Write Here,Right Now

The Government has gone for a select committee inquiry into local milk prices to take the heat out of a possible election issue

In a clear case of politics winning over common sense the Government now says it will back a Select Committee inquiry into the price of milk on the local market.

With political rivals Labour and Greens pushing for such a probe after the Commerce Commission decided not to stage a formal investigation into the price of milk last week , John Key has sniffed the political wind and now says the Cabinet support an inquiry. It will now be discussed by the National caucus tomorrow and if – or more correctly, when – it gains the support from the caucus then it could be considered by the Commerce Select Committee as early as Thursday.

Despite previously defending the price of milk and saying he suspects New Zealand consumers are paying a fair price, Key has now punted for a select committee inquiry in an effort to take the political heat out of the issue.

“What is quite clear is people are frustrated with the price of milk. They’re not convinced actually at the moment that they are getting fair a price,” Key explained. “I suspect that they are and the work we’ve done so far would indicate that they are.”

However, the PM’s change of heart follows on from Agriculture Minister David Carter stance saying there could be “some value” in an inquiry taking place.  It’s clear both Carter and Key do not believe domestic dairy consumers are being ripped off. However, they also both know a select committee inquiry will take the issue of high local milk prices off the agenda until after November’s election.

It is smart politics, but rather cynical.

I have more respect for the stance Federated Farmers president Bruce Willis has taken over the issue. He has recommended that consumers shop around for a bargain. As he stated in an opinion piece:

“Milk remains great nutritional value for money and there are good milk prices by shopping around. Supermarkets may not be the best place to buy from if Timaru’s Corner Convenience Store has been selling two litres of Dairy Dale for $3.20 and the Harris Road Superette and Lotto in Mt Wellington for $2.90. If we reward dairies like these with increased business then retail milk prices may start falling elsewhere.”

While people may think dairy farmers are creaming at present – with the average price for two litres of standard milk at $3.68 – it is worth remembering they actually only receive around $1.30 for every two litre bottle of milk sold.

I don’t believe Fonterra is ripping off New Zealanders over the price of milk and I am disappointed  Key and Co have kicked for touch on this subject going for an inquiry instead of backing local farmers.

However, I do agree with the PM that “daylight is the best disinfectant” and the select committee and submission process will shine light on the issue and once and for all show New Zealand consumers that are actually paying fair prices for dairy products.

Politicans sniffing electoral support are now pushing for local dairy price investigations in the wake of the Commerce Commission ruling out an inquiry

Despite all the claims and silly political games surrounding domestic milk prices the much anticipated report by the Commerce Commission has found retail and wholesale markets are competitive enough and do not require price controls.

Unsurprisingly, in a bid to make political capital, Opposition leader Phil Goff says the commission’s decision not to investigate milk prices further was “hugely disappointing”. He says Labour will be pushing for a select committee inquiry.

“We need to know why the price of milk in New Zealand is so high when we’re the country that produces it.” Which probably says more about Labour’s and the former international trade Minister’s lack of economic nous – than its nutty no GST on fresh fruit policy – when failing to acknowledge the impact international supply and demand has on local dairy prices. And, speaking of nuts, Green Party MP Sue Kedgely claims the Commerce Commission had “passed the buck” and it was up to Parliament to resolve “the issue of the virtual monopoly Fonterra exercises in the domestic milk market and the effect this has on milk prices”.

Meanwhile back on planet earth, the commission’s report – sparked by skyrocketing domestic milk prices and similar political grandstanding earlier this year – ruled out price controls, saying enough rivalry exists between the two main supermarket chains while for wholesale milk Fonterra and Goodman Fielder competed for supplies. However the commission said there was “little or no competition” in the market for supplying milk to processors which is dominated by Fonterra. However, the political games have not ended with Agriculture Minister David Carter – with a clear eye on the upcoming election – saying he cannot assure New Zealanders they are not paying too much for milk despite the Commerce Commission’s report. This followed Prime Minister John Key’s similar utterance in the aftermath of the commission releasing its decision. It’s obvious that Carter and Key are not immune to the same kind of grandstanding over domestic dairy prices that the increasingly irrelevant and desperate Goff and ever irrational Kedgely are.

Politics aside, I tend to agree with Fonterra which claims its competitors are behind the calls for a price control inquiry. Chief financial officer Jonathon Mason says they want to force down the amount they have to pay New Zealand farmers for raw milk. He was quick to put the boot into foreign owned-rivals like OCC and Synlait who led the calls for an inquiry.

“If some processors are not doing as well as Fonterra, that’s because Fonterra makes more from a bucket of milk than them – by doing what it was set up to do. As a co-operative owned by Kiwi farmers, all that value flows back into the New Zealand economy.”

Ouch!

It is just a pity the Fonterra man is not as honest and blunt with all those politicians currently clambering over local dairy prices in an effort to make themselves more electorally palatable to voters.

Fonterra's new chief executive Theo Spierings has expereince in both the international dairy sector and farmer co-opertives.

The strong Dutch influence on New Zealand’s dairy industry continues with the recent appointment of Fonterra’s new chief executive Theo Spierings.

Spierings – from Holland – replaces outgoing chief Canadian Andrew Ferrier, who will step down in September after been at the helm of Fonterra for the past eight years. The new chief will join current chairman, and son of Dutch immigrants, Sir Henry van der Heyden at the top of New Zealand’s biggest company and the world largest dairy exporter.

New Zealand’s dairy sector has had a long association with the Dutch. Many immigrants from Holland came to this country in the 1950s and were attracted to the dairy sector due to its potential for rewarding hard work. This tradition continues today, with recent Netherlands arrivals such as Willy Leferink and Aad van Leuuwen becoming major players in this country’s dairy industry.

Spierings appointment may raise some questions about the depth of talent at the co-op and in NZ business in general. It may even provide a political platform for more xenophobic types like Winston Peters to query why a local has not been appointed to the role.

However, most rational people will see it is a good thing that Fonterra has attracted an international leader of the calibre and experience of Spierings to lead NZ’s biggest company into its second decade.

Spierings not only has experience in the international dairy sector, but also working with dairy farmers in a co-operative model. He was chief executive of Royal Friesland Foods and presided over that company’s merger with Campina to help form one of the world’s largest dairy co-ops.

This kind of international dairy sector experience and an understanding of farmer politics make him an ideal candidate for the Fonterra role.

Van der Heyden, and the others on the co-ops’ selection team, who chose Spierings should take a bow. It is an inspiring choice and we can look forward to the double-Dutch act taking Fonterra ahead during its second decade.

The Fonterra Shareholders Council's Labour Day free ice cream giveaway is a good chance for farmers and townies to start bridging the rural /urban divide.

While at risk of starting to sound like a stuck record, I am still hot on the topic of the rural sector better engaging with the general population about how important it is to New Zealand’s future.
There is no doubt that both Fonterra and DairyNZ should get more on the front foot, take on the role of ‘cheer leaders’ and relay the good news on dairying to the community. However, they also have to acknowledge where problems occur – ie water quality problems and ever increasing milk prices – and show how the industry is addressing such problems – especially in the case of the former.

Meanwhile, other farming sectors such as meat, wool, kiwifruit, cropping et el all need to be out their proactively promoting their industries as well.

Currently, in the dairy sector, there is a vacuum which is being filled by environmentalists piling pressure on the industry and farmers to lift their game on sustainability. At the same time, consumer groups frustrated at increasing milk, butter and cheese prices – while farmers enjoy a record payout – complain about being ripped off. Inevitably this has seen opportune politicians playing the envy card and claiming farmers don’t pay enough tax.

All this does is further drive a wedge between rural and urban New Zealand and lead to more discontent from both sides.

So it is good to see this view starting to get picked up in wider circles – both from the industry and by government.

Agriculture Minister David Carter was recently reported in Dairy News saying how the dairy industry needs to acknowledge there are urban concerns about the effects of the intensification of dairying on the environment. He says dairy farmers need to acknowledge that and spend more time telling the industry’s good-news stories so urban New Zealand can respect the progress dairying is making on environmental issues

Carter is adamant Fonterra and the dairy industry must be more proactive rather than merely reacting to criticism in the news media.

“I’d prefer the industry to be out there highlighting some of the positive stories, some of the very good farm management changes that are improving environmental outcomes; let urban New Zealand know.”

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Bill English told farmers at the recent South Island Dairy Event (SIDE) the Government was willing to help Fonterra overcome “the disconnect with urban New Zealanders”. English pointed to the sheer size of Fonterra and noted every New Zealander is affected by its decisions. But he urged Fonterra shareholders not to get too negative about the criticism.

DairyNZ chief executive Tim Mackle agrees the industry needs to engage with the public and politicians on sustainable dairying, but lift on-farm performance at the same time. Fonterra chairman Henry van der Heyden last month told a Smaller Herd and Supply Herds  conference in Northland the co-op had lost its connect with urban New Zealanders.

English says there are clearly tensions between Fonterra and the public over environmental issues.

Fonterra Shareholders Council chairman Simon Couper recently told Dairy News that he agrees about the need to have the community behind both farmers and the industry. He says farmers are not there to destroy New Zealand’s environment or tarnish the country’s image on the world market. As part of its efforts to win over the community, Fonterra is throwing a birthday shout across the country on Labour Day (October 24). “While it will not change the world, we hope to get those without a good understanding of the industry to know us a bit better,” Couper says.

He’s right, it won’t change the world. But at least it is a step in the right direction and is exactly the kind of thing that will foster better relations between rural and urban NZ. So I  look forward to getting a free Jellytip on Labour Day and seeing farmers and townies chatting with each other. That has got ot be positive.

To successfully feed the world's growing population organics will not cut it and the adaptation of new agricultural technologies is vital

Ever heard of greenwash?

It’s used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.

However, the greenwash term has been hi-jacked by the pro-environmental lobby – usually accusing companies, organisations or even countries of not living up to their ‘clean, green, sustainable’ expectations.

Many a hard working organisations – especially in NZ’s agricultural productive sector – have suffered the disdain of smug, eco-warrior-types who regularly deride the environmental merits of their products and/or systems.

More often than not, the primary sector has had to listen to sanctimonious lectures from the Green Party, Greenpeace, Soil and Health NZ – or some other ecological do-gooding group – accusing them of unleashing all sorts of environmental damage on our country.

Regularly these groups call for the wholesale conversion of NZ agriculture to organics – claiming it is the only way for the country to go to save us both environmentally and economically.

So it was with a sense of schadenfreude to hear that people are being greenwashed into thinking that certain types of technology-intensive agriculture are not environmentally friendly.

A recent Australian Farm Institute conference heard how relieving world hunger and ensuring food security are inextricably linked to adoption of new technology. According to Roger Cady, Elanco’s sustainability leader who spoke at the conference, if global food production has to double by 2050 – as suggested by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation – then 70% of this increase in production will have to come from new technology due to limitations in land and natural resource availability.

“Consumers are constantly being misled about the impact of some types of agriculture, and this is often biasing their food choices,” Cady says.

He says it is easy for people to be swayed by impressions and intuition – without considering the science, productive efficiency, and environmental impact per unit of output.

“Intensive agriculture is actually significantly more sustainable than most people are aware,” he says. “Today’s technology aided intensive agriculture is far more environmentally sustainable than historical agriculture because fewer resources, less water, and less land are used with less greenhouse gases produced per unit of food grown than by historical farming methods.”

Meanwhile, Brett Stuart, from US agricultural analysis company Global AgriTrends, told the conference that most consumers did not understand the social implications of perceived “socially-responsible” purchasing.

“Organic, locally grown, free range, and other anti-technology production methods typically increase the use of water and feed resources, and can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions,” he says.

According to Stuart says it is actually “socially-irresponsible” to impose choice-restrictions on producers which then lead to higher food costs, felt mainly in the third world.

Actually because lower technology production is less efficient per unit of output, it inevitably contributes to the record food prices we are currently experiencing and pushing millions of people around the world into food-insecurity.

“Utilising technology effectively, will mean that while we need to double agricultural production by 2050, we will only occupy 13% more land to do it than was used in 2008,” Stuart says.

Now; that’s food for thought for all those pushing their sustainable organic barrows!

Can new president Bruce Wills convince Fed Farmers it is only part of the solution to bridging the rural urban divide and not the whole answer?

Federated Farmers has elected Hawke’s Bay sheep and beef farmer Bruce Wills as its new president.

The farmer lobby’s much-hyped four-way contest for the top job gained a lot of media attention. However, the newly-elected Wills will have more to worry about than nursing the bruised egos of the unsuccessful candidates – such as how to make the organisation much more relevant to wider New Zealand and how it fits into the big picture of representing and speaking for the rural sector.

This follows on from accountancy firm KPMG’s recent calls for urban dwellers to gain a better understanding of the rural sector. KPMG’s business advisory arm makes this recommendation – among a raft of other suggestions – in its recently released report on New Zealand’s primary industry Agribusiness Agenda 2011.

As pointed out in an earlier post, one only has to do a quick Google search of farming or agriculture news articles and you will quickly find that negative headlines and stories dominate. While many people

organisations within New Zealand ‘Inc’ realise and understand the importance of the agribusiness and rural sector to the economic well being of our country, many others – especially urban dwellers – do not.

Feds’ new president would do well to study KPMG’s report. It is based on interviews with more than 80 agribusiness leaders and says the rural/urban gap is a risk to the future development of the country.

The interviewees’ had numerous explanations for this disconnect including: an ethnically mixed urban population with little or no family link to farming; mainstream media focussing on negative issues about the agriculture sector such as animal welfare issues and water quality standards in dairy regions.

However, the report also points out that the agricultural sector must foot some of the blame for this divide. It says a lack of openness from the industry has led to urban dwellers to believe they are not getting the full story. This is a fair point; as is its suggestion that the onus must go on the rural sector itself to take on the job of educating and informing the rest of the population as to how the industry operates and the economic benefits it generates for the country.

Wills and his new Federated Farmers board won’t like the underlying assertion of Agribusiness Agenda 2011 – although not overtly spelled out in the report – that it’s time for a new, pan-sector rural lobby group.

New Zealand’s agribusiness sector currently has a wide and diverse group of organisations and lobby groups – including Federated Farmers. Yet despite the sector’s size, resources and undoubted importance to the country’s economic well-being, it is unable to speak as one, unified sector voice on matters.

This is because all the different, specific interests of the various bodies that make up NZ agribusiness and a lack of a recognised sector organisation that can speak on all of its behalf. Thus making it almost impossible for a clear, united and unambiguous agribusiness sector view and making it much easier for critics and opponents to pick on different areas.

Feds and its newly elected president might not like it, but there is considerable upside in having an independent, unified sector advocate organisation. It is time for the agribusiness sector to seriously look at forming such a body.

Bruce Wills will have his work cut out making Federated Farmers understand that the farmer lobby has a part – but only a part – in helping represent the agribusiness sector making it relevant to the wider population.

The infamous four breasted anti-GE image produced by MAdGE

Remember MAdGE?

This was a group of trendy, bored Remuera housewife-types Mothers Against Genetic Engineering led by former 1980’s pop star Alannah Currie, who were – unsurprisingly – against genetic engineering.

MAdGE was probably more famous for its soft-porn poster of a four-breasted woman or its members taking off their tops in Parliament’s public gallery rather than anything it actually achieved. The group suddenly appeared on the scene in 2002 and then disappeared just as quickly a year or so later. 

MAdGE claimed that genetic engineering posed the greatest threat to mankind since – well – the last biggest threat to mankind. Fanned by conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, Currie and her cohorts believed that GE was the likely cause for everything from cross-pollinated ‘Franken food’ to mad cow disease.  

Thankfully, Currie quickly got bored with lecturing people about the evils of GE and took off back to the UK and reinvented herself as artist-upholsterer. Her group was the precursor to the next lot of uninformed, bored Remuera housewives types who now, a decade later, are protesting about the next greatest threat to mankind – climate change.

Ironically, today’s climate change female warriors (worriers) are also led by another middle-aged, scaremongering ‘artist’ – actress Robyn Malcolm! (Let’s hope she too can find a new career, may be as polar bear taxidermist in Iceland, and saves us from her ill-informed lectures about global warming)

Anyway, just like one of Currie’s awful 1980’s Thomson Twins tunes, the anti-GE conspiracy theories could be on the comeback following recent media reports revealing a potential cover up of research about genetic engineering.

News that a report critical of AgResearch’s practices at its genetic engineering laboratories has sparked a war of words between the Canterbury University professor who wrote it and the Crown research institute.

Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, was asked by GE Free New Zealand to look into AgResearch’s monitoring of the risk of horizontal gene transfers at its Ruakura facility.

His report looked at the agency’s offal holes containing genetically engineered cow carcasses and its monitoring of the risk of material from those pits contaminating the soil.  Heinemann found what he described as fundamental flaws in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits.

He said AgResearch was monitoring soil that was irrelevant because it was at the top of the offal pits, and not metres below, where the animals were buried. Heinemann said whenever signals were detected that the risk of a transfer existed, they were not rigorously pursued.

However, AgResearch says its monitoring programme is in line with best practice science and in seven or eight years of practice has not detected any measurable transfer of genetic material.

Meanwhile, research manager Jimmy Suttee says the CRI was entitled to seek out whoever it wished to refute the report’s claims, and that its monitoring methods at Ruakura were sound. Suttie also denied that the report damaged AgResearch’s reputation, saying he did not think the public understood the debate.

However, that is exactly the problem Dr Suttie – the public do not understand issues like GE and climate change. And this makes it easy for groups like MAdGE – and the global warming screamers – to sow seeds of doubt and talk about conspiracy theories.

They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. Organisations like AgResearch need to be open and honest about their research, so broken down pop singers, actresses and other mad cows can stick to their day jobs rather than stirring up unnecessary public concerns via pseudo science and scare tactics.

Here's looking at a bright future for NZ agricultural exports

The latest Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry (SONZAF) paints an incredibly bright picture for NZ’s agriculture sector.

During the six year period, from 2010 to 2016, gross agricultural revenue is forecast to expand by some 45% from $22 billion to $32b.

As Federated Farmers’ Phillip York says: “This must be a major cause for celebration for all New Zealanders because these export dollars directly pay for health, education and social services.”

However, before anyone starts cracking the champagne it should be noted that SONZAF has used Treasury’s Budget forecasts with the Kiwi dollar projected to fall back to historic averages by 2015. This values the NZ dollar at US58 cents and UK30 pence, whereas it currently sits at 80c and 50p respectively.

Despite this, the overall picture for New Zealand’s primary sector is very good with a lack of supply and strong demand for our products driving prices. What’s more, the outlook is strong in the long-term.

“The food security debate that’s happening internationally means that being a food producing nation is an exceptionally good place to be, especially a food producing nation that’s at the top end of the market with quality and integrity,” says MAF’s deputy director general Paul Stocks. “Frankly, I can’t think of a better place for this country to be in.”

And not many would disagree with these sentiments.

Not surprisingly it’s the dairy industry that’s leading the boom, with growing milk supply and strong international prices. Meanwhile, for the first time in many years, meat and wool farmers have smiles on their faces. Lamb exports this year are expected up 9.7% to $2.7b and to reach $3.7b by 2015.

Wool prices are another piece of good news with values predicted to hold. The report suggests beef export prices in US dollars will fall slowly over the next two years, but beef export value will rise from the present $2b to $2.6b by 2015.

Forecasts:

Dairy: The strong demand driving commodity price rises is likely to remain, but additional milk supply in 2012 and beyond is expected to drive international prices down from current levels. MAF forecasts the milk price for the 2011-12 year at $6.87 a kilogram of milksolids, reflecting softening international prices as world supply starts to respond to increasing demand. Beyond 2012, the assumption of a depreciating New Zealand dollar drives most of the lift in the milk price, which is projected to be $8.64 in the 2014-15 year.

Lamb:  International prices are expected to fall over the next two years as flock numbers build in Australia and New Zealand, assuming average climate conditions. Over the remainder of the outlook period to 2015, international lamb prices are expected to increase slowly as sheep numbers continue to decline in Britain and Europe and wealth improves in the Middle East and China.

Wool: Prices are likely to remain high this year and to gradually rise on constrained supply and rising incomes over the following three years. Average sale prices are estimated to be up by 32 per cent, to 503c a kg of clean wool for the year just ending the year ending and to average 515c over the outlook period.  This compares with the five-year average to 2010 of 376c.

Beef:  Export prices are expected to fall slowly over the next two years.

Further out, growing incomes and population in Asian and other developing countries, along with increasing production, mostly in developing countries, should result in rising prices as supply lags behind demand. By 2015, beef export value is projected to be $2.6 billion.

Deer: The average stag schedule price for the year just ending is estimated at $7.25 a kg, down slightly on last year, reflecting the erosion of an appreciated Kiwi dollar against the Euro. A projected increase in schedule prices from 2012 to 2015 is underpinned by growing overseas demand for venison.

Forestry: Demand is expected to remain strong, with Chinese growth continuing and the need for reconstruction following earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan and floods in Australia. Prices are expected to rise but further growth in harvest volumes in New Zealand will be constrained.

Kiwifruit: Total kiwifruit export volumes are expected to increase to 107 million trays for the year to March 2012, while export returns are forecast to be more than $1b. Gold kiwifruit volumes are expected to increase by 33%, to 28 million trays.

Apples: Average prices for New Zealand apples this year are expected to increase by 10% on last year. An orderly entry of fruit into the main markets will be critical to offset the high value of the Kiwi dollar.

It is time for New Zealand's agribusiness to stand out from the flock and make a united stand

You know agriculture is recognised as the best way for the country to get out of the hole it is in when accountancy firm KPMG starts calling for urban dwellers to gain a better understanding of the rural sector.

The usually “dry as Taihape on a Sunday” (as Barry Crump used to say) business advisory arm of KMPG makes this welcome recommendation – among a raft of other suggestions – in its recently released report on New Zealand’s primary industry Agribusiness Agenda 2011.

Do a quick Google search of farming or agriculture news articles and you will quickly find that negative headlines and stories dominate. While many people and organisations within New Zealand ‘Inc’ realise and understand the importance of the agribusiness and rural sector to the economic well being of our country, many others – especially urban dwellers – do not.

Despite the importance of agribusiness to NZ ‘Inc”, this has not stopped many parts of the sector from coming under sustained and frequent attack by different lobby and/or protests groups. Often many of these attacks are either ill-informed and/or malicious and can do a great deal of damage to New Zealand’s future way of life.

KPMG’s report – based on interviews with more than 80 agribusiness leaders – says this rural/urban gap is a risk to the future development of the country. The interviewees’ had numerous explanations for this disconnect including: an ethnically mixed urban population with little or no family link to farming; mainstream media focussing on negative issues about the agriculture sector such as animal welfare issues and water quality standards in dairy regions.

However, the report also points out that the agricultural sector must foot some of the blame for this divide. It says a lack of openness from the industry has led to urban dwellers to believe they are not getting the full story. This is a fair point; as is its suggestion that the onus must go on the rural sector itself to take the job of educating and informing the rest of the population as to how the industry operates and the economic benefits it generates for the country.

The underlying assertion of Agribusiness Agenda 2011 – although not overtly spelled out in the report – is it’s time for a new, pan-sector lobby group. New Zealand’s agribusiness sector is made up of a wide and diverse group of organisations and lobby groups. Yet despite the sector’s size, resources and undoubted importance to the country’s economic well-being, it is unable to speak as one, with a unified sector voice on matters.

This is mainly due to the different, specific interests of the various bodies that make up NZ agribusiness and a lack of a recognised sector organisation that can speak on all of its behalf. Thus making it almost impossible for a clear, united and unambiguous agribusiness sector view and making it much easier for critics and opponents to pick on different areas.

There is considerable upside in having an independent, unified sector advocate organisation and it is time for the agribusiness sector to seriously look at forming such a body. Such a move would go a long way to help bridge the growing urban/rural gap that currently divides New Zealand.

Arise Sir Graeme...

It was great to see two of the agribusiness sector’s long-serving contributors acknowledged in this year’s Queen’s Birthday honours list.

Normally, such gongs are dished out to an array of anonymous luvvies from the theatre and arts world under Labour, and business leaders under National.  So it is good to see the agriculture sector getting some well-deserved recognition.

Meat baron Graeme Harrison knighthood for his lifetime efforts’ in the sector and John Roadley’s member of the New Zealand of Merit for his equally stellar contributions to the dairy industry are both equally deserved.

As the inaugural chairman of Fonterra and champion of co-operatively owned dairying, Roadley has now retired to a vineyard in Marlborough. He was the last chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board and the first chairman of Fonterra, overseeing the industry’s transition from multiple local co-operatives to a single, farmer-owned company.

Roadley believes – and is probably right – that dairying had risen to the top of the farming sector because farmers controlled their industry, invested in research and adopted the technology in their farms and dairy plants.

As Roadley pointed out for about 15 years he and his wife Lois had been under constant pressure with no let-up, day or night.

“Farmers are hard taskmasters. It is nice to be recognised.”

Roadley’s involvement in dairy management began in 1988, when he became a director of the Alpine Dairy Co-operative in Temuka.

Meanwhile, Sir Graeme Harrison, founder of beef and lamb exporter Anzco Foods, says he’s been happy to spend his 40-year career in an out-of-fashion business.

Harrison is the most recent knight in a long line of New Zealand meat industry leaders to be similarly honoured. His message about New Zealand’s future prospects and where the country’s wealth is going to come from is simple.

He quotes Beef + Lamb New Zealand economist Rob Davison, who says: “As Silicon Valley is to California, agriculture is to New Zealand”.

“It is not only agriculture. New Zealand needs agriculture plus other industries. But the ones in which we have great strength and comparative advantage are agriculture, forestry, seafood and, like it or not, the mineral sector.”

Harrison started Anzco in 1984 as a sheepmeat marketing company for the farmer-owned Meat Producers Board.

It was successful, opening the door to a potentially lucrative Asian market. The board sold down its ownership in the 1990s and he and his staff kept a cornerstone shareholding. The remaining shares are held by Japanese food companies Itoham Foods, with 48 per cent, and Nippon Suisan Kaisha, with 25 per cent.

Today Anzco employs 2800 people, has assets of $500 million and revenues exceeding $1.2 billion.

Agribusiness – and New Zealand – should be grateful for the efforts of people like Harrison and Roadley who have made lifelong contributions to the sector. We are now looking to the next generation of sector heads – and future national honour holders – to lead the country get out of the big hole it is currently in.