Fertiliser players challenge newcomer
The Fertiliser Association of New Zealand (FANZ) is hoping to halt the sale of a new brand to protect farmers from a product it says doesn’t meet local standards.
FANZ chief executive Dr Vera Power said the industry body was concerned the superphosphate fertiliser sold by Australian company Marnco was not consistent with the Fertmark Code, a voluntary industry scheme.
In other words, the product didn’t contain the amount of phosphate that New Zealand products labelled as superphosphates do.
“We consider it critical that farmers and growers know exactly what they are buying,” Power said.
The association had applied to the High Court for an injunction against Marnco to stop the sale of its Single Super Phosphate (SSP) fertiliser in New Zealand. Power stressed that the association was in no way opposed to Marnco selling its products in New Zealand but wanted the company to be clear with farmers and growers about what it was they were buying.
FANZ’s managing board and technical committee are made up of representatives from member companies, which are also New Zealand’s largest fertiliser players – Ballance Agri-Nutrients and Ravensdown.
Testing carried out in April by Eurofins on three Marnco Single Super Phosphate samples, on behalf of Ballance Agri-Nutrients, showed phosphate levels of 6.8%, 7% and 6.9%.
The industry standard in New Zealand was about 9% to 10%, slightly higher than the minimum of 8% total phosphates required by the Fertmark Code of Practice.
A scheduling hearing was held in the High Court at Auckland on May 1, and Marnco managing director Mark Been said the company had been given until the end of the month to provide evidence.
“It’s been a bit of a blur, to be honest.” Marnco was concerned about the allegations and would be conducting independent testing, Been said.
The Australian company announced its New Zealand expansion at Christmas and the first New Zealand shipment was delivered to its Timaru and Mt Maunganui warehouses at the end of April.
The company had entered the bulk fertiliser market with a lower price per tonne – something Been attributed to the company’s low-overhead model and the “oceanic efficiency” of leveraging the two trans-Tasman markets off each other.
Marnco had received lots of positive feedback about the product and support following news of the injunction application, Been said.
Most fertilisers sold in New Zealand carried Fertmark labelling issued by the Fertiliser Quality Council, which tested and audited products registered for the programme.
Marnco had not yet registered with Fertmark, though it was not required to do so.
Ballance chief executive Kelvin Wickham said it wasn’t unusual to test new products as a way of understanding the offering.
Surprised by the results, Ballance sent a “buyer beware” email out to its customers.
Farmers would have been working out their fertiliser plans based on the phosphate levels they expected from a product labelled as a superphosphate, he said.
Wickham said Ballance was not against competition but the correct nutrients were critical to agriculture.
“We’re doing this on behalf of farmers. [Marnco’s product] needs to be labelled accordingly, and then there’s no issue,” he said.
“The danger in compromising the quality of our fertiliser is that we compromise the value of our exports.”
Fertiliser Quality Council chairperspon Anders Crofoot said that because of the Fertmark Code, the term superphosphate was widely understood to mean a phosphate content of 8% or higher.
“The concern is that the New Zealand farmer may buy one product and get another.”
It didn’t mean that there was something wrong with the product, he said, but advertising and packaging needed to make the content clear.
Marnco’s superphosphate was low in cadmium, Crofoot noted. “It might be a product that’s quite useful to some farmers, but they would need to use more.”
Federated Farmers arable chairperson David Birkett said all farmers would be considering cost savings, but they needed to be “aware of what they’re buying”.
“We encourage competition, but it’s got to be like for like.”
Federated Farmers wanted to be sure that the information going to farmers reflected this, he said. Birkett wanted Marnco’s packaging and advertising to clearly communicate its nutritional value.