Federated Farmers Vice President, Frank Brenmuhl, addresses the 2009 Ag and Hort Teachers Conference.
With the world population predicted to rise on the back of increasing living standards in Asia, China and India, and no decrease in the birth rate in the developing world, increasing food production to meet human demand is essential.
This is not just about human needs, this is also about human wants. The debate about the need versus wants is important to the future prosperity of New Zealand, as it determines what we decide to sell as a nation to pay for the things we want to buy.
Some would argue that we should stop producing animal protein in favour of cereals because of the water miles debate, the green house gas emissions from agriculture or the food miles debate. These are marketing ploys designed to serve the desires of a local economy or community that ignore the reality of the efficiency of large ship transport, the inability of countries to transport water across large distances at reasonable cost and the efficiency of New Zealand’s pastoral farming systems.
In New Zealand our only real trading advantage are the resources that we have, which others in the world lack. We have a moderate climate, with soils capable of producing food, a landscape modified over time to meet the needs of pastoral agriculture and an abundance of fresh water.
There has been a lot said about water in New Zealand, but much of the debate has been led by those seeking to make political capital by misinforming the public. This has been aided and abetted by a mainstream media looking to capitalise on the growing number of local politicians, and the anxieties of the public to polarise opinion and generate an ongoing conflict to generate revenue on the basis of bad news sells.
New Zealand has about 90 percent of the rainfall that the continent of Australia has. We have 20 percent of the population and 3.5 percent of the land mass. We have an abundance of water and 95 percent of our water flows out to sea. The argument that a kilogram of beef needs more water to produce than a kilogram of cereal is irrelevant when looking at New Zealand’s comparative advantage due to our abundance of water, and our ability to produce food in a world with limited water resources.
With appropriate water storage options in place, our ability to reliably produce high quality food would be further enhanced and New Zealand’s long term economic outlook would also be greatly improved.
Economic data from the analysis of the effects of the Opuha Dam show that for every $1 the farmer earns from using irrigation water from the Opuha irrigation system, the wider community earns $6.50. In the past few years, 50 percent of the water stored in the dam has been used to enhance fishing in the Opuha River and to maintain environmental flows.
The lessons learnt from this analysis confirm the fact that New Zealand’s economy will benefit hugely from investment in water storage and irrigation schemes.
This is significant because Fish and Game New Zealand, and other recipients of the downstream benefits of the construction of the dam, did not contribute financially to the building of the dam, but added cost because of their opposition and the need to buy their co-operation so the dam could be built. There has been little or no recognition of the benefits paid for by farmers and no recognition of the lack of principles displayed by too many of the groups initially opposed to the scheme.
Given the speed with which New Zealand farmers take up new information and apply it to their farming businesses, it is not surprising that we are the only sector that has consistently outperformed all other sectors of the New Zealand economy for the past 12 years.
Even in these troubled economic times, agriculture is still making productivity gains that have boosted New Zealand’s economic outlook, which is more positive than our OEDC counterparts. Over the past decade, the agricultural sector has been twice as productive as the rest of the New Zealand economy.
The continuing demand for our agricultural products, be it milk, meat, grains, vegetables or seeds means that there is no economic scenario that would see the importance of agriculture to New Zealand’s economy decline into the future.
We are uniquely qualified to deliver high quality food and in particular, protein to help meet the demand for the supply of sustainable, safe food to a growing population of discerning consumers.
Our dilemma is how to balance the need to grow the New Zealand economy so that we can afford the standard of living we aspire to, while using our water and land resources sustainably.
According to the previous Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we are losing about 38,000 hectares per year in urban accretion. This is land that is taken out of production to be used for housing, commercial use and lifestyle blocks. Town planners, councils and government appear unconcerned over this.
It is interesting to compare this demand for the use of productive land and the aversion to high rise buildings, wind farms and hydro schemes with the often strident demands for sustainability and environmental purity. The very best soils in New Zealand are now largely covered by houses, tar and cement.
I believe that New Zealand farmers will continue to look to their levy organisations to fund research, development, extension and education to provide ongoing improvements that will enhance on-farm productivity.
Along with this, we will continue to ensure that those companies that process and market our produce are scrutinised to ensure we are getting the best returns possible, and that customer satisfaction is maintained. We are driven by the desires of our customers and we lose that focus at our peril.
The number of students studying agriculture at all levels, including secondary school, is dropping drastically, as is the number of teachers with the skills to train students in the field.
However, a recent survey of farm employees conducted by the Federation bore good news for those wanting to work in the agricultural industry. Our Federated Farmers/Rabobank Farm Employee Remuneration Report provided some interesting figures in an otherwise weak employment market.
The report revealed that in the year to August 2008, farm workers earned an average income of $41,914. That’s more than $2,000 above the average non-farm income of $39,517.
Therefore, I do not believe we struggle for good staff because we pay poor wages or the opportunities for advancement are not good. After all, I have personally seen many examples of young people aged between 20 and 24, who are receiving salary packages in excess of $70,000 per year. Good farm managers are paid well for good results because it is good business.
Also, I don’t believe we lack agricultural trainees and graduates because we lack agricultural training institutions. But, I do believe that many career advisors and teachers, who play a big part in influencing student choices, do not value the work that those in the agricultural industry do. We are treated much the same as cleaners and waste disposal operators. Necessary, but grubby and you can do better with your life, especially if you have a modicum of intelligence, in which case a tertiary education in arts, culture political science or information technology is your proper option. The Tui response is, I believe, “Yeah Right”
However, a majority of New Zealanders think highly of, and respect farmers for what we do. The negative public perception is more myth than reality. This was reinforced by a DairyNZ survey that showed 80 percent of New Zealanders were positively disposed towards the dairy industry and its value to the New Zealand economy. It also revealed that people believe the industry is proactive in its environmental management. This snapshot was also taken at the height of the “Dirty Dairying” campaign that was run by Fish and Game.
Curriculum development, “bums on seats” funding and subject availability have a huge affect on the choices that students make. Too many self-interested people have had too much influence in the choices that education provides. Too much is offered that has little or no relevance to the enhancement of New Zealand’s economy, and this impacts negatively on the quality of life of many New Zealanders.
In too many cases, years of study, large student debt and no job prospects has led our young people to take the option to go on that OE that their teachers and advisors said was so important for their personal development.
This in turn leads to employers seeking to hire motivated immigrants because of a lack of trained New Zealanders capable of doing the real jobs and services needed in New Zealand, as well as leaving the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of ignored debt from a student population that is encouraged to abscond from New Zealand to evade repaying their student loans.
One of the main reasons for student loans was to make students maximise the employment opportunities brought about by a tertiary education. So what happened and who is having such an affect on the choices that our students are making that the ability to earn an income capable of sustaining future needs is not being taken seriously?
When looking at subject choices, students should not be asked, “what do you like to do”. Instead, they should be asked, “what do you want to achieve in your life and what are your capabilities”. “What do you like to do” has gotten us where we are today, with students taking soft options and having poor communication skills and little useful technical ability.
Universities are routinely teaching the subjects that were formally taught at secondary level just to bring students up to speed, especially in the areas of mathematics, biology, technical drawing, chemistry and english. At Lincoln University, up to 39 percent of enrolments are in these bridging courses.
By asking young people “what do you want to achieve”, it opens up the door to a real job with real income and real prospects. It is YOUR SPACE and we should be proud to espouse your worth.
In 2003, correspondence school enrolment accounted for nearly 10 percent of all agriculture students nationwide, and numbers have dropped from 1,072 in that year, to just 473 this year, a fall of 56 percent.
Between 2003 and 2007, the number studying agriculture at secondary school level dropped nearly 14 percent, from 11,734 to 10,107.
The following table, courtesy of the Ministry of Education, shows what New Zealand students are actually studying.
1999 2006
Natural and Physical Science 2518 2646
Agriculture and Environment 401 355
Business 4396 4916
Creative Arts 1219 2153
Society and Culture 5491 5949
Total graduates 22421 23419
What do these figures tell us about planning in the education sector and who benefits? How does this serve the needs of the New Zealand population and what is the rationale that allows such a model to persist? As a nation, this states that we currently value media studies, political studies, religious studies, gender studies and dance more than agriculture and horticulture.
For New Zealand, a country that produces food and fibre more efficiently than any other nation in the world, those are devastating statistics.
Here in New Zealand, 4 percent of the population produces 65 percent of our export income. To do this we need able, well educated, motivated individuals that are capable of developing and building on the resources that we currently have in place.
This lack of graduates is a contributing factor to the well publicised shortage of workers in the agricultural industry. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry figures show agriculture and forestry export earnings grew in the year to March 2008 by 8.4 percent, to $23 billion. But Immigration New Zealand statistics show there are not enough skilled professionals to service the growth in the agricultural industry.
We need farm staff to take our industry forward and ensure that we have the capability to continue to learn and apply new applications and technology to the farming business.
Solutions to the challenges of environmental, economic and social sustainability are always going to be with us. As a farmer, I am constantly seeking new information, and I am proud of the achievements of my fellow farmers in this regard.
We need food technicians to develop new ways of using what is currently available, and to add value to products produced here. Agricultural and horticultural products have to be carefully handled due to short shelf life, New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) standards and customer expectations. Competition in the market place for premium prices and brand recognition are hard fought and innovation is often the part that makes a difference. If you have not got the number one or number two brand in the marketplace, then you struggle for shelf space in the supermarket.
We need engineers to design new packaging that is consumer and environmentally friendly, so as to ensure our product can reach the market place fit for purpose.
We need marketers to build upon the structures currently in place to extract maximum value from the market place. The fight for market share is like a gold rush, and it is an ongoing battle as we work to ensure that each trading partner does not kill our profitability with tariffs and trade restrictions. Free Trade Agreements are good, but the holy grail is the World Trade Organisation when it comes to enforceable rules that will help free trade up.
We need delivery systems that ensure our product reaches the customer on time every time. The list goes on and on, but all this starts with you – the teachers.
Young people must be made aware that agriculture and horticulture, along with the supporting industries, can offer them many viable career options. It is necessary to show that for many, the option to study while you work is one of the ways to avoid student debt and is common in the agriculture sector.
Secondly, we need to address the current lack of agricultural education programmes in the secondary school curriculum. Very few schools encourage their students to take up agricultural training programmes or rural work experience.
Agriculture is included in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) levels one, two and three, but it is offered in less than half of our secondary schools.
Neither agriculture nor horticulture is included at scholarship level, which is the highest secondary school qualification there is. There is the odd exception of course, but for rural area high schools in particular, it does not make sense that a scholarship level qualification is not included in their curriculum.
With the agricultural industry central to the economies of most rural towns, offering such an opportunity would undoubtedly lead to the rural areas retaining some of their young people. The Government’s Gateway programme is another example of an initiative that enables senior secondary school students to start national qualifications while on work experience.
All of this starts with good honest information being given to students. The need for good levels of achievement in the core subjects of english, mathematics, biology and chemistry has not changed. But the excuse that another subject area is easier to pass does not put food on the table, nor does it give an appreciation of the self worth gained through achievement by accepting challenges and succeeding.
It is okay to fail. Life’s like that. Ask any farmers and they can tell you of many occasions where they have failed. Success never comes easily, but perseverance and hard work brings success - and every farmer I know will attest to that.
I asked Professor Jacqueline Rowarth, of Massey University, for her thoughts on the challenges that you face and she said this and I agree.
“My thoughts on the challenge for teachers, is that increasingly, they are going to have people in their class who have been told that they, "are good with their hands", and others who have realised that the future for New Zealand lies in producing food. With a bimodal distribution (which we already have in science classes at university), teaching challenges increase. How do you extend those that can handle it, without discouraging those that want to build the fences and plant the cabbage seedlings? Should they be bringing in some of the agricultural ITO courses in practical skills (some schools already are), and moving the other students into 'the science of agriculture'.”
My challenge for education, is to recognise the needs of our business community and to channel sufficient resources into teaching courses that have a real job in mind. Anything else will be a hobby.
I believe that the influence educators and academics have over students has gone too far. It is okay to set different challenges based on ability, but it is not okay to set different challenges based on the prejudices of the advisor. And it is not okay to deliberately withhold information in order to channel student choices into a particular work stream.
To focus student attention on soft options so they may achieve NCEA passes, rather than to try and build a better future option is not okay. By way of an example, I offer this.
The Dairy Industry used to run a program called Windows to Dairying. Some of you here today may remember it. It was designed to give young people an insight into the opportunities available in dairy farming and to achieve this, they sent invitations to secondary schools to inform their students and careers advisors of the arrangements by which they could attend and take advantage of the information available. Much of this information was disseminated by young people who had taken up the option of a career in dairy farming, with technical assistance from veterinarians and DairyNZ field staff.
This program was canned when it was learned that high achieving students were deliberately kept ignorant of the opportunity because many school career advisors deemed it in the students best interests because they were destined for better things.
Low achieving students, and students who had already chosen agriculture as a career, were allowed to attend. The decision to can Windows to Dairying was made because our target audience was prevented from taking part due to the prejudices of their advisors.
I am currently the Chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Industry Awards Trust. This body was set up by Federated Farmers of New Zealand and Fonterra with the aim of fostering excellence in dairy farming business practice, rural leadership, environmental stewardship, animal welfare and animal husbandry. We run annual competitions throughout New Zealand in twelve regions. These competitions are the Dairy Trainee of the Year, Farm Manager of the Year and Sharemilker of the Year.
The calibre of the participants involved always amazes us. Their achievements always amaze us. Their enthusiasm for the dairy industry and the opportunities that are available clearly show the value to them, and to their families, of their involvement in agriculture. They all start out with nothing but the dream of farm ownership and a willingness to strive. Not all reach the goal, but many do.
You as teachers should be proud of what you do to promote and help new generations of farmers to take up the challenge of farming and horticultural business. It is the only industry I know of that trains its staff to take over the business. It works, and every year at the awards evenings throughout the country, I see evidence of success through your hard work, perseverance and delayed gratification. You are folk that are focused on the goal of success.
We need to get the message out that our sector has the ability to support long-term careers at all levels, from farm workers to research scientists. All parts of the value chain are needed to support New Zealand’s biggest industry and help build a better life for all New Zealanders. This is your challenge and ours.