Biologicals - too good to be true?
OPINION: Biologicals are being promoted as a natural replacement for ‘chemicals’.
It seems that everybody has an opinion about what should happen in New Zealand, whether that opinion is informed or not.
The problem is always the unintended consequences of decisions made on opinion. This is the case even when that opinion has been informed by research.
Was the research done on Google? Or did it involve the land under discussion, incorporating food production, environmental impact and economics? Has it considered infrastructure requirements on farm and in local businesses? Labour availability? Or the impact on rural communities?
Or has the research been informed by scenarios and models, in which case, were the assumptions and constraints appropriate – and were they informed by Google? Or actual research by land-based scientists? How appropriate was that land-based research for the area now under consideration – or were the results from elsewhere extrapolated to the current geographical location?
The difficulty with ‘extrapolation’ is usually why models and scenarios are created in the first place. They are used for exploring or predicting something that can’t yet be measured (what will happen in the future) or is too expensive to do in reality.
It's complicated.
Read More:
Which is why sometimes we need gut feeling based on experience, and common sense based on “knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument”.
Where do rice, dairy and pine trees rate in gut feeling and common sense?
Of the three, only one would meet Michael Porter’s criteria of a natural advantage that has been made competitive. Porter states that “Firms can achieve superior profitability by creating greater customer value through cost leadership (lower costs) or differentiation (unique products). A firm possesses a sustainable competitive advantage when it consistently outperforms rivals by operating at a lower cost, commanding a premium price, or both”.
For New Zealand, ‘Firm’ equals Fonterra.
Despite this, New Zealand farmers, rural professionals and policy creators are constantly being urged to do things differently, diversify and generally be more innovative.
Well-meaning as the urging often is, skin in the game makes a difference. It is attached to risk: the unintended consequence of a new policy can destabilise a business.
Last year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) released a report (Going with the Grain) in which he identified four critical problems and some practical solutions. Considerable research underpinned the report, and the PCE’s aim was to make practical suggestions for managing land use change to meet environmental bottom lines. He also acknowledged that many of the environmental impacts of land use are difficult to measure, do not respect property boundaries and make attribution challenging.
His main suggestion was that New Zealand must take an integrated approach to environmental management (catchments rather than individual properties).
This is occurring in some areas
Funding was central in the PCE’s report, as it was in the 2025 ASB-funded report ‘Future Land Use in New Zealand’ from Lincoln University’s Centre of Excellence in Transformative Agribusiness. Lincoln’s report also emphasised the importance of a shift to optimising land use rather that farm systems – integration – noting that the scenarios developed in the Lincoln report acknowledged that dairy is one of the higher value land uses in New Zealand (while also highlighting the associated environmental impact).
Dairy expansion is responding to market forces.
When people want a product, they pay. Increasingly it is being recognised that animal protein feeds more people for lower environmental impact than plant sources can achieve. Plants are important for fibre, vitamins, polyphenols and deliciousness (and kiwifruit expansion is occurring) – but they can’t provide the essential amino acids in the same efficient ratios as animal protein. And animal protein supplies nutrients other than protein, such as fats, calcium and iron, and deliciousness, as well.
The difficulty with policies that don’t take market forces into account is that there is an opportunity cost. Overseas the opportunity cost has been offset by ‘producer support mechanisms’ also known as subsidies. The problem is that current society doesn’t want to be paying subsidies, but nor do people want to pay more for food.
When a comparative advantage has been turned into a competitive advantage, a product can be produced efficiently – and in the case of ‘grassfed’ attract premium markets as well. Part of the requirements from premium markets is a goal of minimising environmental impact.
The role of science – from the new Public Research Organisations, the universities and the levy bodies – remains at the core of being able to maintain the economy and the environment – production and protection.
Gut reaction? It’s common sense.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, is a farmerelected director of DairyNZ and Ravensdown. She is also a member of the Scientific Council of the World Farmers’ Organisation. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
