That model is predicated on the assumption growth capacity is endless. Given we humans are breeding at an alarming rate, for agriculture the market does appear boundless, so more production seems good production, even if it's plain bulk product.
In New Zealand that mainly translates to expansion and intensification of dairying.
Individual farmers may have the excuse their industry and its leaders - primarily Fonterra and Federated Farmers - have unflinchingly baked up this "expand at all costs" mentality, but too many farmers rely on the product manufacturers, the company agents, and the Feds telling them what to do than on their own common sense and long-term vision.
Indeed, long-term vision seems largely lacking, other than in conforming to the "more is good" maxim.
But those "leaders" are mostly corporates who make money regardless, good times or bad, because they are geared toward surviving boom and bust cycles - unlike the individuals, for whom bust means just that.
Our major banks are part of - or even manufacture - the problem, lending oodles of dosh in good times, but quickly closing the safe in bad.
Already one bank is foreclosing farms in Southland by slashing book equity below acceptable margins then installing accountants to "manage" the farms while stripping or downsizing "unnecessary" assets (like vehicles and machinery), leaving the cockies helpless to do more than slave for their leisure until forced sale time.
It has started at one end of the country, but be assured this will spread.
The "$17 billion hole" John Key has identified in the economy is entirely because of low dairy returns, and too many farms are far too indebted to survive.
Meanwhile the Feds moan about people dissing farmers for spoiling the environment, saying just because cattle are in rivers doesn't mean they're making a mess (to quote their national environment spokesman, Chris Allen), and that further "clarity" around the rules might improve compliance. That some 500 complaints - but not one enforcement action - have been made in Canterbury alone since 2011 illustrates how "compliant" some farmers are; and how heavily insulated.
Sure, environmental protection entails a significant cost to get right, but it pays off in supporting the "clean green" marketing image that sells product, lessens outrage at non-compliant practice, and most importantly sustains the environment that supports farming in the first place.
It's also a step toward organi production and capturing that niche market with premium value-added produce.
But all the Feds seem to want to talk about is how GE-pasture can add more stock units, increasing the problems many-fold.
Last dairy boom I suggested farmers use their windfall to invest in the environment, not expansion, but very few did.
Instead they took on crippling debt in expectation of still-greater profits, and are now reaping the whirlwind. Or their banks are.
A no-win situation for the farmers and for the land.
- Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.
