Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Our fertiliser use is ethical

Avatar photo
I can remember at school being told of our fantastic scientists who, in the 1950s, solved the affliction known as Bush Sickness. It was a wasting disease where healthy cattle and sheep lost condition and eventually died a cruel, lingering death.
The bills for fuel, fertiliser and agri-chemicals have all shot up in recent times and that’s threatening the profitability of some farming businesses.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Our scientists found that by fertilising with cobalt and phosphorous Bush Sickness could be eliminated.

That freed up much of the 13,000 square kilometers of land known as the Volcanic Plateau for pastoral farming.

All New Zealand has benefited since, even the vegan fundamentalists with their Ohakune carrots.

I’m sure NZ could survive without fertiliser but our standard of living would plummet. 

The harsh reality is that our soils are missing some important elements to grow grass and to make them productive we need fertiliser.

It is also important to recognise that many of our fertilisers, lime and phosphate for example, are natural products.

All that hasn’t stopped Fairfax Media from running a vitriolic diatribe against local farmers and the fertiliser they and indeed the country rely on. 

From accusing us of stealing phosphate rock to poisoning the environment, nothing seems sacred.

For the record, I believe the NZ fertiliser industry is ethical and responsible. 

Farmers, fertiliser co-operatives and our academic institutions have jumped through hoops to establish a strong, environmentally responsible industry.

It is also obvious to me the authors of the anti-farming articles have little knowledge of the realities of farmers, farming and fertiliser.

Mike Joy and anglers were consulted but of reputable NZ agricultural scientists, experts from NIWA, Lincoln and Massey or even farmers themselves I could find no evidence.

We also had some sweeping statements such as “the (fertiliser) co-op model makes them resistant to social pressure”. 

One could respectfully and humbly suggest that statement was made without visiting either Ravensdown or Ballance’s websites, talking to anyone in authority from those co-ops or attending an annual meeting.

We are told that there is 187,000 tonnes of nitrogen polluting our rivers but no factual explanation as to where the figure came from. For the record, I don’t accept it.

Further, the Ministry for the Environment report released last year said more than 99% of total river length is estimated not to have nitrate nitrogen concentrations high enough to affect the growth of multiple, sensitive, freshwater species for the period 2009 to 2013.

So where is the 187,000 tonnes? There are higher concentrations of nitrate in kale, beetroot and some cans of baby food than in our rivers.

In addition, we have farmers accused of perpetuating a refugee crisis in the Western Sahara as we buy phosphate rock from there.

I had several communications with the OCP Group, the company that sells phosphate rock to NZ. The global reserves of phosphate are 70 billion tonnes, of which Morocco has 50b.

The Boucraa mine, the establishment that has created all the controversy, has but 2% of Moroccan phosphate – 98% is contained within the traditional borders of Morocco itself with the main mine near Casablanca and the second biggest near Marrakech.

NZ buys from all three. 

The Boucraa phosphate is, however, more suitable for processing and meeting environmental specifications and nutrient content.

What is interesting is the OCP group established a subsidiary, Phosboucraa, where all the profits are invested in the Southern Sahara region so an alternative argument to the Fairfax rant could be that buying fertiliser from Boucraa is doing the locals a favour.

What was also ignored in the articles is that many countries have their own sources of phosphate. NZ doesn’t. If we are to survive and prosper as a nation we have to import it and that will, inevitably, be from Morocco.

We had a headline talking about our phosphorus use entitled Dangerous Addiction.

According to my dictionary dangerous means perilous or being vulnerable to injury. Addiction means a person who is addicted, especially to narcotic drugs.

Do we have a dangerous addiction to fertiliser? Do we hell.

Looking at the facts. The reality is simple.

Farmers test their soil to establish what is lacking. They consult their academically qualified fertiliser representative and use an internationally accepted modelling tool with Overseer.

That not only tells the farmer the fertiliser required but all of the effects and implications of applying that fertiliser.

The farmer then uses a Fertmark certified fertiliser because more than 90% of NZ fertilisers are. 

Fertmark is a stringent quality-control standard for fertiliser. Most then use a Spreadmark accredited operator who is highly trained and has the machinery to precisely spread the product.

The farmer then receives a GPS map showing him or her exactly where the fertiliser was applied. There is absolutely no guesswork in the process.

That is the factual reality of farmers and fertiliser in NZ, not what you might read in the papers.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading