The world wants our excellent butter
It carries flavour and can soak up all the spices, aromatics, and seasoning in our cooking. It is more yellow and has a higher fat content than the pale, grain-fed American butter — consequently, along with the judges and countless top chefs, they just can't get enough of it.
Butter is one of the purest foods in the world, and we make lots of it. New Zealand is the largest exporter of butter, and last year we exported 525,000 tonnes which is a third of the global market and worth $2.54 billion, making it our second-largest export earner.
China is our biggest buyer, purchasing $786 million worth in 2024. Chinese people have some trust issues with their dairy products, and New Zealand is the most trusted and the butter considered to be of high quality.
Other large importers of butter are the US, Australia and the Philippines, but it's almost unbelievable that we import about $3.69m worth each year, mainly from Denmark, India, Australia, France and Fiji.
The dairy export industry started from humble beginnings, with a few barrels of salted butter manufactured at the Edendale Dairy Co shipped to England on board SS Dunedin in 1882 alongside its cargo of frozen mutton. Today the industry employs 55,000 people, there are seven different brands of butter and New Zealanders on the global scale are the highest consumers of the product.
Hogging various media headlines at the moment is the price, as it is at an all-time high, and some seem to be trying to give Fonterra a guilt complex as if it sets the price and is responsible — but it is the global auction that sets the price.
Fonterra's chief financial officer Andrew Murray stated our butter costs a lot less than you pay in Europe.
Is there an irony in all this? Farmers have been improving their environmental image, animal welfare, our clean and green brand and, of course, animals are grass-fed, with the long-term view that premier products attract high-spending customers which in turn help not only the farmer but the country — but we could struggle to afford what we produce. Butter is 49% higher than a year ago and could it be beef and lamb next, which is 50% higher than five years ago. However, what goes up usually comes down.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
41 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit
Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sowed uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the US. Members of his Administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the Government at least US$3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labour market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than US$2t in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the US abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasised about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the US away from taxing earnings and towards taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. US President Donald Trump. Photo / Tierney L. Cross, The New York Times Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the Government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden Administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Senator Josh Hawley, (Republican-Missouri), recently introduced legislation to send US$600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social programme, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogramme.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the US, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Andrew Duehren Photographs by: Alyssa Schukar, Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
NCEA Reform Presents Opportunity For Hospitality
Hospitality New Zealand (Hospitality NZ) acknowledges the Government's proposal to replace the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) with a new set of national qualifications. Alongside a number of changes - including NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3 being replaced - the Government's proposal includes a commitment to work with industry to develop better vocational pathways so students are getting the skills relevant to certain career pathways. Steve Armitage, Hospitality NZ Chief Executive, says: 'We're pleased to see that the Government is considering changes that have the potential to improve vocational pathways, and support hospitality becoming an industry of choice. 'We're particularly encouraged by the Government's commitment to working with industry to design coherent vocational learning packages. This could ensure that hospitality standards reflect the skills and professionalism our sector requires, while giving students a clear pathway from school into hospo careers.' 'We know hospitality offers rewarding career opportunities for those who join our industry, and national qualifications need to be structured in a coherent way that enables a student to build on their hospitality experience before leaving school. 'A nationally consistent hospitality pathway will also support workforce development by providing a clearer pipeline of local talent. This will make it easier for more New Zealanders to gain the skills they need for hospitality careers, while gradually reducing our industry's reliance on migrant workers.' 'We look forward to contributing to the review process, and working with the Government to ensure a stronger connection between the standards offered and the skills required in the workplace.' About Hospitality NZ: Hospitality New Zealand represents more than 2,500 hospitality and accommodation businesses across Aotearoa, supporting world-class manaakitanga (hospitality). Our members span the food and beverage, accommodation, entertainment, tourism, and hospitality service sectors. We provide our members with the tools, resources, partnerships and knowledge they need to succeed. We advocate to ensure the industry's voice is heard in government, shaping policies for a sustainable future. To find out more visit
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Papa forecasts $13m deficit, downgrades visitor targets
'Te Papa does not generate enough funding to cover required capital investments to maintain Te Papa's building and experience assets [...] to manage inflationary costs, we will be examining ways to deliver our services as efficiently as possible in line with the legislated functions set out in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992.' As a Crown Entity, it receives $44 million in funding each year from the Government and must raise at least $30 million on top of that to stay afloat, made up of partnerships, philanthropy and donations, and its commercial activities like corporate functions. 'Te Papa's commercial revenue is impacted by the current economic conditions, with the most significant commercial revenue stream, corporate functions also being impacted by the reduction in Public Sector spend.' Te Papa, the Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, viewed from Lambton Harbour. Photo / Mark Mitchell Before accounting for depreciation of its assets, the museum recorded a surplus of $1.98m, saying the fact the Government does not fund Te Papa for depreciation is why it has observed such losses. Te Papa spokeswoman Kate Camp said the entity 'has a large number of fixed costs with large, specialised buildings, and collections that require expert care and housing'. 'Some Crown agencies are funded for depreciation, but Te Papa is not,' Camp said. Kate Camp. Photo / Ebony Lamb Camp said the slow recovery in the tourism sector has seen the museum take a hit, with the market being at only about 85% of where it was pre-Covid. 'New revenue streams will come from building on existing offerings like guided tours and paid-for exhibitions.' It is considering charging for more experiences, Camp said, but maintained entry to Te Papa will always remain free for New Zealanders. As for whether the entity would be seeking further Government funding to support its financial recovery, Camp said they are 'always involved in active dialogue with our monitoring agency (Ministry for Culture and Heritage) about what we deliver and the resources required'. Te Papa says maintenance and depreciation of its large, specialised buildings are responsible for its financial struggles. Photo / Mark Mitchell It comes a year after Te Papa first announced it was introducing a $35 international visitor fee, citing the increased cost of energy, insurance and staffing. The charge was implemented in September last year and reportedly brought in $750,000 in its first two months. Camp said the new fee is delivering in line with targets and is projected to raise approximately $3m over the first 12 months. The museum is hoping for a 3% increase in international visitor entry, citing growth from international markets as a 'new focus' for the organisation. Board Chair Chris Swasbrook said Te Papa earns almost half its annual income itself and has a 'continual focus on achieving operating efficiencies for the taxpayer'. Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith holds the responsibility for Te Papa and said the museum's finances are an 'operational matter', but noted the Government 'expects all its entities to operate as efficiently and effectively as any other private business'. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell While the museum's financials paint a less than rosy picture, it continues to perform well in visitor satisfaction with more than 97% of adult visitors reporting being 'satisfied' to 'extremely satisfied' for overall museum experience during their visit in the last financial year. Last month it was announced as the number one tourist attraction in New Zealand for the second year running and was named in the top 1% 'Best of the Best attractions worldwide' by Trip Advisor. The tourism sector continues to struggle post-Covid, with the latest International Visitor Survey showing spending by international tourists had jumped 9.2% in the last year to $12.2 billion but still remains below pre-Covid levels. In Wellington specifically, the sector contributed $862.9m towards the capital city's GDP in 2024, making up 2.5% of Wellington's economic output, Infometrics data shows. In 2000, that number was 3.2%. Tourism hasn't grown as a sector in Wellington at the same level of other centres, with the economic output in Wellington City's tourism sector increasing by only 2.2% in 2024, compared with an increase of 10.2% for New Zealand as a whole. Ethan Manera is a New Zealand Herald journalist based in Wellington. He joined NZME in 2023 as a broadcast journalist with Newstalk ZB and is interested in local issues, politics, and property in the capital. He can be emailed at
