In September 2023, the University of Sydney opened the International Centre of Crop and Digital Agriculture (ICCDA) in Narrabri in the North West Slopes of NSW: the administrative centre of the second richest farming shire in Australia. Recognised for the production of some of the world’s best wheat, cotton, lamb and beef, the $15.2 million investment now also places Narrabri at the global forefront of agricultural research. 

The state-of-the-art facilities include digital, genetic and soil laboratories, teaching and industry briefing spaces and robot workshops. It lies adjacent to a 2000-hectare experimental farm where researchers will produce improved crop varieties and develop farming systems with enhanced resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change. The ICCDA will also promote digital and robotic technologies for use by farmers to make their businesses more productive and profitable.

“The research that will occur at this facility in Narrabri will be a game-changer for the industry,” said NSW Agriculture Minister Tara Moriarty at the opening ceremony. “Using the high-tech facilities, researchers will focus on adapting crops for drought-tolerance, providing food security solutions and boosting the productivity of farmers.”

NSW Wheat Research Foundation chair Rob Long says the ICCDA offered a massive boost for grains research. “These new facilities complement the research farm which plants over 40,000 irrigated plots every year on Narrabri’s rich vertosol clay soils,” he says. “What an enticement for postgraduate students, national and international researchers and industry leaders to come together in Narrabri to improve crop performance for Australian farmers.”

Identifying the most profitable cropping systems

For the past six years, CSIRO researchers at four experimental sites in Wagga Wagga, Greenethorpe, Condobolin, and Urana have been sowing and monitoring crops to identify the most profitable and least risky cropping rotations for grain growers in southern NSW.

“Our investigation delved into diversifying canola-cereal systems with different legume options, conservative and optimistic yield-based nitrogen fertiliser strategies, and earlier versus timely sowing with and without crop grazing,” says CSIRO chief research scientist Dr John Kirkegaard. In January, the national science agency published the findings of research initiated by farmers seeking comparisons between traditional cropping systems and alternative systems that incorporate legumes with canola and wheat. 

At all sites during the first three-year phase, some farming systems were $200 to $300 per hectare more profitable, had stable or declining weed and disease burdens, lower average input costs, and consistently overperformed compared to the baseline canola-cereal farming systems. 

In the second three-year phase when there were much wetter conditions, systems with more canola tended to increase in profit and those with legumes declined. For mixed systems, the most profitable alternatives were wheat and canola with a higher nitrogen fertiliser strategy.

“The value of this to the industry in terms of increased productivity and profitability is significant,” says Delta Agribusiness consultant, Tim Condon. “It is delivering positive actionable outcomes to grain growers.”

However, more long-term research is needed to further improve grain production in the state. “Systems research takes many years and patience for the full effect of the treatments to emerge over time. It also allows for the effect of variable seasons on measurements to be captured,” says director of Lott Rural Consulting, Peter Lott. “This is how low-risk, productive, economic and sustainable farming systems evolve.”

Measuring the genetic value of cattle

It comes with a hefty price tag of $7.3 million, but as the largest ongoing beef cattle research project in Australia, the Southern Multi Breed (SMB) project promises to be money very well spent. It will allow cattle farmers in NSW to measure the genetic value of different breeds for the first time. This in turn will allow them to make better-informed decisions to improve their herd. The information will also prove invaluable for commercial cattle breeders.

A collaboration between the NSW Government, University of New England and Meat & Livestock Australia, the SMB Project is taking place at five research stations and a research feedlot between 2020 and 2025, and focuses on six different breeds: Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn, Wagyu, Charolais and Brahman.

So how does it work? Researchers at the SMB project are creating datasets using BREEDPLAN traits that allow breed comparisons irrespective of hide colour. At the same time, they are creating genomic values with higher accuracy than what is currently achieved, and building a reference for hard-to-measure traits like meat quality, methane production, immune competence and age at puberty. 

The research is expected to improve beef productivity and product value by improving the fertility rate, weaning rate, feed efficiency, sale weight and, at the same time, reducing the mortality rate of cattle. The research will continue until the end of next year, though principal investigator Brad Walmsley believes actionable data may be in farmers’ hands only a few months from now. 

“The data we have that is of sufficient quality for BREEDPLAN evaluations, we’re currently in the process of making available for within-breed evaluations for use within the next 6 to 12 months,” Walmsley told Beef Central in September last year. “We’re beginning to analyse data that will benefit the industry. However, there are a series of steps that need to be followed to ensure the integrity of the data is maintained.”

When an experiment goes wrong

Ten years ago, Italy’s Ferrero Group – the world’s fourth largest confectionery company and makers of the popular Nutella spread – started planting 1 million hazelnut trees on a 2,700-hectare research farm near Narrandera in the NSW Riverina that had previously been used to grow potatoes. 

The pilot project, which received millions of dollars of financial support from the Federal and NSW Governments, aimed to provide a counter-seasonal supply to the northern hemisphere crop. It was also meant to supercharge the sector by increasing Australia’s relatively small annual hazelnut harvest from 400 tonnes to 5500 tonnes per year, excess stock that had been slated for processing at Ferrero’s factory at Lithgow.

Locals had warned the project was always going to struggle because of its location – and they were right. Earlier this year, Ferrero announced the experiment had not even achieved minimally acceptable yields and that it planned to mulch the trees into wood chips and sell the farm. The Italians blamed adverse weather, specifically dry arid conditions that proved unsuitable for growing a type of tree that originated in the cool climate of northwest Europe.

“I thought they were very brave,” Basil Baldwin, a hazelnut farmer in Orange who helped write the NSW growers manual, told the ABC. “I thought maybe if you did certain things, you might get it to work, like shading the whole orchard, just for example, which would be very expensive.”

Ferrero said it was disappointed with the project’s demise but that it had nevertheless produced valuable data and insights that the company is presently sharing with hazelnut growers in Australia. “This will support better-quality nut production with the benefit of the research conducted on different soil,” a company spokesperson said. 

The moral of the story? There’s no such thing as wasted research.

To learn about more innovation in the agriculture industry, click here.

The post How science and tech are improving food security appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Earlier this year, angry farmers rolled into Brussels – where the European Union (EU) has its headquarters – in a convoy of hundreds of tractors, dumping and setting fire to tyres in the streets, lobbing eggs at government buildings and spraying police with manure. 

The very same day, an estimated 10,000 farmers marched in the Polish capital of Warsaw dressed in red and white, the colours of the Polish flag, while they chanted, blew horns and set off flares. Some 600km to the east, farmers blocked all the major border crossings with Ukraine and reportedly vandalised railway containers, destroying hundreds of tonnes of imported grain. 

Meanwhile in France, farmers blockaded motorways leading into Paris for a multi-day ‘siege’ to figuratively starve out the city. And in Greece, Romania, Spain and Portugal, farmers parked trucks and dumped hay on major highways, bringing traffic to a standstill. 

Why are these farmers protesting? And what exactly do they want? Well, the answer varies from country to country, but there’s one common theme: squeezing farmers to breaking point.

Ploughing through paperwork

In Germany, farmers are demanding the government axe plans to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel. In Greece, farmers are protesting the same, on top of sky-high electricity rates. In Romania, farmers protested the high insurance rates and cheap imported foods. 

In France, farmers are demanding better crop prices and wages, plus a reduction in burdensome red tape that requires them to spend up to a quarter of each day at their desks. “They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” a French farmer told The Guardian. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy.” 

In Spain, farmers were saying exactly the same thing.

“They don’t let us plough. Just let us plough in peace without all the paperwork.”

Fernando Jimare, potato farmer in interview with BBC

Farmers in Spain are also demanding the right to use the same cost-effective herbicides and pesticides as farmers in Vietnam, South Africa and other countries that enjoy lucrative free-trade agreements with the EU. “We want to compete with the same deck of cards,” Juan Carlos, a sunflower oil producer, told Spanish TV. “If they use a certain product, we want to be able to use the same one.” 

The list goes on. In the Netherlands, farmers are revolting against plans to radically cut herd sizes to reduce nitrogen emissions, as well as EU spy satellites that check what Dutch farmers sow and when. 

The fiery protests in Brussels, the seat of the EU, were staged in response to the Green Deal: a suite of strict new regulations to help fight climate change that will require farmers to leave 4 per cent of their land, slash fertilizers by 20 per cent and pesticides by a whopping 50 per cent by 2030. “On the one hand, we are being asked to farm more sustainably,” Morgan Ody of farming organisation La Via Campesina told TIME magazine. “But at the same time, we are asked to keep producing as cheap as possible, which puts us in an impossible situation.”

In Poland, farmers are fed up with the EU and it’s lifting of tariffs and quotas on Ukrainian food imports, because the Russian invasion made it very difficult to export the country’s vast agricultural produce. For more than six months they’ve been telling politicians that they just can’t compete with cheap Ukrainian sugar, wheat and eggs that are not subject to the same strict environmental regulations as the stuff they grow. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Polish farmers’ trade union, told Wiesciro Nicze, a Polish news site.

But the one grievance that united them all is the hard-to-swallow fact that most small family-run farms and many mid-size farms in Europe are being denied the right to earn a profit. “We work 16 hours a day, 365 days a year,” Charlotte Van Dyke, the daughter of a Belgian farmer, told Global News. “We don’t take vacations, a weekend trip to France, we can forget about it because we have to feed our animals at 5am. We get up every day at the same time and we can consider ourselves lucky if we are in bed at 10pm.”

Furious farmers demand change

Rising input costs and stagnant or falling farm gate prices are the immediate causes of the impossible financial conundrum facing EU farmers. From 2022 to 2023, farm gate prices fell 10 per cent in 21 out of 27 EU member states, according to Eurostat data. In countries like Lithuania and Bulgaria that have high specialisation in cereals and milk, farm gate prices have tumbled by 23 per cent and 28 per cent in the same period, respectively. 

“We are no longer making a living from our profession,” a farmer at a protest in Paris told CNN. Daniel-Henri Sparmont, a farmer who joined the protests in Brussels, said to Sky News: “I am angry. Over the years we have had many discussions with politicians and parliament, and time and time over they told us we have heard you, we will make change, but now many of us are starting to feel desperate.”

“Our main demand,” said Ody of La Via Campesina, “is that we get a European law that ensures
that the price we get covers the cost of production, including revenue.”

Although it makes perfect sense, that particular demand is not yet being taken seriously by legislators. But with so many protestors hitting the streets and politicians losing sleep over upcoming elections, individual European governments were fast to react. 

Germany walked back on its plans to cut diesel subsidies for farm vehicles for at least three years. Portugal announced $830 million in emergency aid for farmers. French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal pledged to safeguard “food sovereignty”, increase checks on food imports “that don’t respect our rules at a European and French level,” and introduced $415 million worth of annual tax breaks and social support for hard-hit livestock farmers. Romania committed to subsidising agricultural excise until 2026 and to compensate farmers for income lost because of Romania’s support for Ukraine. 

As for the EU, it hasn’t got a clue how to ensure Ukrainian farm exports return to their traditional markets outside of Europe. Instead, it simply delayed the hard decision by extending the suspension of import and quota duties for 12 months to June 2025. 

The EU did, however, compromise with farmers on other sticking points. It scrapped a goal to cut farming emissions out of its climate roadmap, withdrew the new law to halve the use of inorganic pesticides by 2030 and delayed the deadline for farmers to leave 4 per cent of their land fallow to improve soil health. 

“These measures will constitute the first concrete steps that we will make to quickly respond at the European level to some of the worries of farmers,” Belgian Deputy Prime Minister David Clarinval said at a press briefing.

A stopgap solution

Walking back new environmental regulations is just a stopgap solution that won’t solve the problem of dwindling farmers’ income, argued Vincent Delobel, spokesperson for the Belgium farmers’ union, and Ody from La Via Campesina, in an opinion piece for Al Jazeera.

The root cause of the problem, they wrote, was the deregulation of agricultural markets and free trade agreements that have “placed all the world’s farmers in competition with each other” and set them up to be squeezed by powerful retailers and agrochemical companies. The authors pointed to an unratified free trade agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay as especially ludicrous, though one could imagine they regarded the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and Australia with
similar disdain.  

The sustainability of European agriculture would not improve “without breaking away from old logic,” they wrote.

“Producing ecologically costs more for the farmers, and so to achieve the agroecological transition, agricultural markets need to be protected. It is the neoliberal framework that must be challenged, not environmental regulation.” 

Vincent Delobel, spokesperson for the Belgium farmers’ union, and Ody from La Via Campesina

Removing environmental regulations may have stopped the protests – for now. But they aren’t going to do the soil, water and air farmers require to make a living any favours. Farming makes up just 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product in the EU yet accounts for more than 10 per cent of the region’s greenhouse gases. Reforming the ways food and fibre are produced on the continent remains an imperative and inevitable mission. Because the alternative is just not an alternative.

“We believe people without their agriculture are not free people,” Roberto Rozati, an Italian farmer protesting in front of the Colosseum in Rome told the Associated Press. “Depending on faraway countries for our own food means something negative for health, for the economy and also the environment if you think about moving products from one side of the globe to another.”

If you enjoyed this piece on European farmers protesting, you may like to read this piece about the rally against the Narrabri CSG project.

The post European farmers up in arms over rising costs appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Never before in history have so many people relied on so few to produce their food. This is especially true in Australia where less than half of one per cent of the population work in agriculture to feed the remaining 99.5 per cent.

But some of those 99.5 per cent want to bite the hands that feed them, warned Matthew Cossey, CEO of CropLife Australia, in a no-holds-barred speech at a luncheon hosted by the Farm Writers Association of NSW in Orange in September 2023. And they are doing so via the weaponisation of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) – requirements designed to help reduce the negative environmental impacts of doing business and meet global sustainability goals like net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“For ESG in agriculture to be a positive force, it is important that the best available science guides [the practices associated with] it, and that they mustn’t be allowed to be hijacked by any other ideological agenda, particularly those fundamentally opposed to modern agriculture,” Matthew said, adding: “This feels like an all too familiar battle front-lined by affluent activist groups funded by tax-deductible donations from those with full bellies and designer grocery bags that seek to define what good farming looks like on their terms.”

The speaker also warned of the risk of a ‘green famine’ resulting from ESG agendas on steroids in regions like the EU where the blanket reduction of pesticides and fertilisers and a target of 25 per cent organic farmland by 2030 is predicted to reduce food production on the continent by up to 12 per cent – and increase global food prices by a whopping 9 per cent.

But like it or not, ESG has become a quotidian fact of modern farming.

So what exactly does it actually mean for farmers? How is it different to ESG for other highly regulated industries such as banking? What will environmentally conscience farmer be required to do that they’re not already doing? And how will it affect your hip pocket?

We posed these questions to three ESG experts from different disciplinary backgrounds at the NSW Farmers’ Association. Here’s what they had to say: the good, the bad, the confusing.

The policy director

A law graduate who once owned two McDonald’s restaurants and spent seven years working for the NSW Government caring for our land and water, Nick Savage, environment policy director at NSW Farmers, is the first to admit how confusing ESG is.

“The thing about ESG,” he says, “is there’s no overall government checklist for business, and I understand that is where a lot of the confusion lies. But I don’t think ESG should ever be presented as a checklist where you can say I’ve done this, so now I’m compliant.

“ESG,” he explains, “is more of a culture than anything else. And that culture is already a big part of the way our members, family farmers, operate in this day and age. For example, if you’re examining a company’s emissions output and biodiversity on land, you are probably already meeting a lot of your ESG requirements simply by adapting it and recording it. But if you’re completely ignoring the importance of having some kind of social responsibility and not creating any data, you’re going to be behind the eight ball.”

Just about every farmer Nick speaks to about ESG feels it’s just extra work.

“Corporate farms do this very well. They have the resources to address ever-changing regulatory requirements,” he says. “But a family farm may have one or two employees and feel they’re already saddled with too much compliance work. The last thing they want is more.

“What I tell them is there’s no turning back. We’re already on this journey so the best thing you can do is ensure your data points are doubly useful for the management of your businesses. In saying that, I think the government needs to help set things up in a way so that farmers are more capable of meeting ESG requirements while not losing out on production. That’s the kind of lobbying we are doing at NSW Farmers.”

The environmental scientist

A graduate of environmental science who was born and raised on a farm, NSW Farmers environmental policy advisor Rhiannon Heath is unequivocal in her belief that ESG is going to become ever more important in the day-to-day running of farming in our state.

“Farmers will have to adapt to global trends and there is nothing we can do to stop that from happening,” Rhiannon says. “My role is to talk to government and to farmers to try to make the transition as smooth as possible while protecting food security.”

One of the biggest sticking points in Rhiannon’s opinion is confusion and even contempt from farmers for ESG.

“Talking about ESG is not always productive and one of the reasons for that is ESG doesn’t have a strict definition that applies to agriculture. The language is very confusing, and a lot of these policies tend to apply to big businesses. They cannot be applied to agriculture in a meaningful way,” she says.

“There are a million different metrics you can use to measure ESG, so when I talk to farmers, I try to break it down into sustainability frameworks because it’s a more practical way for farmers to wrap their heads around it. I also try to explain how many of the things that they are already doing to comply with regulations, and by participating in things such as carbon credit schemes, indicates a very high standard of ESG.”

Rhiannon is concerned about what is happening with ESG but thinks it is highly unlikely farmers in Australia will face the same extreme kinds of pressures here “because what’s happening in the EU is socially driven, and we don’t have the same kinds of social pressures.”

“But some industries,” she notes, “are already being affected by export restrictions in the EU, such as restrictions on meat production where it has resulted in deforestation. These conditions are likely to intensify in the future and are seriously affecting many producers.”

The economist

A graduate of agricultural economics at the University of New England, Brendan O’Keeffe admits ESG is a “really complex, immature market” full of “teething problems that need to get worked out”.

That said, he wants to share two important points about ESG and farming.

“The first point is – as is the case with all new and complex market mechanisms such as insurance – the best way to navigate ESG is through brokers who visit farmers. They need to learn about farmers’ insurance needs, buy the best product and help them make claims,” he says.

“They’re ‘information fixers’, and the same thing will probably happen with ESG. But the problem is, we still don’t have an accreditation system for ESG brokers, which means unscrupulous brokers can waltz in and fill the gap. I don’t know if that is already happening but without accreditation, there is a potential for things to go awry. So, I think there’s an option for local land services to fill that gap.”

“The second point,” he says, “is that supermarkets in Australia – or any buyers for that matter – are probably going to have ESG standards or goals of their own the same way they have their own aesthetic standards for fresh produce.

“If things turn out that way, farmers will have to choose one supermarket to supply, and if they change supermarkets, they’re going to have to change their ESG certification, which is going to take a whole lot of effort.

“It also locks farmers into one buyer, or if they want to supply multiple buyers, they’re going to have to ensure their produce conforms to multiple ESG standards. It’s another potential way for supermarkets to gain more leverage over farmers than they already have,” he explains. “Eventually, this other space in ESG is where I think the government is going to have to play a role to ensure it is a force for good, and that farmers get compensated for the extra costs imposed upon them.

He says that organic farming is the classic example of where that has already happened. “You could say that environmental degradation from agriculture for instance, occurs because farmers are being underpaid. The economic argument for that is very clear.”

If you enjoyed this piece about ESG, you may like to read about how public liability insurance is backing farmers into a corner when it comes to wind and solar projects.

The post ESG: The good, the bad and the confusing appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

“The onset of El Niño will greatly increase the likelihood of breaking temperature records and triggering more extreme heat in many parts of the world,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas says.  

Estimates by Bloomberg suggest this year’s El Niño could affect more than a quarter of agricultural areas in the world and the farmers, as is always the case, will be on the frontline. There is however a small upside: the unique slow onset of El Niño makes it possible to prepare mitigatory actions and emergency responses many months in advance. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s El Niño Anticipatory Action and Response Plan for 2023, every dollar invested in anticipatory action can create a return for farming families of more than seven dollars in avoided losses.  

Here, we look at how El Niño is impacting the weather and agriculture in different parts of the world and what governments, nonprofits and farmers are doing to mitigate losses of crops yield and animal protein.  

Thailand 

In Thailand, where agriculture accounts for 9 per cent of GDP and nearly a third of all jobs, Kasetsart University has forecasted that farmers’ income will fall 5 per cent this year because of decreased rainfall and drought caused by El Niño. Heat waves in March to May saw temperatures rise above 45°C, while rainfall between January and July was low in every part of the country, especially in the Central Plains – the ‘rice basket’ of Thailand – down 20 to 40 per cent. Water levels in dams nationwide are also critically low and similar to those last recorded in 2015 when the country last saw drought.   

In September, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin led a two-day fact-finding mission to the Central Plains to observe the situation and hear local concerns. He ordered policy makers in Bangkok to work more closely with technocrats in the countryside. Reservoir construction projects are being accelerated, especially in the east, while irrigation zones, which only cover 20 per cent of Thailand’s farmland, are being extended.   

Rice farmers are being advised to grow one crop this year instead of the usual two, and many are digging wells and ponds for use during the dry season. That will help if El Niño only remains for one year. But if it returns for two years or three times as occurred with La Niña, farmers will not have enough water for their crops.  

Southern Africa

As El Niño and drought return to Southern Africa, the countries that will be most affected are those that are already facing ongoing crises: Cyclone Freddy-affected areas of Mozambique, war affected areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar and Malawi.   

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation will this year spend $30 million on anticipatory responses in the region like early warnings and agricultural advisories that help farmers form risk-management strategies to minimise crop and livestock losses. The UN will also distribute drought-tolerant seeds for cereals and legumes, small-scale irrigation kits along with training in water management and cash to farmers. Animal health will be protected through disease monitoring, vaccinations and veterinary treatment, while fishing kits and aquaculture assets will also be distributed.  

The response will help shore up nutritional requirements of 420,000 people: a little more than half of one per cent of the population of Southern Africa. “Urgent additional support is required to ensure the following actions can be implemented at the required scale and coverage in 2023,” the UN said in a statement.   

Indonesia

Famed for its emerald-green rice terraces, the fields of Bali turned bright yellow in August of this year as Indonesia experienced a longer and drier than normal dry season as a result of El Niño. Indonesia’s Meteorology agency BMKG predicts the wet season, which normally starts in October, is not expected to start until November in more than 60 per cent of the country, disrupting rice production and pushing rice prices to multi-year highs.   

The government has responded with a raft of anticipatory measures: an $800 million programme to get more rice into 21 million poor households between September to November, accelerating rice planting in several areas where it is still raining and distributing 3,616 irrigation systems and 18,922 water pumps to farming collectives.   

The government is also encouraging rice farmers to use drought-resistance rice varieties like Gajah Mungkur, Batutegi and Situ Patenggan, while rehabilitation and upgrades of irrigation channels are also being accelerated at 1,531 locations. Government insurance has also been allocated for one million hectares of rice.   

Latin America

El Niño could cause severe drought in Latin America this year, with forecasts predicting below-normal rainfall for Colombia, Venezuela,  El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. But Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile, which straddle the Andes Mountains, will have above-average rains towards the end of the year.   

In Chile, a state of emergency was declared after a freak winter heat wave ended with torrential rains, forcing the evacuation of thousands of people. The emergency declaration allowed the government to divert funds and assistance to flood-affected regions. But in less developed parts of Latin America like Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, governments have less financial flexibility to cope with the current El Niño than they did seven years ago. This will see many farming families leave the countryside, migrate to cities and fall into poverty and despair.    

To help mitigate the fallout, the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation is distributing backyard vegetable gardening kits, supporting community seed banks and training farmers with water management practices. It is also protecting livestock through disease control campaigns, distributing animal feed, supporting fodder storage and implementing zoonotic disease control campaigns.  

India

When El Niño returned to India this year, the change coincided with the monsoon season, from July to September. Coupled with ample reserves of rice, wheat and coarse grains, the impact of El Niño on food availability in India is predicted to be mild in 2023.  But unpredictable rainfall at the start of the year has already disrupted agricultural activities in India. The planting of rice for the second crop in November is down 26 per cent compared to the previous year, as the monsoon delivered 8 per cent less rain than average, according to government data.  

Fears of a rice shortage saw the government ban the export of non-basmati white rice in July. It follows a wheat export ban introduced last year when a series of deadly heat waves spread across the country. 

Critics say bans are short-term solutions that are not likely to last longer than the duration of one El Niño. “We must take proactive steps in our daily lives to safeguard the environment, rather than relying on short-term measures that may only last during the duration of El Niño,” opines the Hindu Newspaper. “By prioritising long-term solutions and taking action to combat climate change, we can create a sustainable future for agriculture in India and beyond.” 

To read more about how to prepare for El Niño, click here.

The post El Niño arrives across the world appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

But the EU’s tough stance on agricultural imports – tariffs of 14.2 per cent on top of quotas for 142 products – has impeded the ability of Australian farmers to grow trade with the block.

This year marks five years since Australia travelled to the EU’s headquarters in Brussels for the first time, to hammer out a free trade agreement (FTA) and unlock trade access for agricultural products like beef, lamb, sugar, cheese, rice, wine and horticulture – and consequently reduce our reliance on China for trade.

The EU is also keen to reduce its reliance on China for trade. It sees Australia – the world’s largest producer of lithium and an important producer of cobalt and nickel – as an attractive and reliable source of rare metals for its electrification revolution. Australia’s vast potential to become a leading exporter of renewable energy made from wind, sun and hydrogen is another big drawcard for the EU as it weans itself off Russian oil and natural gas.

Proponents of the FTA hoped negotiations would conclude in July, when Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell flew to Brussels to ratify the deal. But after two days of talks, the two sides failed to see eye to eye.

The biggest sticking point during the final round of negotiations was the EU’s demand for geographical indications to legally protect the names of distinctive European products. It wants Australia to give up naming rights to prosecco, parmesan, mozzarella, feta, kalamata olives and scores of other foods and beverages we produce, just as the Canadians did to get their FTAs with the Europeans over the line. But as a nation of immigrants that shares Europe’s attachment to these products, Australia is refusing to bend the knee.

“I have been in the room with prosecco makers who have simply burst into tears at the prospect of losing access to that name, because they feel so strongly attached to the name,” Farrell said in a speech to the National Press Club on his return to Canberra. “This is not just an economic interest issue for Australia. It’s also an emotional issue.”

While hopeful for a FTA between Australia and the EU that “benefits everyone” involved, National Farmers’ Federation CEO Tony Mahar applauded Farrell for rejecting what he described as a “sub-standard deal”. NSW Farmers is in accord, as is the Australian Dairy Industry Council, which claims its members would lose close to $100 million per year if the EU gets its way with geographical indications.

“If introduced, this would block Australian companies from using product names such as feta and parmesan. Such a move is expected to result in lost sales, which could cost the industry up to $95 million a year,” Council chair Rick Gladigau said in a statement. “Geographical indications also hamper the ability of new Australian entrants to the market and goes against the Australian dairy industry’s support of free and fair trade.”

Rick also took a swipe at the apparent motive behind the EU’s demand. “The geographical indications claim is really just a way of facilitating greater access to the Australian market for subsidised EU products while stifling genuine competition for Australian products. The claim would also impact sales, profitability and productivity of Australian dairy businesses,” he said in the statement.

Beef producers and representatives in Australia are more anxious to break the deadlock. With an annual market valuation of $3.2 billion, beef imports to Europe are considerably more valuable than the global average. However, Australia only supplies 4 per cent of EU beef imports, more than two thirds of which go to one country: the Netherlands. Their share of Europe’s $1.7 billion sheep meat import market is even more marginal at 3.5 per cent.

“Signing an FTA will enhance Australian-EU trade across all sectors included in the agreement, improving investor confidence, and fostering economic growth by creating a more competitive environment,” Meat and Livestock Australia said in a statement.

Andrew McDonald, chair of the Australia-EU Red Meat Market Access Taskforce, described the negotiations as “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” that “will provide benefits to European consumers and the Australian red meat supply chain alike. [But] the EU has made it very clear that the protection of certain geographical indications is of utmost importance to their FTA ambitions.”

A senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Monash University, Elizabeth Sheargold told the ABC earlier this year that Australia’s position over geographical indications was just as firm. “Australian producers have really effectively lobbied to get this issue front and centre for government, and to make it a core part of our negotiating approach on this treaty,” she said.

Australia and the EU are natural partners, with a shared commitment to democracy, human rights, a rules-based international order and free and open access to global markets. Yet with both sides resolute over the issue of geographical indications, it’s a case of ‘who’s going to blink first’: the EU, which has said a FTA with Australia could add up to $6.5 billion to its GDP by 2030, or Australia, for which the deal has a potential value of $140 billion?

The odds suggest the EU will get its way, and producers of feta cheese and kalamata olives in Australia will have to rebrand, relabel and re-educate consumers. Farrell seemed to indicate as much while speaking to reporters at a park in Brussels after the most recent negotiations failed. “I’m optimistic that with some goodwill, some hard work, some perseverance, we’re going to get there,” he said.

SOLVING AUSTRALIA’S FERTILISER PROBLEM

The world relies on Russia and its only European ally, Belarus, for a quarter of its fertiliser, according to the US Food and Agriculture Organization.

That’s a serious problem for a country like Australia, which imports 90 per cent of its urea and which saw the cost of fertilisers skyrocket following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Indeed, NSW Farmers economist Brendan O’Keeffe comments that “prices have increased by up to 100 per cent since mid-2021”.

Fertiliser prices have fallen by a third from their peak last year as countries like Canada, now the world’s largest producer of potash, have stepped into the gap in the market left by Russia, whose exports are not blocked by embargoes but remain curtailed through disruptions to ports, shipping, banking and insurance.

But with China, the largest producer of urea, restricting fertiliser exports, fertiliser prices are still far above the long-term average, and pushing up the cost of groceries.

The only way prices are going to level out, Brendan told the Parliamentary Inquiry into Food Security earlier this year, is through “strategic investment in localised production of these inputs”. And now it seems he’s going to get his way, following an announcement in July that the world’s largest urea plant is going to be built in West Australia’s Pilbara region.

The $6 billion Ceres plant will first transform natural gas for ammonia and then into urea. Once completed in 2027, it will produce 2.3 million tonnes of urea per year, bringing our reliance on imported fertilisers to an end.

The post Fortress Europe: negotiating EU trade demands appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Coonabarabran farmer Angus Atkinson and his neighbour have invested more than $30,000 in the aerial culling of 440 feral pigs across 2025 hectares of farmland this year.

“It’s been unbelievable this year. The chopper pilot asked if I was breeding pigs as a sideline,” Angus says.

Farmers from just about all corners of the state are telling similar tales of an explosion in feral pig numbers, and the crop damage bill for the state’s north west is tipped to far exceed the $47-million estimate regarding damage to the 2020-21 winter and summer crops (Source: AgEcon report).

“I really don’t like using guns, but aerial culling does work. It’s a costly exercise that we did with zero government assistance,” Angus says.

The two aerial shooting campaigns will result in economic and sustainability benefits for Angus’s farm business, but he believes the improved environmental outcomes warrant a case for some cost sharing.

“They do huge amounts of damage to the soil, knock down fences and can spread diseases like leptospirosis. In addition to causing soil erosion, they seem to eat and dig up just about anything, which impacts native plants and animals.

“As farmers, we do have a responsibility to control feral pests and we all should do it. But there is an environmental and community benefit that I think backs the need for government support for a quick and effective method to get on top of mobs of feral pigs.”

Angus says there also needs to be funding and resources for the monitoring and coordinating culling campaigns, and a tenure-neutral enforcement program for public and private landholders.

NSW Farmers is calling for the establishment of a new government authority to coordinate and enforce management of public lands, baseline funding and staff increases to build longterm certainty.

“The agencies and organisations are there, the rules are there; there just need to be resources and enforcement,” says NSW Farmers Conservation and Resource Committee member Bronwyn Petrie.

“Unless there is an urgent and coordinated control effort on all land, this problem will only get worse.”

“Aerial culling is also vital in cleaning up any pigs that are left. But the key is getting all landholders involved and that means having a good carrot to incentivise farmers, and a bit of a stick to compel private and public land manages to control feral pigs.”

OSCAR PEARSE
Moree farmer

Additional funding to tackle feral pigs announced

NSW Farmers welcomes the NSW Government’s recent funding announcement on feral pigs. At the NSW Farmers’ Annual Conference in July, Premier Chris Minns announced an additional $8 million, bringing the total spend to $13 million for 2023/2024.

According to Xavier Martin, president of NSW Farmers, the announcement is not before time.

“Feral pigs are incredibly destructive animals, they destroy crops, tear out fences and ruin paddocks, kill livestock and native animals, and pose a threat to people – they’re a menace and they need to be brought under control,” he says.

“While Local Land Services has culled more than 97,000 feral pigs, we know from our members that there are millions more out there, and until we get on top of that breeding population we will continue to have problems. As landholders we stand ready to work with the government and LLS to tackle this problem.

“From the Western Riverina through the Central West and up into the Northern Tablelands, we’re hearing members tell us they’ve never seen pigs this bad before.

“Aerial shooting over the past year saw 80 per cent more pigs culled than the year before, and authorities have distributed 74 tonnes of baits to landholders, but the numbers continue to grow particularly on public land.

“It’s clear the pig numbers are growing out of control now, and we need a drastic and sustained increase in resources for everyone involved to get on top of the problem once and for all.”

Native species wallow in pigs’ wake

Feral pigs are highly adaptable, and known to cause significant damage to ecosystems and native wildlife.

The NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee nominated feral pigs as a Key Threatening Process for at least 18 threatened species due to predation, habitat degradation, competition, and disease transmission.

The species include the Northern bettong and long-footed potoroo, the Corroboree frog, three bird species, two turtles, and seven plants.

Moree farmer Oscar Pearse believes koalas should also be included on the feral pig hitlist.

He says the gluttonous swine gorge on any foliage they come across, wrecking the undergrowth and landscape that koalas frequent.

“They really do have a huge impact on the soil and habitat, and would have to be displacing koalas in our forested areas,” says Oscar.

“In fact, I have not seen a koala in the last 12 months, and that coincides with the big increase in feral pig numbers.”

Oscar has taken part in two coordinated culling campaigns involving ground and aerial tactics.

“Ground control measures like baiting and trapping are effective and there is a lot of good knowledge out there,” he says.

“Aerial culling is also vital in cleaning up any pigs that are left. But the key is getting all landholders involved and that means having a good carrot to incentivise farmers, and a bit of a stick to compel private and public land manages to control feral pigs.

“The carrot could be in the form of putting the control of feral pests like pigs into the biodiversity market, given their huge impact on the environment.”

Oscar is a member of the NSW Farmers Moree branch, which has led calls for the appointment of regional pig control coordinators to facilitate culling programs.

Waterborne feral pig explosion

Introduced by British settlers on the First Fleet in 1788, pigs quickly escaped and began establishing feral populations along watercourses and on floodplains in the Greater Sydney region.

By 1880 they had spread across half the continent, and reached such numbers that they were considered a pest in NSW.

When the most recent survey by the Department of Primary Industries was released in 2020, there were believed to be some 23.5 million feral pigs roaming through every state and territory in the country, as well as isolated populations on many offshore islands.

Under normal conditions, sows produce about six piglets every six months. However feral pig populations can increase up to 86% per year in ideal conditions such as those seen over the past three years when La Niña brought above-average rains and major flooding to vast swathes of Australia’s south east.

“There has been enormous damage to cotton crops in our region,” Oscar Pearse says. “I would estimate losses of $20,000 to $30,000 with grain crops on our farm.”

The Federal Department of Sustainability and Environment estimates feral pigs destroy 20,000 tonnes of every sugarcane harvest each year and eat up to 40% of newborn sheep in some areas, costing Australian farmers more than $100 million per year.

Veto power

The past three years have also coincided with some of the highest levels of culling efforts for feral animals, driven by programs to combat the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, and funds from the 2020 bushfire response.

More than 75,800 cloven-hoofed animals, of which 70,198 were feral pigs, were culled in Local Land Services’ (LLS) aerial and ground baiting programs in 2022 and this year.

Under the banner of the National Feral Pig Action plan, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), LLS and other authorities joined forces with more than 100 landholders to remove 43,608 feral pigs from the Western Riverina region.

But these initiatives are being undermined by some private and public landholders who are not doing their part to control feral pigs on their land, according to farmers like Angus and Oscar.

Bronwyn Petrie says public landholders are among the chief culprits.

“Farmers know that’s where the pigs are breeding because we see them coming onto our farms from public lands,” she says. “Yet over the past seven years, there hasn’t been a single prosecution of public land managers for animal pests. We can see huge problems on the horizon if we don’t do this job properly.”

Jack Gough from the Invasive Species Council concurs. Jack is the advocacy manager for the Katoomba-based NGO that works to seek stronger laws and programs to protect Australia from pests, weeds and diseases.

“We need more landowners, both government and private, participating,” he says. “But the really big problem at the moment is there is no aerial culling taking place over two million hectares of state forests in NSW. That is purely because the department refuses to approve aerial culling, as they say they need to protect ‘hunting amenity’, which is just ridiculous in my opinion.

“There needs to be a requirement in this state for all landholders to participate in regional control programs, and to take away their veto power over aerial culling. It just makes sense, especially when one considers that it’s a free service.”

A broken funding model

The funding model for feral pest control in NSW presents another major problem.

“It’s a broken model because it’s project based,” says Jack Gough.

“At the moment we have sufficient funding from bushfire money and foot-and-mouth disease control but, when that dries up, we are going to have to scramble to figure out where the next round of funding is coming from, rather than increasing the baseline number for funding and staff.

“If we don’t get those resources, pest control becomes very ad hoc and based on what funding is available, as opposed to constant suppression of pests across the landscape. Right now, we need a $30-million increase to stay ahead of the problem.”

Dr Joe McGirr, the sitting member for Wagga Wagga and the politician at the forefront of the movement to reduce the number of brumby horses from Kosciuszko National Park, agrees the system needs to change.

“It’s not just a matter of funding shortfalls but also the end of the current funding, which expired in June,” Dr McGirr told The Farmer, “Because the cost of doing nothing is too great. Until feral animal populations are reduced to a level of negligible impact, I would consider an increase in funding to wildlife officers to be very appropriate.”

Dr McGirr is also working to solve the problem of individual landholders’ veto rights over aerial shooting.

“During the 2023 State Election campaign, I endorsed a policy on having a feral pig and deer coordinator, designed at resolving exactly such a problem. There needs to be a central coordinating authority that can effectively manage and consult with all public and private stakeholders to prevent the further spread of these destructive feral pigs.”

One clean shot

Control of feral pigs requires a combination of baiting, trapping and mustering from helicopters, according to Animal Control Technologies Australia, a manufacturer of baits to poison pigs and other feral pests.

“To get the big old boars that have grown to old age and are too smart for traps, the ones that do all the breeding, shooting is needed – one clean shot to the back of the head,” says a spokesperson for the company.

Data from NSW NPWS substantiates the claim. Of 28,684 feral pigs dispatched inside national parks from 2016 to 2019, only 8% were caught by traps. Another 8% were neutralised by ground shooting, while the remainder were taken out by aerial shooting.

The post A pig of a time: addressing the curly issues around feral pigs appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Alongside a broader economic crisis in Argentina caused by decades of fiscal mismanagement and entrenched corruption – which saw inflation hit a three-decade high of 95 per cent last year – the drought is projected to erase 2.2 per cent of GDP this year, according to the Rosario Stock Exchange.

That translates to $21.5 billion in lost agricultural export earnings compared to 2022, when Argentina earned $86 billion in farm exports, predominantly from grains. Argentina is, or was, the world’s largest exporter of soybean oil and meal, the second- largest exporter of corn and the seventh-largest exporter of wheat, lemons and limes.

In the ‘Pampa Húmeda’ (Humid Pampas), Argentina’s breadbasket, half of the soybean crop has already been lost due to drought. And while a fortnight of rains in late January will help limit losses, at least half of this region remains in drought as ongoing above-average temperatures unbalance the effect of rains.

“I am 48 years old, and this is the worst drought I have seen in my life,” wheat farmer Christian Olaizola told Germany’s DW News. “We have seen precipitation levels decrease and decrease over the past three or four years, every year a little less. We had to farm our wheat with practically no water, maybe 5 or 7 millimetres of rain, not more,” he said, adding that he expects the harvest on his 80-hectare property to come in at one-third of
usual levels this year.

Cristian Russo, head of estimates at the Rosario grains exchange, added in an interview with Reuters: “We have to prepare for the worst scenario for the last 20 years in this grain campaign of soy and corn. We are at a point where things look very complex.”

Government response

Agriculture is one of the few bright spots in Argentina’s broken economy, accounting for nearly two-thirds of export earnings. As such, it is too important to fail. The government has introduced a raft of measures to ensure farmers will still have a roof over their heads when the drought finally breaks.

Argentina’s central bank is offering farmers more flexible terms on the non-payment of loans and subsidised lines of credit. It has also opened a small relief fund worth $38 million for farmers, and announced the suspension of advance income tax payments in addition to tax exemption for beef farmers who undersold cattle due to a lack of affordable feedstock.

But at the same time, it is also making things harder for farmers by extending a partial ban on beef exports to ensure continuity of inexpensive domestic supply.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, Argentina is the sixth biggest beef producer in the world, accounting for 5.19 per cent of global production. Australia, in eighth position, accounts for 3.28 per cent of global supply. However, most of our beef is produced for export (72 per cent) whereas in Argentina, 71 per cent of beef is consumed domestically.

It’s not because they have a population nearly double the size of ours. It’s because Argentinians eat more red meat than any other country on the planet: 39.9 kilograms per person per year, compared to 19.2 kilograms in Australia.

“That’s why they introduced export bans in the first place. Beef is such an important part of
their culture that the population would not bear any significant price rises,” explains Andrew Cox, General Manager for international markets at Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA).

Introduced in May 2021 as a blanket embargo on a quarter of total beef production exports, the bans had an immediate negative impact, with exports dropping by 36 per cent. Yet the following month, it was announced that only certain cuts would be banned and that restrictions would not apply to high-quality cuts destined for the EU, nor to quotas set for the US and Colombia. In October that year, the export cap was lifted for China, which accounted for more than two-thirds of exported volume the year before.

“Also keep in mind that Argentina exports most of its beef to China, and even then it’s just a drop in the ocean. Let’s not forget the political environment in China has seen suspensions put on several major beef producers in Australia. In the last two years, our exports to China have shrunk and they’re unlikely to grow until the political issues are resolved.”

Andrew Cox, MLA

The current ban, which has been extended until the end of 2023, applies to seven cuts popular with the domestic market, as well as whole and half carcasses.

Nothing to see here

Most economic changes produce winners and losers, and that maxim also applies to changes in trade. This begs the question: is there an opportunity for Australian farmers to help fill gaps in the global markets created by Argentina’s drought and export bans?

The short answer is no, and you only need to look more closely at two major Argentinian commodities to see why.

“The total size of the global soybean market is about 360 million odd tonnes per year, and Argentina and Brazil account for about 100 million tonnes between the two of them,” CEO of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, Nick Goddard, says.

“Australia only grows 50,000 tonnes, so when you put us in the global context, we don’t even register.

“Most of the soy we produce are varieties suited to foods like soy milk, tempeh and tofu – and nearly all of it is consumed domestically. We do have opportunities to grow soybeans for export into Southeast Asia where we have a good point of difference as our soybean is purely non-GM.

“But at the end of the day,” he explains, “it’s an opportunistic crop for us. If the price of sugar is low, sugar cane farmers in the Northern Rivers region will plant some soybeans as it works well as a rotation crop because the price of water there is currently low. But when water becomes more expensive, it will make more sense to plant cotton or rice.”

“What is happening now in Argentina,” he says, “is because of seasonally dry conditions. And as soon as it gets wet over there it will become dry here. So I do not see any real opportunity for Australia to become a major exporter.” But what about selling the world some of the beef that Argentina cannot – a trade Australia excels in?

“Given the type of product Argentina exports and the price it sells it for, the gap in the market would be picked up first by other South American producers like Brazil,” says Andrew.

“Also keep in mind that Argentina exports most of its beef to China, and even then it’s just a drop in the ocean. Let’s not forget the political environment in China has seen suspensions put on several major beef producers in Australia. In the last two years, our exports to China have shrunk and they’re unlikely to grow until the political issues are resolved.”

Even if that were not the case, the MLA doesn’t believe it makes good business sense to sell more Australian beef to China.

“The story for the last couple of years for Australian agriculture has been about diversifying
our exports to avoid over-reliance on any single market like China,” Andrew says.

“Australian beef exports have already been well-diversified compared to other commodities like wine and barley. Our focus is growing markets like India, South Korea and Japan, and the MLA has now got people on the ground in Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Thailand. So, I do not see how events in Argentina will result in any large quantifiable opportunities for Australian beef.”

Gap in the market
Argentina’s export ban on beef production for 2023 means there is now a gap in the global market. However, Australia is in no position to fill it due to a focus on diversifying our exports and avoiding over- reliance on any single market, such as China – Argentina’s main export market.

The post Crying for Argentina appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

On March 10, the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration placed farmers across the nation on notice when it announced in its monthly analysis that La Niña has ended.

The phase of the eastern Pacific Ocean that typically brings rain and floods to eastern Australia, La Niña’s demise after three consecutive years means the weather is returning to a near-average state of cloud and rain. It also means the door is now open for the Pacific’s opposite phase, El Niño, which can bring drought to eastern Australia. The question on everyone’s lips, then, is how long have we got to go until the next big one?

“It’s such a complicated question,” says Hugh McDowell, a senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology in Sydney. “Drought depends on soil moisture, the health of river systems and so many variables, so we don’t forecast drought. What we do is report on rainfall deficiencies. The NSW Government then studies our reports and decides if it’s drought or not.

“Our longest-range forecasts,” Hugh explains, “are three or four months. Right now, we’re forecasting unusually dry conditions for June and July. We’re already starting to see spots of serious to severe rainfall deficiencies and below average rainfall in northeast NSW, and below average soil moisture in those areas.

“Our long-range forecasts for unusually dry conditions are about 60 per cent to 70 per cent accurate and they’re getting more accurate over time,” he explains.

“But we still can’t tell you anything about how much rain we may or may not have next summer, as we don’t forecast that far ahead. So, if a farmer asked me when is the next multi-year drought, I would tell them I don’t know. But I would also tell them it’s inevitable at some point. So, it’s best to start preparing now.”

“If a farmer asked me when is the next multi-year drought, I would tell them I don’t know. But I would also tell them it’s inevitable at some point. So, it’s best to start preparing now.”

Hugh McDowell, Senior climatologist, Bureau of Meteorology

With that advice in mind, we spoke to three senior researchers at the CSIRO’s Drought Resilience Mission looking for new ways to reduce the impacts of drought on agriculture. We asked them one basic question: how can farmers start preparing for the next drought now?

Genetic selection for destocking

“Our overall message is that you prepare for drought outside of drought, because nearly anyone who has a plan, regardless of how good it is, will be in a better place when it’s dry than those who are just doing what they have always done,” says Dr Sabine Schmoelzl, group leader at the CSIRO’s livestock and aquaculture program, who has been studying livestock reproduction for the past 10 years.

“A lot of people say: ‘I’m too busy to make changes’, but the reality is that drought is a really stressful time for farmers, especially livestock farmers who do not want to see their animals suffer or have to make a lot of tough decisions and being prepared for that is essential.”

Sabine says livestock systems are so complex no two drought resilience strategies are the same. “For many farmers what works well is being very conscious about how much feed they have and how much livestock they can carry, and as soon as that changes to start destocking,” she says.

“Destocking brings an influx of capital that farmers can use to set up their property to be more efficient for feeding the animals they keep, or as a stash to buy back better animals when the drought breaks and improve the genetic value of their herd. That’s what we are currently exploring. Our team is collecting data and modelling different destocking scenarios, looking at the consequences of strategy and comparing the data to different approaches.”

Most livestock farmers in Australia still can’t access the information needed to select animals using genetics. But that is quickly changing, Sabine says: “In recent years, new genetic selection tools have become available that are specifically geared towards commercial producers and are not too complex to use. All you need to do is collect a skin sample and send it away. The cost has to be taken into consideration and it is still not available for every single breed. But it gives you so much more information than you had before.”

“Where I think we could be more innovative is on the financial side, and the ability to commercialise weather risk at wholesale rates for weather derivatives or weather certificates.”

XAVIER MARTIN, NSW Farmers President and grain farmer

The sweet spot in your soil

Dr Lindsay Bell, a principal research scientist at the CSIRO’s agriculture and food program, is conducting a series of long-term experiments on different cropping strategies at seven different grain farms across northern NSW and southern Queensland.

“One of the key things we have learned is that knowing the amount of water in your soil should be a critical element of decision-making for your cropping system,” he says.

“If a crop does not have enough moisture available in the soil, it will not convert that water very efficiently into grain. In other words, you need a minimum amount of soil water to successfully turn water into grain. So, if our certainty of getting rain in the next season is going down, it gets far more important to understand how much water is in the soil before we plant a crop.”

There are several ways farmers can measure soil moisture, Lindsay says, starting with simple DIY probes and apps that can give you a “good” measure, to more sophisticated sensing technologies that are installed permanently or specialist service providers who visit your farm and present detailed reports.

The challenge for most farmers, Lindsay explains, is to get more water into their soil. You can’t achieve that by pumping water into it: “The only way to accumulate soil moisture is to follow your soil with the residue of your last crop for longer periods – but not for too long.

Our research shows there’s a sweet spot. If you fallow for too long and wait for a great deal of water to accumulate, the result will be less efficient and you lose moisture to evaporation. But if you are too aggressive with your planting, the result will be less efficient as well. It’s about finding the sweet spot and most of our research shows you need 100mm to 150mm of soil moisture for most crops. Summer crops are at the top of that range – you want 150mm for wheat, and around 100mm is around the right height.

“Ultimately it’s about understanding how much moisture is in your soil before you plant, and creating a reservoir of soil moisture you can bank on that is less vulnerable to seasonal conditions like drought,” Lindsay says.

An online crystal ball

“We know farmers can’t prepare for everything, but we also know it’s more likely to be drier than average in South Australia in the future. By preparing for drought, you are stacking the odds in your favour,” Dr Graham Bonnett, interim leader of the CSIRO’s Drought Resilience Mission.

Graham has spent much of the past two years overseeing the development of Climate Services for Agriculture – a new online tool that allows farmers to ‘explore their climate future’. A prototype is already live at climateservicesforag.indraweb.io/explore.

“It’s a way for farmers to look ahead at what the future may bring by showing representations of future climate predictions under various scenarios,” he explains.

“And we’ve designed it in such a way so that you can look at particular aspects of the climate in their locality and see how it might their enterprise.

“It also shows historical weather patterns for the last two 30-year periods. So, if you are growing wheat, you can see how rainfall has changed in the past and how it might change in the future. And it’s not just for crops but for animals, too.”

Graham also spoke of an interesting new drought solution called water banking.

“We’re working with scientists at various demonstration sites across northern NSW to see if this is a good way to manage drought,” he says. “The idea is to take water in wet years when it is in abundance and store it underground.

“One of the main reasons it hasn’t been done in Australia yet,” he says, “is legislation. In NSW, above-ground and below-ground water are managed separately, so you may not have the rights to it if it’s underground. It’s one of the many things that needs
to be worked on.”

Graham has a final piece of sound advice: “Our predictions may not be right every season, but they’ll be right the majority of the time. That means if you plan accordingly, you’ll end up making the right decisions most of the time.”

Betting on the weather

NSW Farmers President and Mullaley grain farmer Xavier Martin said farmers have learned to be more innovative in drought preparedness on the farm, thanks to the work of research groups like the CSIRO.

“Farmers have had to get better at it, not only to sustain their family businesses but to meet societies expectations that our herds and flocks will be fed,” Xavier said.

“We are volunteers in the landscape. We are trying to harness the weather and the soil to produce food and clothing, and we do a very good job at that.

“Where I think we could be more innovative is on the financial side, and the ability to commercialise weather risk at wholesale rates for weather derivatives or weather certificates.”

Weather derivatives are financial products that derive their values from other more basic variables, such as temperature, precipitation, wind, heating degree days and cooling degree days.

They differ from insurance, in that insurance requires a demonstration of loss, whereas weather derivatives require no demonstration of loss, but rather provide protection from the uncertainty in normal weather or climate.

Xavier said they effectively transfer risk from those who are involuntarily exposed to unwanted risk to those who voluntarily trade in risk management.

“Whether you are growing grapes, milking cows or harvesting a sunflower crop, you can tailor your weather risk.”

“While current retail options might not look like they are cost effective, there are options to promote a wholesale scheme for nation like Australia that has dry risk.”

Weathering the storm

Farmers President and Mullaley grain farmer Xavier Martin says that farmers have learned to be more innovative in frought preparedness thanks to research groups like the CSIRO: “Whether you are growing grapes, milking cows or harvesting a sunflower crop, you can tailor your weather risk.”

The post Preparing for the next drought appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

This brave act spoke volumes about the defiance of the Ukrainian people and the hell they were about to unleash on the Russian invaders, who thought they would overtake the country in a matter of days.

It also highlighted the iconic status of sunflowers – soniashnyk in Ukrainian – that have been farmed commercially in Ukraine since the 18th Century and are the country’s unofficial symbol. When Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation in 1996, the defence ministers of both countries and the US planted sunflowers at the country’s largest missile base. And the Ukrainian flag? It represents a blue sky over a yellow sunflower field.

More than a symbol

Sunflowers are crucial in fuelling Ukraine’s economy, while Ukrainian sunflowers, in turn, help fuel the world. Before the war, the country produced one-third of the global sunflower oil supply and two-thirds of sunflower meal, a key input for animal feed.

But the invasion threw a spanner into the trade and sent the price of sunflower products – already inflated by Covid-19 supply chain issues – to the moon.

A month before the Russian invasion last year, sunflower oil was trading for US$1,348 per tonne, according to Trading Economics. Four months later, it hit a historical high of US$2,400 per tonne – spurring speculation that farmers in Australia, the 44th largest exporter of sunflower seeds in the world, could capitalise on the event.

Sunflowers have been grown in Australia since 1974 and cover 3,000 hectares of agricultural land, primarily in northern NSW and southern Queensland but also in irrigation areas in southern NSW, the Riverina in Victoria as well as the Ord River catchment area of Western Australia.

But the sunflower industry boom never transpired here.

Boom or bust

“It was the wrong time in the year for us,” says Nick Goddard, CEO of the Australian Oilseeds Federation. “Sunflowers are planted at the start of the summer, so we missed the boat to capitalise on the immediate global shortage and price bump. As the year went on, the Ukrainians were able to export the seed by land after the ports closed, so the huge deficit in sunflower oil has somewhat been eased.”

This was obvious at the Isaccea-Orlivka crossing on the Romanian-Ukrainian border last year in June, where a kilometres-long queue of trucks waited to cross into Romania. Drivers had been waiting up to 10 days, and they were angry.

Another reason why the Australian sunflower industry boom never happened, Nick explains, is “large plantings of sunflower crops in Europe. Their summer starts in April or May, so they were well positioned to take up some of that buffer.

“Then there’s the fact that it’s a big challenge for growers in Australia to find someone to process their seeds into oil because there’s not a single dedicated sunflower crusher in the country; they’re all tooled for canola oil because it’s grown here so abundantly in our country.

“Some of the crushers did the numbers earlier on in the year but found out it wasn’t viable, even when the price for sunflower oil was so high. And by October or November, the start of the planting season, the huge price premium had diminished,”

Nick adds. “So, by the end of the year, we saw a pretty much typical sunflower crop in Australia.”

Global prices for sunflower oil have continued to fall, to the chagrin of the sunflower industry, losing another US$195 a tonne or 15 per cent in value between the start of 2023 and mid-February 2023.

Trading Economics estimates the trend will continue, with the price nearing US$1,000 per tonne by the end of the year.

Sunflower industry responds with tourism

There has, however, been one small but noteworthy change to the sunflower industry sector in Australia – a response to the thousands of tourists who trespassed on sunflower fields late last year to snap photos of the bright yellow flowers for their social media feeds. Instead of calling the cops or shooing photo hunters away, some farmers turned the problem on its head by remodelling their sunflower fields into agritourism businesses.

“There are so many people who want to come and see sunflowers, but the last thing any farmer wants is to have people near their crops because of damage and the biosecurity risk,” says Roger Woods of Warraba Sunflowers.

“So, we put two and two together and a couple of years ago planted a crop specifically to let people come and interact with them. It’s $10 for adults, $5 for teenagers and kids under five are free.”

The post The sunflower boom that never happened appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Today, Sri Lanka’s economy is in a freefall and inflation is out of control. Food costs 80 per cent more than it did a year ago. Nine out of 10 Sri Lankan families are skipping meals, according to the UN World Food Program, and half a million people have sunk back into poverty.

How did it all get to this?

It’s a long and sad story. It starts when terrorists set off a bomb in April 2019 in the capital Colombo, killing 290 people and kneecapping tourism, which until then had accounted for 12 per cent of GDP and employed 400,000 people.

A few weeks later, disgraced former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa won a landslide election on the back of outrage over the attacks and a populist agenda that included the biggest tax cuts in Sri Lankan history, as well as grandiose promises to provide Sri Lankans with chemical-free food.

The tax cuts went ahead in the same year, forcing a government that was already billions of dollars in the red to borrow more money at higher and higher rates of interest. Then Covid-19 happened and Sri Lanka’s tourism industry, which had only started to recover from the 2019 terror attack, vanished.

Nevertheless, with all this upheaval going on, Rajapaksa announced a nationwide ban on the import and use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides in April. Six weeks later it went into play despite research by Verité Research, a think tank in Colombo, that showed only 20 per cent of the nation’s two million farmers had access to suitable organic fertiliser alternatives and knew how to properly use them.

A miracle of science

To understand the gravity of Rajapaksa’s decision, one first needs to understand the great transformative effect synthetic fertilisers have had on the world.

Until the early 1900s, nine out of 10 workers tilled the soil to survive. There was no other way. That all changed after German scientists figured out how to synthesise ammonia, the basis for synthetic fertiliser, from thin air.

Synthetic fertilisers helped send crop yields to the moon and gave birth to modern food systems. Hundreds of millions of workers shifted from farming to manufacturing and service industries that offered higher incomes and a better quality of life than farming. In turn, this mass urbanisation gave birth to the middle class and all its trappings, including things like modern food systems, universal education and healthcare.

But like the combustion engine, light bulb and other great transformative technologies, ammonia synthesis proved a double-edged sword. Manufacturing the chemical consumes 2 per cent of the world’s energy while its application accounts for 1.8 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions.

But the cost of suddenly banning synthetic fertilisers in a country dependent on them and replacing them entirely with organic manure is quite calculable. In an open letter to Rajapaksa dated June 30 and signed by 30 of Sri Lanka’s most prominent scientists and agronomical experts, they warned the move would reduce yields of crops bred for responsiveness to synthetic fertilisers to 50 per cent, down by 20 per cent.

“There is special concern about the potential impact on rice and tea, one a staple food and the other a very important foreign exchange earner of the country.”

Open letter to President Rajapaska from 30 of Sri Lanka’s scientists and agronomic experts.

Data released by Sri Lanka’s Central Bank in October of last year showed those calculations were correct. Within six months, rice production dropped by 20 per cent. A one-time rice exporter, Sri Lanka suddenly had to find half a billion dollars to import rice every year. Yields for tea, Sri Lanka’s biggest and richest export, fell 18 per cent, an annual loss of another half a billion dollars.

Organic farming does have a place

Sri Lanka is a country whose name is synonymous with tea growers. Tea was the island’s biggest export in 2019, bringing in more than $1.5 billion per year in foreign currency.

There were tens of thousands of tea growers but only one was organically certified: Hethersett Estate, a 10-hectare property set in the country’s lush southern highlands that has produced “tea of the finest pedigree” since 1873. The estate also has an old-fashioned luxury hotel, the Heritage Tea Factory, where wealthy tourists pay to spend an hour or so picking tea in beautiful green rolling hills before retiring to a drawing room with period furniture to sip tea and eat cucumber sandwiches.

Even now, in the worst economic downturn in the country’s history, Hethersett Estate is in the black. Its longevity shows how organic farming can work – but only as a niche within a larger agrochemical food system.

Globally, organic farming plays a significant role in two key agricultural niches that lie at opposite ends of the world’s economy.

The first are the 700 million-odd subsistence farmers who use organic fertilisers and kitchen waste simply because they can’t afford or get access to synthetic fertilisers.

The second and growing market includes more affluent consumers of organically certified produce as a lifestyle choice tied up with information about its health and environmental benefits.

The global organic food market size was valued at USD 178.4 billion in 2021 and is expected to be worth around USD 497.3 billion by 2030.

The Australian organic food industry is also on the rise. According to the Australian Organic Market Report 2021, that estimated the retail value of the organic market to be at least $2.3 billion. Australia has seen a compound annual growth rate of 13 per cent since 2012, with the number of certified organic operations increasing by 38 per cent since 2011.

Consumer demand for organic food is growing at a rate of 20 to 30 per cent per year. It is estimated that more than 6 out of every 10 Australian households now buy organic foods on occasion. Popular products include fruit and vegetables, beef, non-alcoholic drinks, nuts and ready-to-eat foods.

Back in Sri Lanka

The Verité Research survey found that 64 per cent of Sri Lankan farmers supported a transition to organic farming. But they expected government support to ease the effects of the switch for at least two years, and they never expected a ban on synthetic fertilisers would be applied with only six weeks’ notice. During the 2019 electoral campaign, Rajapaksa spoke of phasing out synthetic fertilisers incrementally over 10 years.

So why did the former president rush the ban through? Critics say it was to help patch holes in the budget he had created through his lavish tax cuts with the half a billion dollars the government was spending on subsidies for synthetic fertilisers.

By July, Sri Lankans had had enough of Rajapaksa. They stormed his mansion, forcing him to flee to Singapore. A human rights group is trying to have him arrested now for economic mismanagement and war crimes linked to the Sri Lankan civil war that ended in 2009. The former charges are more relevant but the latter have more teeth and could be Rajapaksa’s final undoing.

A new government has been named and is working to clean up the mess that’s been left behind. India has extended a line of credit of $75 million so the country can start buying synthetic fertilisers again. Farmers are receiving small cash handouts to compensate them for their losses last year. Soldiers have been gang-pressed to work on farms and government employees now have four extra days off per year to grow their own food at home. Every little bit will help. But with a mess this big, Sri Lanka is going to need a long time to recover.

If you would like to read more international features like this one, you might want to read our story on how farmers in Ukraine are dealing with the invasion.

The post How Sri Lanka crippled its farming industry appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.