Rural round-up

India’s massive buffalo exports reflect different approach to food safety – Alan Barber:

India has exported well over 500,000 tonnes of buffalo to Vietnam in 10 months of the latest July to June year. This figure easily exceeds the total of New Zealand’s beef exports to all countries.

Over the same period India’s total bovine (buffalo) exports were 1.45 million tonnes at an average value of US$3041 (NZ$3475), while the average price to Vietnam was US$3489 (NZ$3987), an increase of 40% since 2012. Other main markets in order of importance are Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and United Arab Emirates.

In comparison New Zealand’s beef exports command an FOB price of between $5000 to the USA, Canada, Korea and China and up to $9000 to French Polynesia, the highest paying market, with other main markets such as Japan, Taiwan and Europe at various points in between. . . .

Consultation opens on infant formula proposals:

Food Safety Minister Nikki Kaye today announced the opening of consultation on measures that aim to ensure the robustness of the government’s assurance system for infant formula exports.

“In June last year I announced a work plan to further protect and strengthen confidence in New Zealand’s food assurance systems, to match rapid growth in infant formula exports,” Ms Kaye says.

“Export assurances are particularly important for infant formula exports where consumers have strong concerns about food safety, quality and product integrity.” . . .

Wools of NZ:

It’s not our wool, we borrow it from nature to where we can return it.Photo: It's not our wool, we borrow it from nature to where we can return it.

Why politicians shouldn’t be on the field of play – Andrew Hoggard:

In case you were expecting Willy Leferink this week, there has been a bit of a change at Federated Farmers.  My name is Andrew Hoggard and I am the new Dairy Industry Group chair.  That’s not the only change.  Being a North Islander you may get a slightly different perspective on things as I farm with my wife and two children near Fielding in Manawatu. That’s of course the region which gave us that planning beast called “One Plan.”

At Federated Farmers National Conference last week, we heard from political leaders from across the spectrum.

One common theme that annoyed me and the farmers around me was this notion that New Zealand is doing the wrong thing in the marketing of its agricultural products.  That we are not adding value and are just doing cheap and nasty commodity products thanks to industrial farming practices.  Oh and the primary industries are like putting all our economic eggs in one basket.  Now where have I heard that before? . . .

Environment Southland listening to farmers:

Federated Farmers commends Environment Southland for listening to the concerns of Hill and High Country farmers, and delaying notification of the proposed Hill and High Country Development Plan Change today.

“The council’s decision, having engaged and taken on board farmers concerns, will result in better outcomes for farmers and the environment,” says Allan Baird Federated Farmers Southland acting provincial president.

“Taking time to fully consider the issues, potential impacts, inclusive of the whole community and their values, is a fundamental part of the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management, and needs to be central in all decision making. . .

Finalists of Consultant of the Year Awards announced:

The judges have deliberated and the finalists have been selected for this year’s annual Farmax Consultant of the Year Awards.

Today Farmax announced the finalists for the DairyNZ Dairy Consultant of the Year, Beef + Lamb NZ Sheep and Beef Consultant of the Year, and NZIPIM Emerging Rural Professional of the Year.

Farmax general manager, Gavin McEwen, said it was great to see such a high standard of talent and skills amongst the nominations. . . .

26 Responses to Rural round-up

  1. Mr E says:

    “Therefore it would be more appropriate for the council and the Federation to educate the minority of farmers that aren’t, rather than introduce a blanket rule for all.”

    Good Allan – very good.

  2. “We are thrilled the council are taking a more balanced approach…”
    Well done, Environment Southland. Pleasing the local branch of the farmers’ union is never easy. In any case, if it’s a small group of farmers, surely the farmers’ union could just do the job and not bother the council with the extra work. Ratepayers don’t want to pay unnecessarily for work that you’ve suggested industry could do. It’s only “education” after all, and farmers nowadays are connected via the inter web, aren’t they?

  3. Mr E says:

    Did you see or hear the uproar Robert?

    This quote from the Fiordland Advocate.
    “Farmers felt blindsided by the sudden appearance of the rule. Most have not heard about Environments Southland Water and Land 2020 project which is driving several rule changes”
    Tanith Robb

    Isn’t it embarrassing that your council has to change it’s ‘blindsiding’ behaviour after the public have been upset by you again. Again!

    Shocking stuff. I would have thought ES would have learnt after their recent shockers regarding public interaction. But it seems they have not.

    A reported “dishonest” (your words Robert) ring leader, blindsiding farmers. Goodness me.

  4. Mr E says:

    I retract that and apologise. Roberts words were “public dishonesty”

  5. robertguyton says:

    I heard Doug Fraser whipping up fear on Hokonui Radio before the meeting, if that’s what you mean. The council spent considerable time consulting with focus groups over this issue. I thought farmers had good information networks? Where was the farmers’ union on this? If Doug knew what was being developed, and he did, why hadn’t he kept the farmers up-to-date? It’s a MisterE to me!
    Why, I wonder, do you constantly resort to hyperbole; “blindsided”, “upset”, “shockers”?
    You are just not credible, Mr e.
    When Allan Baird congratulated the council in the article Ele posted, he must have meant what he said. That you followed up with hyperbolic criticism with a hint of snigger, makes you seem dishonest and critical of Allan’s statements.

  6. Mr E says:

    This little gem pops in some context:
    “Her dishonesty had also jeopardised the relationship between Environment Southland and the public, he said.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8144837/Environment-Southland-head-on-meeting-agenda

  7. Mr E says:

    Ok lets forget the term “blindsided” quoted from the Fiordland Advocate so not to upset you Robert.

    How about this:

    “Environmental results come from collaboration, not regulating in panic to solve a problem. We are thrilled the council are taking a more balanced approach, and sincerely hope it continues” concluded Mr Baird

    “regulating in panic”

    Regulating in panic!!!!!!! Is that what the RMA allows????? Regulation panic???? I typed that fast in panic!!!!

    ES, how very naughty of you possums!

    Is that better?

  8. Mr E says:

    I used the word possums – so not to ‘whip up’ emotions.

  9. robertguyton says:

    Mr Baird, representing the farmers’ union of Southland says the council didn’t regulate in panic. He congratulates the council for taking a balanced approach.
    There has been no panic. No kneejerk reactions from the council, save perhaps, delaying the implementation. We’re leaving the hyperbole and Chicken Little-ing over to you, Mr e. You’re manging that just fine.

  10. Mr E says:

    Just imagine if you didn’t have those to panicked consultation meetings (advertised Thurs held on Mon, Tues). Imagine.

  11. robertguyton says:

    I wondered the very same thing!

    What do you imagine might have happened?

  12. Mr E says:

    More jeopardising I would imagine.

  13. robertguyton says:

    I don’t think so. I prefer a more up-front approach. Say what you think. Have the conversation. I’m not one for pussy-footing around in the way that some others do. I listened to the Otago Regional Councillors describing their approach to these issues and admired their deciciveness. In fact, I yearned for it. Worked well for them.

  14. Willdwan says:

    Federated Farmers is just a lobby group Robert, if they were a union they would have real power to negotiate terms and even go on strike. Farmers can’t strike because there is no way to shut the ‘machine’ down. Just as well I suppose, imagine the leverage we would have.

    But carry on anyway, it amuses me the way someone with your background and political leanings uses ‘union’ as a derogatory term.

  15. Mr E says:

    “Which brings us to the main question echoing around the hills and high country of Southland ‘why the rush?’ What evidence is there that hill and high country practices are impacting negatively on water quality in the region ….?”
    abridged Fiordland Advocate.

    Rush-Rushing…. Without evidence? What!?

    The echoing I hear around the hills is ‘jeopardising’.

  16. robertguyton says:

    Will – I use ‘farmers’ union’ because that’s an accurate description, to my mind. Nothing ‘derogatory’ about it. I support the concept of a union. In any case, I’m asking why the lobby-group/union didn’t communicate effectively with its hill and high-country people in this instance, and instead one of it’s advocates seems to be trying to blame the council for…communicating with the hill and high-country farmers. Mr e’s argument seems tangled and unclear.

  17. Mr E says:

    You didn’t support the pause for consultation meetings? The meetings that resulted in public outcry and further pause for consultation.

    You wanted it rushed though faster?

  18. Mr E says:

    Robert wants Feds to do the Councils job for them- To advertise rule changes and consult the public and report back fairly.

    How bizarre.

  19. robertguyton says:

    Fiordland Advocate? Are they some authority on the issue and why are you treating their questions as reason to froth?
    Are you serious in asking “what evidence is there that hill and high-country practices are impacting on water quality in the region”?
    Really?
    Have you tried to find that answer, other than reading the Fiordland Advocate? Is that where you get your farming knowledge from?
    *raises eyebrow slightly
    I’m now trying to balance the claims that you and Allan have made, against those of the Environment Southland scientists, the staff involved with the issues of the hill and high country, the councillors, the majority of whom are farmers, and the farmers who took part in the focus group activities…which to believe, which to believe…?

  20. Mr E says:

    This after he said “disgraceful” toward Fed members in the Council chambers.

  21. robertguyton says:

    Mr e @ 5:43 – I’m betting not one single rational person, blue, green nor otherwise, will step up and support your claim made @ 5:43. Because it’s nonsense and transparently so.

  22. Mr E says:

    Let us hear your reasoning Robert- Why is the rule needed?

  23. robertguyton says:

    I’ve been keen to discuss this issue, you’ll agree, Mr e, but have a meal to prepare. If I get the chance, I’ll straighten-out your thinking later on. While I’m busy, TRY NOT TO PANIC!!!

  24. Mr E says:

    I cant resist.

  25. That’s more like it, Mr e!
    Watching “The Sting” now, so you’ll have to wait til tomorrow, sorry.

  26. Mr E says:

    That’s alright,
    I’ll call Doug, apparently he should be your spokesman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: