“It’s good for the deer. It’s good for the trees. And it’s free food.”

That’s Jeremy Clarkson justifying the hunting of wild deer on his 400ha Oxfordshire farm, Diddly Squat, as one of his “farming the unfarmed” schemes.

Clarkson says his farm has become overrun with deer, which caused enormous damage to young trees and that he, along with other farmers, had been asked by the UK Government to reduce their numbers. Enlisting the help of the British Deer Society to humanely hunt deer on the farm, he then turns his kill into venison hotdogs for sale at the Diddly Squat farm shop.

Elsewhere on the farm, he forages for blackberries to make jam and nettles to make soup in his mission to unlock the potential of half his farm. An old war bunker is transformed into a mushroom growing tunnel, Clarkson moves his free-range pigs into the woodlands, and he buys goats to control woody weeds.

While the nettle soup idea turns out to be a disaster, the free-range pigs and Lion’s Mane mushrooms prove to be profitable, and Clarkson has since joined calls for venison to be put on UK school menus.

Your average Australian farmer does not have an unused bunker for growing mushrooms or have the financial resources of Clarkson, but the need to diversify a farm business to make it viable is relatable.

Native foods and botanicals, for example, are a growing niche market, that some farmers in NSW have tapped into on their unfarmed land. Strawberry gum, lemon myrtle, anise myrtle, and wattleseed are all now hot items for distilleries to add unique Australian flavours to gins and other spirits.

Clarkson says it was lot of hard work, but farming the unfarmed did prove profitable.

The Clarkson’s Farm series is an honest portrayal of life for British farmers, and its limits of regulatory red tape, input costs, weather and farm profitability would ring a bell for Australian farmers.

Diddly Squat’s traditional cropping operations also made a profit, however Clarkson’s consultant, ‘Cheerful’ Charlie, takes all profits to buy seed and fertiliser for the following year, leading Clarkson to sum up the realities of running a farm as a business.

“I’m in the fortunate position of having other income streams,” the TV veteran says. “But if you’re a normal farmer and this is your full time and only job and you get two years when you don’t make any money, you’re screwed.”

• Read more: Biosecurity Commissioner to be appointed in 2024

Bringing venison to the menu

An estimated two million deer roam the British countryside, which is roughly the same as the feral deer population in NSW and Victoria.

Clarkson has been widely applauded by UK farmers and land managers for shining a light on the environmental impact of wild deer and the potential for producing a feral animal food product.

NSW Farmers similarly won broad support for an advocacy campaign that led to the removal of the protection status for deer in 2019. That allowed hunters in NSW to shoot deer, with landowner permission, on private land and send carcasses to licensed abattoirs for processing.

While COVID-19 restaurant lockdowns slowed wild venison’s uptake, an increasing number of chefs are putting it on the menu and championing it as a sustainable protein source.

“Australia has a unique scenario where we have millions of invasive deer causing harm that are incredibly nutritious and delicious to eat. Farmers want to see them removed just as much as conservationists do,” says Discovered Wildfoods Cofounder Tara Medina.

Discovered Wildfoods were one the first businesses to supply wild caught venison following the regulation changes and have taken and whole of supply chain approach to getting it on restaurant tables.

They process up to 5000 wild caught Sambar deer a year at two facilities in Albury and Beechworth in Victoria and work closely with professional hunters to harvest animals from private land.

“We would like to grow that number significantly because the latest estimate in Victoria alone is that there is over a million feral deer,” Tara said.

“90 per cent of our customers are in the food service sector, but the goal is to eventually have venison available as an affordable product at supermarkets for the wider consumer.

“It’s awesome to get recognition from chefs, but it’s a bigger accomplishment to get people to cook it at home and be excited by it, not intimidated by it. “

Tara, who is based in the Northern Rivers, said they focus exclusively on Sambar deer, meaning the only harvest area NSW is the southeast region.

“We think it’s the best eating venison and we set up a network of harvesters who are properly equipped to deal with a heavier animal. Fallow deer, which are more common in the rest of NSW and Queensland, are a lot lighter and lot gamier,” she said.

“A Sambar deer can be up to 250 kilograms and have more closer meat quality to beef. The number one hurdle you have to overcome is people perception of game meat.

“Venison from Sambar deer is a red meat protein source that is unrecognisable in terms of gameness.”

Tara said they get a 40 per cent carcass yield on human consumption cuts and the remaining bone and offal is used in the petfood industry.

The post Farming the unfarmed appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

NSW Farmers has welcomed the latest National Grain Freight Strategy, which promises a realistic and workable road map for the government to improve Australia’s position in the global market.

The GrainGrowers strategy, launched last week, aimed to boost the productivity and efficiency of the supply chain, reducing costs and providing savings for Australian growers.

According to GrainGrowers, a record winter crop production of 65.7 million tonnes was moved from paddocks across regional Australia in 2022-23, by either road or rail to port for export or to domestic markets. The expense of moving grain was the single largest cost of production, according to CSIRO modelling, which highlighted transport costs of $2.1 billion per annum.

GrainGrowers Chair Rhys Turton said Australia’s ability to compete on the global stage was not just determined by what farmers grew, but also how efficiently and effectively they could get their grain to market.

 “For context, prior to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both countries’ production costs were $70-$120 AUD less than Australia’s,” Mr Turton said.

A report titled “Connecting the Dots”, commissioned by GrainGrowers, identified crucial points in the supply chain. In the wake of the report, more than 40 stakeholders were consulted to gain extra input into the issues. Mr Turton said collaborating with industry stakeholders and policymakers meant they were working towards a more efficient and resilient grain supply chain.

“While growers were at the heart of the strategy, with a key focus on the issues that impacted transporting grain off-farm such as local roads and bridges, it was vital the approach reflected the views of the broader supply chain,” he said.

According to NSW Farmers Grains Committee Chair Justin Everitt, it was an issue that farmers and the Grains Research Development Corp (GRDC) had been hoping to resolve.

“It’s definitely an issue that NSW Farmers and GRDC has been pushing for a very long time, especially with our call for an ACCC investigation of the grain supply chain. So, we have been advocating for this, and it is great to see GrainGrowers taking action,” Mr Everitt said.

“More players in the game means more competition, and that is always beneficial. It ultimately puts more money back into growers’ pockets, which is something we definitely want to see.”

The action plan

The framework of the strategy was based on the following goals:

•     Promote competition and attract new entrants to the supply chain;
•     Expand scalable capacity within the supply chain;
•     Simplify and harmonise regulations;
•     Strengthen supply chain resilience;
•     Foster new technologies and innovation;
•     Improve freight sustainability.

The new approach was seen as a solid action plan centred on road funding, road regulation, bridges, rail, ports, and freight decarbonisation. It also detailed collaborative methods for government and industry stakeholders, ensuring Australia’s grain supply chain kept its global competitiveness.

When it came to new technologies and innovation in the industry, Mr Everitt said technological advancements were always welcome; however, the focus had to be on addressing the existing issues first, particularly in freight.

 “For example, our roads need significant improvements. There is no point in having advanced new equipment if our roads are just going to damage it,” Mr Everitt said.

“Road funding and regulation are crucial. We need a well-maintained national road system, especially in regional and rural areas where councils can’t keep up with maintenance.

“The major highways might have been okay, but often the last few kilometres to the farm gate can be the worst part of your drive. Recently, my last 15km drive in the truck was so rough, I had to hold on with both hands. It was a rough ride.”

Key Components

The action plan’s key components addressed issues including:

Road funding: Immediate actions included developing state-based grain freight strategies, increasing funding for the Roads to Recovery Program, allocating funds to critical grain freight routes through the Infrastructure Investment Program, and prioritising the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy within the National Cabinet.

Road regulation: The adoption of High Productivity Freight Vehicles (HPFV) was hindered by inadequate regulations and lengthy permit processes. Immediate actions included streamlining HPFV regulations, improving safety, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and providing more resources to local councils for road access decisions.

Bridges: Ageing bridge infrastructure hindered HPFV operation, with many councils unable to afford replacements, imposing load limits. Immediate action was needed to fund bridge upgrades on high-volume routes and provide targeted funding for cross-border bridges.

Rail: Improving rail grain freight reduced carbon emissions and efficiently transported grain long distances. Immediate actions included funding upgrades for critical rail freight corridors, aligning rolling stock access agreements, auditing infrastructure standards for standardisation and expansion, and co-funding industry upgrades for rail sidings and loading capacity.

Ports: A well-functioning port system was vital for exporting grain internationally, but Australian ports faced significant challenges due to trade growth. Immediate needs included a nationally coordinated approach to port regulation for improved consistency and coordination and government monitoring of port productivity.

Freight decarbonisation: Australian grain freight required a nationally coordinated and phased transition to low-emission pathways. Immediate steps included implementing a National Transport and Infrastructure Net Zero Roadmap and Action Plan, incorporating decarbonisation into the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy, developing a National Modal Shift Scheme to boost rail freight for grain, and exploring domestic production of canola-based biofuels.

Mr. Everitt commended GrainGrowers for doing a good job in addressing the key issues.

“It is a good pathway forward, but our wish list would probably never end. The grain industry has fallen so far behind that it will take a long time to catch up,” Mr Everitt said.

If you enjoyed reading about the National Grain Freight Strategy, you may like to read about new safety guidelines for livestock transport.

The post NSW Farmers welcomes National Grain Freight Strategy appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) has introduced new regulatory advice to improve safety in Australia’s livestock transport sector. The initiative aimed to clear up confusion within the livestock supply chain by clearly defining responsibilities and boosting the overall safety and efficiency of the agricultural industry.

Unlike other transport sectors, the livestock industry was very complex and operated with a high degree of informality, often relying on ad-hoc agreements based on long-standing working relationships.

The scheduling for livestock transport was often dictated by last-minute bookings and deadlines for sales or abattoir operations, creating a dynamic and sometimes chaotic working environment.

Drivers and other industry participants often performed multiple roles under challenging conditions. For example, they regularly spent extra hours on chores such as cleaning stock crates of effluent for biosecurity, animal welfare, and road safety. There was also the regular need to queue for wash bays, causing excessive delays that seriously impacted drivers’ wellbeing by cutting into their work – as well as their rest – time.

Proper preparation, safe transport, loading, unloading, and management of livestock during transit necessitated the collaboration of multiple parties, each offering specific services or workers with specialised skills.

NHVR’s Chief Safety and Productivity Officer David Hourigan acknowledged the livestock industry as being highly unique, as well as “dynamic.”

“Scheduling is often dictated by immediate needs like upcoming sales or abattoir scheduling,” Mr Hourigan said.

“There are additional challenges, like the need for thorough cleaning of stock crates, which not only affects biosecurity and animal welfare but can also contribute to significant delays for drivers, impacting their rest and overall fatigue management.”

In 2022, the NHVR began a review of the state-based heavy vehicle livestock loading arrangements to find opportunities to minimise the compliance burden on livestock transportation. The review also aimed to simplify cross-border transport and improve last-mile access on local government roads, and improve safety, productivity and efficiency for the livestock transportation industry.

On the back of this review, the new regulatory advice had been designed to bridge these gaps and make sure everyone involved in the process – from primary producers to transport operators to facility owners to stock agents – were fully aware of their responsibilities.

It was believed the new regulatory guidance would improve safety and clarify the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) primary duty and Chain of Responsibility (CoR), focused on specific topics or industry sectors.

NSW Farmers Policy Advisor David Tregenza said the new regulatory guidance was a positive move.

“This advice represents a positive move in establishing a framework that will clear up confusion in the livestock supply chain by making it clear where the responsibility lies and who has responsibilities for important items such as biosecurity and others.”

David Tregenza,NSW Farmers Policy Advisor

“The regulations will undoubtedly help improve the overall safety and efficiency of the agricultural industry.”

The NHVR’s Regulatory Advice provided critical information to assist the livestock industry in several areas:

• Clarifying who within the livestock industry is a party in the CoR and what they need to do to meet their HVNL obligations.
• Understanding the risks associated with livestock transport activities.
• Identifying how collaboration between CoR parties can help manage risks.
• Understanding what each CoR party should do to manage risks.
• Ensuring that each party is doing everything reasonably practicable to maintain safety.

The NHVR Regulatory Advice also provided helpful educational material intended to raise awareness among livestock industry workers who might be unaware that their actions or inactions could affect the safety of livestock transport.

For more information visit: https://www.nhvr.gov.au

If you enjoyed this piece, you may like to read about how the Future Gas Strategy will reduce global emissions.

The post New safety guidelines for livestock transport appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

NSW Farmers has expressed disappointment with the 2024 Federal Budget, revealing a continued shortfall in necessary funding to support rural industries across the state. 

Among the biggest concerns were the increasing costs and production challenges facing landholders, which the budget did not adequately address. While farmers were supportive of improving traceability, they needed federal funding to avoid bearing the financial burden of following traceability reforms for sheep and goats.

Overall, there wasn’t a huge amount of good news in the budget; here’s a look at the “wins and losses.”

Wins:

The Future Drought Fund was a welcome investment into a variety of programs to increase the resilience of farmers during drought, even if the $519 million price tag wasn’t all new money. 

NSW Farmers acknowledged any measures to improve the productivity of agriculture during challenging climatic conditions was a good move.

But according to NSW Farmers Economist Samuel Miller, the downside was the funding was spread out across several years. 

“While it sounds like a lot of money, the Australian Government is allocating that money over eight years, which spreads that out over a fairly long period of time,” Mr Miller said.

“It’s good to have a consistent stream of funding to build up resilience to droughts and other challenging climactic conditions over time. But spreading out the funds is problematic because we know that droughts can happen at almost any time. We don’t know if the next drought is going to be in one year, or two years, or three years’ time.”

A Future Made in Australia

Another win for farmers was the Australian Government’s $22.7 billion “Future Made in Australia” package. There was a focus on strengthening the approvals process to assist energy transition and smooth the interactions with landholders and stakeholders in regional communities affected by that energy transition.

Mr Miller said a multitude of problems had arisen with energy companies eager to transition the economy to net zero.

“In the same breath, energy companies have occasionally stepped on the toes of landholders, which causes problems in communities. It causes frictions and, inevitably, it ends up getting in the way of that transition to net zero,” Mr Miller said.

“So, the government recognising that this is a problem and actually putting funding towards it, through strengthening the approvals process, is a good move.”

Instant Asset Write-Off

The instant asset write-off for small businesses was extended by 12 months to June 2025. And while multiple assets could be claimed, the maximum amount per asset was $20,000 – hardly enough to buy a ute, let alone a tractor. This could lead to farmers seeing fairer prices at the farm gate if the government stuck to its promise about competition reform. However, this was a minor satisfaction compared to the incredibly unfair market power and increasing challenges faced by landholders. 

Losses:

When it came to losses, the 2024 Federal Budget made no secret it prioritised the Australian Government’s fiscal health over the financial wellbeing of farmers, leaving them at a disadvantage.

Biosecurity

In last year’s budget, the government indicated it would fund biosecurity reforms through a levy on farmers. According to Mr Miller, the Productivity Commission had said the government was relying too heavily on levies, particularly in agriculture.

“There has been a proliferation of levies that have increased over time. For example, for research and development purposes that directly benefit the agricultural industry. That’s fair – but where you have a levy which is essentially a tax on the people who are being impacted by the risks from biosecurity, with incursions imported from overseas, that flies in the face of the “polluter pays” principle,” Mr Miller said. 

“In other words, the principle that the people who are generating the risks really should be the ones who are bearing the costs for that risk, not the people who are impacted by that risk.”

Mr Miller said the Australian Government did not appear to consider the fact that protecting Australia from biosecurity threats didn’t just improve conditions for farmers.

“Rather, it improves the conditions for everybody in the agricultural supply chain, between the farmer and the consumer themselves. So, it’s clearly unfair to just be nailing farmers to protect Australia from biodiversity incursions,” he said.

Mergers and Acquisitions

In relation to competition reform, the Australian Government seemed to have paid attention to the recent issues of market power imbalances raised by NSW Farmers, including the ACCC inquiries into issues surrounding the supermarket supply chain.

The 2024 Federal Budget revealed a provision of $13.9 million for reforms to address Australia’s current merger controls, the scope of the competition review, and other items to address competition. 

But, according to Mr Miller, this fell short of what farmers wanted to see.

“We do welcome the funds for the reforms. However, it’s not necessarily the strong actions that we’d like to see with respect to legislative reform of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct and for the ACCC to actually address issues of market concentration,” Mr Miller said.

“While this funding is welcome, it doesn’t necessarily go to the root causes of market concentration in supermarkets.” 

Infrastructure

The government had set out a substantial infrastructure pipeline of $120 billion for the next decade. Specifically, $101.9 million was designated for upgrading regional airports, and $40 million was set aside for implementing community wi-fi in regional and remote areas.

However, the 2024 Federal Budget offered little support to address critical issues, including rural roads and bridges which were in dire need of repair – effectively failing rural communities.

Other 2024 Federal Budget losses for farmers

Farmers were still at a disadvantage as the 2024 Federal Budget focused heavily on households in the cities, Mr Miller said, and what was missing from the budget was an investment in the future productivity of agriculture. 

“The Australian Government has prioritised the Nature Positive Plan, climate initiatives, and the Future Made in Australia initiatives, but didn’t put much money towards the food grown in Australia in the future,” Mr Miller said. 

“There is $1.5 million to improve existing arrangements for plant-based products and $1 million to attract graduates to work into agriculture. These are important issues. But will it shift the dial and increase the productivity of Australian farmers? Unfortunately, not really.” 

For the latest in biosecurity news, avian influenza has resulted in half a million chickens being culled in Victoria and WA.

The post 2024 Federal Budget fails to deliver for farmers appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Two outbreaks of avian influenza on Victorian poultry farms have farmers on alert. The two detections – at Avgo Eggs in Meredith and Surf Coast Eggs in Terang – have resulted in more than 500,000 birds destroyed to contain the spread.  

The H7N3 strain, a highly pathogenic version of bird flu, was initially detected at Avgo Eggs on May 22. This strain is the most commonly occurring variant in Australia.

Following the Avgo Eggs outbreak, as part of standard biosecurity measures, Agriculture Victoria began monitoring the owner’s other farm, Surf Coast Eggs, near Terang, where a different strain of the virus was discovered – H7N9.

To prevent further transmission, a 5km restricted area was established around the Meredith property, while a 1.5km exclusion zone was placed around the Terang site. Movement of poultry and equipment was strictly regulated and only allowed by authorised personnel.

Additional movement controls and surveillance were being enforced within a 15km radius of the properties, with permits required for transporting poultry, poultry products, and equipment.

This marks the ninth recorded outbreak of avian influenza in Australian poultry farms. The last outbreak occurred in Victoria four years ago, originating at a farm in the state’s west, while NSW has been free from the disease for more than a decade.

All poultry and bird owners were urged to adhere to biosecurity practices, including maintaining cleanliness in poultry sheds, yards, and equipment, and minimising contact between poultry and wild birds.

Meanwhile, a low pathogenic H9N2 strain was detected in WA last Thursday. The WA Department of Primary Industries confirmed this strain was not the more serious H5 high pathogenicity avian influenza associated with disease in poultry overseas – nor was it the H7 high pathogenicity avian flu currently being managed in Victoria. 

The WA and Victorian cases were not believed to be linked.

NSW Farmers Poultry Meat Manager Dave Banham said it was important to remember that there was no need for alarm and to seek advice from the experts.  

“Avian flu has been handled in Australia before. When I came to NSW Farmers in 2012 as a Regional Services Manager I had some experience with bird flu, just watching from the sidelines as one of our members went through the issue,” Mr Banham said.

“It’s an infectious disease. So, you need to be on the lookout for any of the signs and symptoms of bird flu, such as they become lethargic, they don’t eat or drink much, or if they’re unusually quiet. If you’ve got egg layers, and there are changes in the eggs, such as pale shells, or there might be changes to their appearance, such as changes to their heads or combs. Or that they actually look unwell. Those are the signs to look out for.

“Of course, if the birds start dying, that’s a significant warning sign. Essentially, any change in the birds should be noted.”

Mr Banham said if anyone noticed anything unusual about their flock, the best course of action was to contact the emergency animal disease hotline or Local Land Services. 

“These agencies are well-equipped to handle such situations. It’s better to be cautious and report any suspicions, similar to the early days of COVID-19,” Mr Banham said.

“For farmers and backyard poultry keepers, maintaining biosecurity is crucial. This includes entry and exit logs, wheel washing facilities, foot baths, and rodent control measures. Poultry farmers are typically good at managing these protocols.

“For backyard poultry, it’s essential to wear different boots and wash clothes before checking the birds to prevent any potential spread of the virus. Controlling an outbreak in backyard poultry would be much harder.

“Overall, our message to farmers is to stay alert but not alarmed. If you’re even slightly worried, contact the emergency animal disease hotline. Keep an eye out for any changes in your flock’s health, such as a decline in feed and water consumption and quieter behaviour.”

If you are concerned about your birds, you can notify by phoning your private veterinarian; the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline on 1800 675 888 (monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week); or your Local Land Services District Veterinarian on 1300 795 299.

For more on biosecurity, read about Australia’s new landmark biosecurity initiative here.

The post Avian Influenza outbreak sees half a million chickens culled appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Four years after The Farmer exposed unfair market conditions most chicken meat farmers still have zero processor competition and zero bargaining power, but the push for fairer market conditions has gained momentum in recent months. 

It’s coming in the form of strong advocacy for a Mandatory Code of Conduct from NSW Farmers, supported by the National Farmers Federation (NFF) and the Australian Chicken Growers Council(ACGC). 

The NFF completed a year-long investigation into the poultry meat sector in April that revealed a widespread lack of market transparency, misuse of market power and economic harm within the poultry meat supply chain.

Much of the investigative work was done by NSW Farmers Poultry Meat Manager David Banham, who spoke to about 150 farmers at workshops across the country and received a further 216 responses to a survey.

The message from farmers was clear: there was little to no choice in processors, growing contract terms were unfair, and there was a deliberate undermining of collective bargaining efforts. 

“There was clear evidence from farmers that there is an inequity in the system,” David said. 

The research project, funded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), concluded that the Australian Government must implement a mandatory code similar to one introduced in the dairy industry. 

“Administered by the ACCC, the code will provide a regulatory framework that provides confidence and fair trading in the poultry meat supply chain and will support best-practice policy and regulation for growers and processors,” NFF CEO Tony Maher said.

Parts of the project’s final report mirrored findings from the ACCC’s Perishable Agricultural Goods Inquiry in 2020, which highlighted significant concerns about practices in the Australian poultry meat supply chain.

Only one processor – Inghams – accepted the NFF’s invitation to engage in the project. The major processors had been consistent in denying that price transparency between growers and processors was an issue and that a Mandatory Code of Conduct would be of benefit. The chicken meat processing sector’s peak body, the Australian Poultry Industry Association, agreed.

Farmers receive about 33 cents per kilogram to grow out chickens according to the ACGC – the national body for poultry meat farmers. A whole roast chicken from the supermarket, one of the lowest cost retail poultry options, cost about $7.27/kg (based on $12 for a 1.65kg chicken). So at best, growers were getting less than 2.7 per cent of the retail price.

“The reasons why growers want a Mandatory Code of Conduct are the same reasons dairy farmers did nine years ago, and that is they are utterly at the whim of the processor-supermarket consortium,” ACGC CEO Joanne Sillince said. 

“It’s even a bigger deal for poultry meat growers as dairy farmers at least had quite a few processors to sell to. In almost all cases, a chook farmer has only one processor to contract to. The only exceptions to that are southern Victoria and South Australia.” 

The publicly-listed Inghams Enterprises and the family-owned Baiada Poultry produce 70 per cent of Australia’s chicken. In NSW the market is dominated by Baiada and Cordina, which control predominately separate growing regions. 

“There is no question that a Mandatory Code of Conduct is likely to be the only way to engender fair negotiation and some transparency in the supply chain,” Sillince said.

“Having a Mandatory Code of Conduct does not mean you have to negotiate, but it does put enforceability around the negotiation, contracts and the outcome.

“It would give growers the support of the ACCC standing behind them with a very big stick to ensure negotiations were fair. It goes a long way to getting rid of the ‘take this price or else’ mentality.”

The ACGC did receive some feedback from growers who feared the potential for retribution from their processor and did not feel comfortable contributing to the NFF project.

“A Mandatory Code of Conduct would also change the interaction between the supermarkets and processors. For the first time, supermarkets will be able to see what farmers are getting paid,” Sillince said.

“The important part in the NFF report is that the supermarkets are backing a Mandatory Code of Conduct. The ACGC is heartened by the retailer response of offering to commit to a Mandatory Code of Conduct in this industry, and willingness to participate in a more transparent supply chain.”

The NFF’s final report on the project was provided to DAFF and Assistant Minister for Competition, Dr Andrew Leigh, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

From Junior Farmer to industry champion 

Lorraine Wilson’s entry into the poultry meat industry started 64 years ago with a NSW Junior Farmers project to grow out 100 chickens on the family farm at Kulnura. 

“I made 29 pounds and some shillings, and my father thought that wasn’t a bad return. We already had free range laying hens to mainly get rid of the weed problem, which they did,” she said.

Lorraine’s parents Ray and Joan Walpole, who were already growing vegetables, managing a young citrus orchard and producing free range eggs, took the bold step of investing in the first of three poultry meat sheds in 1959. 

Lorraine and her husband Rodger have continued the Wyuna Farms poultry meat venture to this day on the 19-hectare farm alongside son Greg and wife Kate. Five grandchildren also help out at different times and enjoy a farm full of activity.

“We’ve always diversified with three different income streams on the farm. It used to be tomatoes, citrus and layers and then it was citrus, layers and meat chickens. We got out of layers and replaced that with a landscape yard. 

“The last of the poultry meat sheds was built in 1994, allowing us to have up to 70,000 birds. The sheds and equipment have been upgraded many times especially in the good years and still perform well producing chickens that can get into the top quartile for quality in the contract pool.” 

Lorraine credits husband Rodger for much of the farm’s resilience to the challenges that have come to bear, such as the Newcastle disease outbreak in 1999 and a drop in farm gate prices for the citrus crop. 

“This farm would not have continued to this day if I had not married my Kiwi farmer. Rodger has played a huge part in the poultry meat business and managing the citrus orchard. He has also been active in the local NSW Farmers horticulture branch, the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary. Not bad for a former sheep and beef farmer in New Zealand.” 

Rodger moved to Kulnura in 1965 to help out on the farm when their workers left for high paying jobs on the M1 motorway construction.

“The next two decades were rewarding years of growth with meat chickens, layers and citrus. And we bought another 20-acre block to plant citrus. The farm provided for five families working and mostly living on Wyuna Farms. The citrus tree count reached 11,000 and we stopped growing tomatoes as a cash crop.” 

Lorraine said the family has not owned a commercial chicken meat chicken since the Junior Farmers project. 

“It’s always been a contract growing system for poultry meat farmers. It is quite unique for a farming operation to not own its stock.

“We have stuck with it because of the investment we have put into it, and it was a really good industry to be in.

“It started to go off a bit in the 1990s and now it’s not so hot, but we have a big investment in the sheds that can’t really be used for anything else. Our diversification plans were well in place before this and that has kept the farm going. 70,000 chickens these days is not enough for a liveable income.”

Lorraine said the rise of poultry meat to the top of the food chain for meat consumption has ironically been to the detriment of some smaller family farms. 

“In the days when we grew for Inghams, we were only allowed to have three sheds. Chicken meat started to get popular in the 1990s and the processors needed economies of scale to meet market demands and encouraged farmers to expand.” 

The Central Coast Plateau remains as one of five major poultry meat producing regions in NSW alongside Tamworth, Griffith, the Sydney Basin and the Hunter region.

Lorraine has been a champion for the poultry meat industry and local food production for decades and currently chairs the NSW Farmers Poultry Meat Committee. She first took up the mantle of representing the industry when Newcastle Disease hit the Central Coast region. 

Newcastle Disease reduced income for Wyuna Farms by around 90 per cent for nine months and it took more than a decade for the farm business to recover. 

“We had always been members of NSW Farmers, but the impact of Newcastle disease changed everything. I decided that we all needed to take some responsibility to help ourselves and I became active at that time.”

Lorraine takes the same view with addressing the issues of unfair contract terms, no processor competition and lack of transparency that were raised by farmers in the NFF project. 

“I just want to see the industry return to one that is successful for everyone in the supply chain, from the farm to the consumer. That’s what made it a good industry to be in and it could be again. We just need to make it attractive again as a family farming business.”

To read about the possibility of geothermal powered poultry meat, click here.

The post The fight for a mandatory poultry Code of Conduct 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.

A University of Adelaide study has revealed that high temperatures during key stages of sheep’s reproductive cycle could lead to a substantial reduction of approximately 2.1 million lambs born in Australia each year. This results in a financial setback of around $97 million annually.

It was discovered that temperatures exceeding 32°C during mating week significantly contributed to this notable decline in lamb births. The research indicates that should median global temperatures rise by 1°C, the deficit in lamb births could escalate to 2.5 million, and with a 3°C increase, the figure could soar to 3.3 million.

The effects of heat stress on sheep

The study, published in the journal Nature Food and supported by Meat and Livestock Australia, was carried out by a transdisciplinary team from the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Research Development Institute (SARDI).

Senior livestock reproduction researchers, climate scientists, and economists conducted an extensive literature review, examining previous research conducted regarding the effects of heat stress on sheep.

Climate modelling was conducted to determine the impacts of an increased thermal environment on the reproductive performance of ewes and rams under field and hot-room conditions.

According to the University of Adelaide’s Associate Professor William van Wettere, who led the study, this modelling demonstrates that heat events threaten the sustainability of sheep production, both within Australia and globally.

Not only does heat stress decrease the number of lambs born, but it can also reduce lamb birthweight by between 0.6–1.4kg.

“If the effects of birthweight are accounted for, economic losses could increase to $168 million under our current climate, and $203 million and $278 million for the 1°C and 3°C temperature scenarios, respectively.”

Associate Professor William van Wettere, University of Adelaide

The study, backed by the Davies Livestock Research Centre at the University and the South Australian Sheep Industry Fund, revealed that numerous sheep struggle with thermoregulation in times of heat.

“We have identified readily available strategies to improve thermoregulation and improve sheep fertility during summer. This work is underpinned by multiple years of animal heat stress trials,” Associate Professor van Wettere said.

Researchers at SARDI have developed a tool that producers can use to understand and quantify the impact of heat stress on fertility of their flock.

“We are interested to know whether sheep who seek shade or those who are more active during periods of heat are impacted differently,” says Associate Professor van Wettere.

“Ultimately, we seek to provide sheep farmers with strategies which they can easily implement to safeguard their enterprise from the impacts of current and future climate,” says Associate Professor van Wettere.

NSW Farmers Western Division chair Gerard Glover, who lives near Brewarrina, said any factors that cut lambing numbers back is a major concern.

“However, whether you can do anything about it depends on what your seasons are and how your yearly program runs. We find it easier to join around Christmas time, then we take the rams out at shearing which is mid-to-end of February,” Mr Glover said.

“Then they’ll lamb during winter because we find this is much easier on the lambs because, hopefully, there’s some green – but in the summer it’s much harder on the sheep especially if you’re having an average, or a bad season.”

Mr Glover said there are always several varying factors when it comes to lambing issues.

“When it comes to high temperatures, I don’t doubt that they have less chance of getting pregnant. When temperatures are more constant, they probably get used to it a little bit, instead of giant fluctuations which is probably worse. But, obviously, after  30-32°C we’d probably find the percentages start to drop.”

Mitigating factors

South Australian farmer Jane Kellock participated in the study and has already implemented some of its findings.

“The use of melatonin to mitigate the impacts of heat has increased our reproduction rates, and just being aware of the heat sensitivity of animals and some of the different things that you can do to help with that.”

Jane Kellock, sheep farmer

“It’s really important that we support these research projects and make sure that some of them are done on farms so that we know it’s practical and logistically viable to do these things.”

The researchers are now investigating whether selectively breeding animals which thermoregulate more effectively can improve the climate resilience of sheep flocks, and how sheep thermoregulation and behaviour affect fertility during periods of heat.

Dr Alyce Swinbourne, Senior Research Officer, Livestock Innovation and Welfare (Reproduction) at SARDI said following on from the review, trials have been developed (led by University of Adelaide) to determine the efficacy and applicability of different strategies which have the potential to reduce the impacts of heat stress on sheep reproduction.

“Through several different State, Commonwealth and Industry funding programs, we’ve been able to investigate the use of different strategies, such as a subcutaneous melatonin implants, or a multiple vitamin drench, administered to ewes and rams prior to joining, to improve conception rates during a late spring / summer joining period,” Dr Swinbourne said.

“Working with producers under different commercial enterprises and across different climate/rainfall zones across South Australia, we aim to inform producers on several different strategies to maximise the reproductive outcomes of their production systems during periods of heat.”  

If you enjoyed this piece on the effects of heat stress in lamb populations, you may like to read about the “Feedlot of the Future” being developed by Charles Sturt University.

The post Australia’s lamb population at risk of heat stress appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and Local Land Services (LLS) are urging farmers to stay vigilant after tick fever cases were found on cattle farms in northern NSW.

Laboratory analysis at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, conducted by NSW DPI, verified two instances of tick fever, or “Babesia bovis”, based on samples provided by LLS district veterinarians.

Cattle tick and tick fever were conditions which posed a devastating economic impact on cattle production due to the potential large losses of animals, production losses, restrictions on trade, and treatment costs.

According to DPI, tick fever in cattle could cause fever, weight loss, abortion and bull infertility. Animals could show nervous signs, including change in temperament, lethargy, muscle tremors and difficulty walking.

North Coast LLS district vet Phillip Carter recommended that farmers contact a vet at once if cattle showed signs of tick fever.

“If treatment is delayed tick fever can kill susceptible animals,” Dr Carter said.

“These are the first new confirmed cases of tick fever in NSW this year and we saw cattle tick infestations and cattle deaths during our inspection of the animals.

“Continued monitoring of the herd for more cases is important as animals may be infected, but not yet show signs. Unexplained deaths are often the first signs that tick fever is present.

“Producers should look out for lethargy, depression, red urine, elevated temperature, jaundice and anaemia in their cattle.”

Dr Carter said tick fever was spread only by cattle tick, and with favourable seasonal conditions for ticks who thrived in warm, humid conditions, he urged producers to practice good farm biosecurity to prevent more cases.

“Producers should check cattle regularly and be on the lookout for ticks, especially with cattle being yarded in preparation for autumn sales,” Dr Carter said.

Ron Chittick, chair of the NSW Farmers Lismore/Alstonville branch, said his neighbours recently found cattle tick at the saleyards.

“My neighbour and myself have agreed to do a voluntary tick treatment but it’s quite concerning there hasn’t been much communication about the recent discovery – most people don’t really check cattle for ticks because they haven’t been around for a long time, so people have become quite lax,” Mr Chittick said.

“The treatment is simple; the first treatment involves a needle, then followed up with a pour-on treatment. But unless your cattle have had ticks, then I don’t believe people make it a priority to really inspect their cattle for ticks.

“I feel there’s a lack of official communication in regard to discoveries of the tick. I’ve head via word-of-mouth that they’re finding multiple properties with cattle tick, but people are feeling it’s not being properly communicated. So, if you hear that a neighbour has found ticks, it’s time for you to do an inspection and treatment.”

Ron Chittick, Chair of the NSW Farmers Lismore/Alstonville Branch

NSW DPI Cattle Tick Operations leader Larry Falls said early intervention was key to minimising the spread and impact of cattle tick and tick fever.

“The record of movement for cattle tick lists the mandatory biosecurity requirements which must be followed when bringing cattle from cattle tick infested areas into NSW,” Mr Falls said.

“Following these biosecurity requirements helps prevent the introduction and spread of cattle ticks and minimises costs and losses to your enterprise and livestock industries.”

Tick fever and cattle tick were notifiable under NSW biosecurity legislation.

About Tick Fever

Tick fever is a serious disease in the northern parts of Australia, affecting cattle. According to NSW DPI, when tick fever swept through Queensland in the 1990s in the absence of chemical control, about three million cattle died.

However, recent advances in tickicides, vaccines and drug technology meant tick fever could be controlled.

In Australia, three different organisms caused the disease:

• Babesia bovis
• Babesia bigemina
• Anaplasma marginale

Of these three, Babesia bovis was responsible for about 80 per cent of the tick fever outbreaks in Australia. The organisms were microscopic parasites which destroyed the red cells in the blood, similar to the malaria in humans.

Cattle that recovered from a natural infection of tick fever carried small numbers of parasites in their blood; usually for the rest of their life.

Typically, older cattle were more likely to be severely affected; calves up to several months old might not show any signs at all.

Farmers should immediately report cattle tick by calling the NSW DPI Cattle Tick Program on 02 6626 1201.

You can also contact the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline on 1800 675 888.

For more Information: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/beef-cattle/health-and-disease/parasitic-and-protozoal-diseases/ticks

If you found this article interesting, make sure to check out the new landmark biosecurity initiative that uses cutting-edge technologies and digital systems to help protect native species, crops, livestock, and food supply.

The post Tick fever alert for northern NSW cattle producers following recent outbreaks 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.