The beauty of surveys

Surveys can be misleading and tend to be subjective rather than objective in regard to the questions that are asked.

Surveys are beautiful because, depending on how they are worded, they will tell you what you want to hear.

Any statistician will warn it all depends on how questions are phrased, who you're asking and how the data is interpreted.

The first question must be: can you extrapolate the findings from a few people who answered the survey to the whole population of New Zealand? The answer is yes, but only if the survey is well designed and the research question clearly defines the goals and objectives of the study. From that research question the survey questions eventually emerge.

For a survey to deliver value it must not lead the respondent to a particular position; rather, it must facilitate an accurate response.

The next challenge for surveys is the way findings are reported. If cherry-picking occurs and survey responses are taken out of context, a perception can be crafted that does not accurately reflect the overall position put forward by respondents.

A recent survey on water quality is a case in point.

Let's do some cherry-picking of our own and examine a few of the findings from this survey and see if Federated Farmers agrees with them, and also see if the dairy industry is stepping up to the mark.

IrrigationApparently 67 per cent of respondents agree large-scale irrigation schemes can be built, but only if scientifically backed. No surprises there. Federated Farmers totally agrees with this. Gone are the days when someone could dig a hole in the ground, put in a pump and take as many litres of water as they liked, or build a dam and divert the river onto their property. Gone also are the days when farmers could spray water with no regard for the consequences.

Water is precious, so much so that in some areas people need regional council consent to take it, pay for every litre and its use is monitored. All this is based on science, with reference back to how much is available, the soil capacity and how many other people and uses require it.

This scarcity and cost of water is driving innovation on-farm. Some irrigators are incredibly smart. Paddocks are 'mapped', taking into account soil type, texture and moisture content, and depth of the layers of soil types as well as nutrient requirements. This information is fed into the computer attached to the irrigator which can selectively irrigate just patches in the paddock, if that's what the science says. All this takes hi-tech machinery and a responsive agriculture industry, looking for solutions to problems.

Farmers also know that what goes onto the ground is taken up by plants, evaporated into the atmosphere or filtered through the soil to end up 'somewhere'. That 'somewhere' is as important to farmers as it is to the general population. There is a heap of science in this sphere, with research institutes monitoring things like lysimeters buried in paddocks, collecting data on nutrients transferred through the soil profile with drainage water.

Economic impactDo you think New Zealand's economy is too dependent on the dairy industry? Well, 63 per cent surveyed said that no, it's not.

Dependence on one industry is hardly the fault of that industry. Dairy will continue to dominate the New Zealand economy until some other sector does better. I wonder how many New Zealanders outside the agriculture sector work to increase New Zealand exports.

Dairy processors and environmentThe next idea to consider is whether dairy processors should play a role in looking after the environment. Apparently a large majority of the respondents thought that a good idea.

Well, good news here, because they are. They are doing masses and dairy processors would hate to do something the public thought was a waste of time. Dairy processors have consultants who go on-farm every year to check that farmers are spreading effluent from their dairy sheds in a responsible manner, and if they're not, they are given a considerable amount of advice and 'encouragement' to help get them across the line. After all, good effluent management represents good nutrient management and a win-win for farmers and the environment.

Fonterra's 'Supply Fonterra' programme also looks at riparian margins, stock exclusion from waterways and nutrient management. All the salaries of these consultants cost dairy farmers money as they own the co-operative.

Dairy farmers and the environmentFonterra dairy farmers themselves have spent about $100 million to $200 million on fencing 22,000km of waterways around the country, at a cost of about $5000 to $10,000 a kilometre.

Farmers are paying $50,000 to $250,000 to upgrade their own effluent systems, let alone nutrient management plans and consultants to advise them on these plans. Many have also planted trees and created wetlands on their farms.

All dairy farmers pay a levy of 3.6 cents per kilogramme of milk solids (kgMS) produced, to DairyNZ. For the average dairy farm (402 cows for the 2012/13 season) this works out to be about $5000 + GST per year. Not much, you say. Maybe, but it all adds up to about $61 million for this season, which helps fund DairyNZ's environmental investment which has increased 61 per cent this year, to $11 million.

Partnered with councils they have spent more than $4.2 million worth of projects last year, including $1 million with Environment Canterbury and $100,000 with the West Coast Regional Council.

ConclusionFederated Farmers is pleased to find the dairy industry is in step with public opinion, or at least the majority of respondents to this recent survey on water quality. We all know that progress, especially improvement in water quality, takes time.

As I stated at the beginning, it all depends on how you look at the figures.