A Trans-Tasman battle between Australian fertiliser company Marnco and New Zealand farmer co-op companies has kicked off with lawyers lined up for what may be a costly and lengthy legal scrap.
Marnco entered the NZ bulk fertiliser market only a month ago to intense farmer interest in its promise of discounted super phosphate. The inaugural delivery of a 30,000 tonne shipment from Vietnam was unloaded in Timaru and Tauranga.
But its arrival has drawn fire from the Fertiliser Association of NZ (FANZ), the industry body dominated by the two biggest players, Ravensdown and Ballance.
The first shot was fired this week with FANZ seeking a court injunction against Marnco selling what FANZ claims is not valid superphosphate.
Farmers Weekly understands that despite efforts to get Marnco effectively shut down this month, the court has granted a hearing in September to give all parties time to lawyer up.
FANZ is challenging the quality of Marnco’s superphosphate product, claiming testing has found it fails to meet the 8% standard for superphosphate under the Fertmark code.
FANZ claims Marnco’s product averages around 7.4% phosphate, short of the target.
It also claims the solubility of Marnco’s productis below the Fertmark standard for superphosphate.
Ballance CEO Kelvin Wickham said Ballance and the rest of the industry have no issue if the product is being fairly represented, but say it cannot be sold as superphosphate.
“We are very comfortable with the competition, but not with the claim it is superphosphate when it does not meet Fertmark standards,” he said.
Marnco’s managing director Mark Been has hit back at industry claims his product is below par.
“We are currently supplying a high-quality product that’s low in cadmium, well granulated and contains minimal dust,” Been said.
In response to the claims, Marnco is conducting its own independent testing.
“We note the testing by FANZ and Ballance occurred in situ and we have been unable to determine sampling methodology or condition of the samples obtained, which may have impacted their results.”
The intensifying battle between the companies highlights ambiguities in the NZ fertiliser sector around how fertiliser product is defined.
Accreditation through the industry’s Fertmark scheme is not legally required by fertiliser producers before they sell product in NZ.
Four years ago industry veteran Dr Bert Quin concluded a lengthy court battle with Ballance, arising when Ballance challenged his use of the term “RPR” in a product he imported.
The case concluded with both parties claiming victory. The judge ruled that Quin’s product should not be banned from sale simply because it did not meet a Fertmark test for RPR, but said it had to be made clear it did not meet the Fertmark code.
Ballance claimed the win for its efforts to see clearer labelling on the product, while Quin claimed a win because he could, and does, continue to sell it.
Today Quin said the Marnco case carries strong parallels to his 2020 case.
“They claim their [Marnco’s] superphosphate is not as soluble to the citric test. That does not mean all the P in the product is not available, it is just a question of time before it is released. That part is just as relevant to this case as it was to my RPR case.”
Quin said as long as the P content is clearly labelled, it could come down to farmers deciding for themselves if they are happy with its content, and paying a price that reflects any difference in percentage of P compared to other products.
Unlike Quin, the battle has Marnco armed with some heavyweight backing in the form of United States fertiliser company Nitron, which supplies its fertiliser.
In 2021 Nitron grossed US$3 billion ($5bn) revenue and ranks as one of the US’s largest fertiliser companies.
Anders Crofoot, chair of the Fertiliser Quality Council that oversees Fertmark, confirmed the challenge to Marnco had not been raised by the FQC.
He also confirmed that the FQC has not received any complaints from farmers about the Marnco product at this point.
In Focus Podcast: Full Show | 3 May
