Editorial: Dairying indoors

OPINION: The proposal to establish large-scale dairy farms in the Mackenzie Basin where cows would live in cubicle stables much of the time was never going to be an easy one to sell.

But the fact that the Greens, Fonterra and the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, have all, for varying reasons and with varying degrees of emphasis, expressed misgivings about it indicates the obstacles the proponents will have in bringing it to fruition. That, coupled with an instinctive New Zealand reaction to the idea of applying what is seen as some sort of factory-farming practices to dairying, will certainly mean argument over the project is likely to be prolonged. Notwithstanding all the problems it raises, however, it deserves serious and sober consideration rather than kneejerk rejection.

The proposal has the great virtue of putting to productive use land that is not much use for anything else. If New Zealanders wish to enjoy the standard of living to which they feel entitled, then opportunities for applying innovative notions to areas in which the country has a competitive advantage must be taken, and this proposal provides such an opportunity. In fact, while the idea of housing cattle indoors might be new to New Zealand, it is not an unusual one elsewhere. It is commonplace throughout Europe and large areas of North America and elsewhere, where the climate would otherwise make dairy production impossible and where it is an entirely accepted practice.

From an environmental point of view, the proposal has a lot to recommend it. Rather than having herds roaming free and leaving effluent to flow where it will, with the risk of pollution to waterways and aquifers, it would, while the cows were under cover at least, be collected for more orderly disposal. While the details of that disposal would have to be scrutinised closely, that is almost certain to be less damaging to the environment.

The dairy exporter Fonterra is concerned with the risk that the scheme will reflect badly on New Zealand's image as a producer of milk products that come from cows raised almost wholly in the great outdoors. Fonterra says that this image gives New Zealand access to markets it might not otherwise have. That is an objection that should be examined carefully. Fonterra must be taken to know its markets, of course, but if there were a real benefit in the market from supplying pastorally produced milk it could be expected to demand a premium, and there is no evidence that that is the case. New Zealand has to take what price it can get for most of the dairy products it sells even when competing with those produced by methods that are inferior to ours. In any event, if the Mackenzie Basin proposal were to go ahead, it would produce only a tiny fraction of New Zealand's dairy output. Its impact would surely not be great.

Dairying in Canterbury has become controversial in the last couple of decades because of the capacity it has to change the landscape. This proposal is more controversial than most. It is hard, for instance, to escape the instinctual reaction that it might be a step too far. But it must now run the gauntlet of the usual resource consent processes, where it can expect to be rigorously examined. In the end the decision on whether it should go ahead should be made on the basis of sound evidence and reason rather than emotion and sentiment.

- © Fairfax NZ News