Monitor farms reveal economic potential

By GLENYS CHRISTIAN

Over the gate

The report is a page short of 100 and does not have a glossy cover. But it speaks more about possibilities for the economy than a stack of upbeat annual reports containing slick synopses of high-tech company strategies to secure shareholder wealth.

It is the Monitor Farm Programme annual report and it is a safe bet that it does not end up in too many boardroom bookcases. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to know what New Zealand is already good at and needs only the will to excel at.

The report summarises the results achieved on the country's 26 monitor farms in the year to last September. Many report difficult climatic conditions that affected production, but programme manager Mark Aspin said that had not held back the enthusiasm of the farmers involved.

"They have taken a glimpse at the potential and moved on from there."

A cost-benefit analysis of the scheme, financed by Meat New Zealand and WoolPro to the tune of $600,000 a year, was carried out in 1998 and shows a $13.4 million benefit. That is an average of $6000 to $7000 a year for around 80 farmers in each monitor farm grouping.

They can be actively involved by belonging to the community group which decides on strategies that could be tried on the local monitor farm, attending regular field-days held there or merely receiving its newsletters.

For doubters, a quick calculation is in order. At present 2000 sheep and beef farms benefit from an average extra $6500 a year in earnings.

Multiply that number by 10 and a large proportion of New Zealand's meat and wool industry is covered. On a yearly benefit of $13.4 million, the increase in earnings could be $134 million.

Not all properties can achieve these benefits because they may have reached the limit of production for that area or need massive amounts of capital to take earnings up a notch.

Farmers in the programme say the biggest benefit to their business is in following the basics of planning, implementing and monitoring.

At Meat NZ's annual meeting in Christchurch last week, farmers voted strongly for it to develop a strategy on biotechnology. They recognise that if gains are to be made they have to secure a front-foot position. The more important vote they took was not to disband Meat NZ, as proposed in a remit from Southland.

Individual effort is highly prized in agriculture and farmers are usually reluctant to apply a prescriptive approach to their business. However, without collective funding of activities such as the monitor farm programme it is unlikely anything would get done.

That would mean substantial gains available almost immediately would be lost to farming, the agricultural servicing sector and a country intent on monitoring every economic indicator from overseas while largely ignoring extra earnings at home.

* Glenys Christian can be contacted on e-mail at glenys@farmindex.co.nz