Taupo beef farmer Mike Barton was approached recently by a man who said he won’t eat meat because of the nitrogen impact.
Barton replied that vegetable growing uses far more nitrogen than meat but the man’s mind was made up – animals were destroying the environment.
Similarly, deforestation in Indonesia has been blamed solely on dairy farmers using palm kernel for stock feed, leaving the industries using palm oil for food and cosmetic largely blameless.
Havelock North’s contaminated bores were immediately linked to non-existent intensive dairying while Fish and Game NZ rejects any connection between pollution from birds and unswimmable lakes.
Criticism of farming appears to be getting more frequent, far more pernicious and less well informed.
The issue is how farmers deal with it and the fact is we no longer have the influence we once had.
The traditional response of logic and sweeping defence no longer gets traction and neither has taking the economic high ground.
In a country with an abundance of food and relative economic prosperity, many in urban NZ do not connect farming to jobs and funds for education and health. Instead, they associate it with polluted rivers and questionable animal welfare.
Similarly, arguing that livestock farming naturally has an environmental impact does not resonate with urban NZ.
As impractical as expectations of farmers might be becoming, as outgoing Massey University vice-chancellor Steve Maharey said last week, it was senseless for the sector to defend bad farmers.
We need to front-foot issues more, celebrate and promote more leaders who are meeting expected standards and ostracise those who do not care.
Opiki farmer Paul Olsen said of bureaucratic red tape last week that it allowed him to export food around the world. His message was that we have to supply what customers want as impractical as achieving that might be.
