate this with eco-tourism to build a greater range of life experiences was highlighted.
Soil and water resources under deer and dairying are expected to improve, while under organic sheep and beef and arable there could be deterioration unless research gaps are addressed. Animal pests would potentially be better controlled because the reduced range of control options available in organic systems requires a greater emphasis on preventing problems arising. Similarly, all workshops concluded that weeds would not necessarily become more widespread or more of a problem under good organic management because, despite the technical challenges that weeds pose, organic farmers are aware of the implications of losing control of weeds.
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
