Chapter 3 Current and prospective adaptations
'…there's no drought at my
place'[1]
3.1
During the course of the inquiry, the Committee took evidence and saw at
first hand a range of current and prospective adaptations to the impacts of
climate variability and climate change on agriculture. Farming practices examined
in this chapter have a strong emphasis on improving soil health, water use
efficiency and diversification of operations to improve overall productivity,
and mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture.
3.2
One of the common themes that emerged from the submissions and evidence
presented to the Committee during the course of this inquiry was the capacity
of Australian farmers to adapt to climate variability. There is certainly a
culture of innovation within the farming community. The Committee saw plenty of
reasons to believe that with sufficient support and careful management, many of
the challenges of climate variability and climate change could be overcome, and
by using techniques and technology already available.
Soil carbon
3.3
The Committee heard evidence that one of the most important adaptations
to promote resilience against changes in weather patterns is improving the
quality of the soil. The importance of soil carbon in improving soil health and
in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions was a recurring theme during the
inquiry. Evidence presented to the Committee throughout the course of this
inquiry reveals that improving soil carbon offers a way to establish greater
resilience in the face of weather variability.
3.4
The need to increase soil carbon in agricultural soils was a recurring
theme in the range of submissions received by the Committee. Mr David Matthews,
a farmer in Kilcoy, Queensland, described the importance of soil carbon:
As we know soil organic carbon is the building block for all
vegetation. It is obtained by green growing plants when they convert the sun's
energy and atmospheric carbon dioxide into liquid carbon compounds which
relocate to the plant roots. These plant nutrients feed the plant (approx 30%
of nutrients produced) and the remainder feeds soil fungi and bacteria which
are living in symbiotic relationship with the plant. By harvesting the plant
(grazing or mowing) the plant sheds a similar amount of its root base and
humification of the shed material occurs and soil carbon levels may increase.
This organic carbon now in the form of humus is also the water storage unit in
the soil. A hectare of soil to a depth of 30 cm with an organic carbon content
of 1 % can hold 170 000 litres of water.
A 25 mm rainfall event drops 250 000 litres of water on a
hectare of ground surface. Thus when soil carbon is only 1% about one third of
the water cannot be stored in the soil and runoff occurs. This runoff has the
potential to become soil erosion events.
Thus by reducing our soil carbon content we have effectively
reduced the ability of the landscape to hold water for plant growth in dry
times as well as reduced recharge for our rivers and streams. We really have
encouraged the rainfall we are now getting to run out to sea because it is just
not possible to store the water in the soil.[2]
3.5
In evidence heard by the Committee, soil biologist Dr Christine Jones
said that to increase soil carbon, farming practices need to change:
In our never-ending quest for technological quick fixes we
frequently overlook the obvious, the simplest and the most effective solutions.
Without doubt, increasing the level of carbon in agricultural soils is the most
obvious, simple and effective solution to climate change. But we cannot
increase soil carbon unless we change farming methods.[3]
Figure 3.1 The plant-animal relationship
|
 Grass plants grow on a
sigmoid basis. If left un-grazed, at some stage in their growth the
above-ground or leaf and stem portions of the plant begin to change their
cell structure. The cells in the above ground parts of the plant begin to
lignify or become 'woody'. If left ungrazed the plant begins to suffer and
will eventually die of 'over-rest'.
On the other hand, plants can also be grazed too early.
When a plant is grazed, the natural balance between above ground and below
ground structures is disturbed. Just as it is not possible to sustain a large
leaf mass upon a small root system, neither is it possible, postgrazing, to
sustain a large root system below ground when there remains a smaller
post-grazing leaf mass above ground.
Immediately following the act of grazing the plant begins
to slough off some of its roots, trying to restore balance to its structure.
This material is 58% carbon by weight, the building block of soil carbon.
Given time, as post-grazing leaf growth recommences the plant will begin to
build new roots to replace those it sloughed off. It does this in order to
maintain balance as it recovers from the grazing that was so necessary to
sustain its life.
During this period of post-grazing recovery though, the
plant is at risk of 'over-grazing'. If the plant is bitten again before it
has fully rebuilt its root system there is a net damage to the plant. If
frequent biting is allowed to continue for too long, the plant will die from
root destruction directly arising from too frequent grazing. The left-hand
pot in the photo to the right shows a balanced but very unhealthy plant that
is close to death, having been 'grazed' too frequently.
Source: Dr John White, Submission no. 60.1, p. 26. |
|
|
|
3.6
Dr Jones oversees 12 carbon measuring sites in Western Australia on
properties that have changed farming practices. During evidence heard by the Committee,
Dr Jones showed photographs of one of the test sites and explained:
There was not any rain until two or three weeks ago, so they
have had their longest number of consecutive days with no rain and yet these
perennial grasses have survived. If they were not there, that would be bare
sand. These grasses have been planted with the specific purpose of increasing
soil carbon and also to form the base for annual cropping. So there will be a
grain crop in winter time sown into these summer active grasses. So there will
be something green all summer and then something green all winter. We are
talking about yearlong green, because the only way to get carbon into soil is
with a green plant. If you have the bare sand, you are going to be losing
carbon, losing soil water holding capacity and losing nutrient status.[4]
3.7
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, in their report Optimising
carbon in the Australian landscape, also advocate a shift in farming
practices to increase soil carbon. With the increase in soil carbon, increases
in agricultural production are expected and opportunities arise for
biosequestration:
Agricultural practices over the past century have mined
Australian soils of their carbon stores. Nearly 40% of carbon stocks have been
lost from Australia’s cropping soils. The loss of soil carbon is a primary
cause of land and water degradation, acidification and the destruction of soil
structure. This reveals the great co-benefit of improving soil carbon. Soil
carbon sequesters carbon from the atmosphere which also improves soil health
and as a consequence, agricultural production. CSIRO have identified the
significant biosequestration potential of the Australian landscape to absorb
carbon. The paradox in their analysis is that whilst nearly 50% of terrestrial
carbon in the Australian landscape occurs in grasslands and croplands, less
than 20% of the estimated potential of the Australian landscape to store carbon
occurs in these landscapes. This is because without changes to existing
agricultural practices, any increase in carbon will come at the cost of
agricultural production.
Experts believe that it is technically feasible for
Australian agricultural landscapes to increase soil carbon levels by 2% per
year. This would result in the storage of an additional 900Mt of CO2e
per anum.[5]
3.8
In his submission to the Committee, Dr White of Ignite Energy,
summarised the benefits of improved soil carbon for farmers:
n Better plant resistance
to pests and diseases
n Increased ability of
soils to transfer nutrients to plants, for greater productivity which can
improve farmers' incomes
n Increased soil
water-holding capacity, holding the water until it can be used by the plants
rather than letting it run off into waterways, ie, increased drought resistance
n Increased soil
stability which means greater resistance to erosion, which in turn means
cleaner waterways
n Unlocking of nutrient
overload from synthetic chemical fertilisers
n Reduced recharge to
groundwater and reduction or elimination of salination
n Improved
biodiversity: soil organic matter contributes to the health of soil microbial
'wildlife' and micro-flora which are the very start of the food chain
n Healthier,
climate-change compliant products that should avoid trade restrictions and
attract premium prices.[6]
3.9
The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming made the same points in its
submission to the Committee about the benefits of improved soil carbon for
farmers. The submission also made particular note of the micro-climate effect
that can be achieved with the consistent green vegetation that becomes possible
when 'carbon farming':
[T]here is another way that Australian farmers can influence
the climate: by creating a micro- climate around their property. A
micro-climate will affect wind, rainfall, sunshine, and air temperature. It is
a technique normally used by croppers. They use slope and row placement and
alignment to determine a 'solar budget'. They use alley-cropping and shelter
belts and mulches…
Often a land manager will say, in the depth of a drought,
'there's no drought at my place'. By that they mean that they have managed
their vegetation such that they have retained moisture in the landscape. When
you protect your groundcover and don't overgraze or strip the earth bare by
poisoning weeds or ploughing, you build or moisture reserves. Then water starts
to cycle on your property. Some managers report receiving 1 mm a day in dew
from fogs and mists.[7]
Perennial pastures
3.10
Perennial grasses are being used by an increasing number of farmers for ground
cover, grazing, improved moisture retention and the improvement of soil carbon.
The root systems of perennial grasses are longer than annual grasses offering
greater resilience in dry times.
3.11
The benefits of using of perennial grasses are multiple. In evidence to
the Committee, Mr Kevin Goss, of Future Farm Industries CRC, stated:
Perennial plants are plants that have the ability to use
rainfall whenever it occurs and to make the most of soil moisture whenever
rainfall is not occurring. They are proving to be incredibly robust in both
grazing and cropping systems.[8]
3.12
In evidence before the Committee, Dr Brian Keating, Director of the
Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, CSIRO, further stated that:
a perennial pasture tends to be more deeply rooted than an
annual crop, so you will get, potentially, more efficient use of water that
falls. That falls below the root zone of the annual crop and the perennial
pasture can make use of that.[9]
3.13
In its submission to the Committee, the Southern Midlands Council
Landcare unit stated:
Healthy perennial pastures can produce some of the most
carbon rich soils and may contain up to 350 tonnes of organic carbon per
hectare.[10]
3.14
In her submission to the Committee, Dr Christine Jones pointed to
additional benefits of perennial grasses:
Perennial groundcover has multiple agricultural, ecosystem
and landscape benefits in addition to restoring soil health. For example, weeds
cost the Australian economy $8 billion annually when the value of lost
production and reduced biodiversity are added to money spent directly on weed control.
If land is left 'empty' it creates a space for weeds to colonise.[11]
3.15
In a 2003 Land and Water Australia publication, the authors point to yet
other benefits of perennial pastures:
The farmers using native perennials have all reduced their
fertiliser inputs and claim the use of native perennials is beginning to
address the issue of nutrient balance. [12]
3.16
The reduction of fertiliser inputs associated with the use of perennial
grasses is made possible through biological processes that occur in the root
zone of the grasses. In her submission to the Committee Dr Christine Jones
explained some of biological processes:
Soil benefits in many ways from the presence of living plants
year-round, due to reduced erosion, buffered temperatures, enhanced
infiltration and markedly improved habitat for soil biota. Significantly, it is
not 'biomass' per se which is the driver for soil carbon sequestration, but the
soil life that the biomass supports, via photosynthetic capacity.
Mycorrhizal fungi differ quite significantly from decomposer
type microbes in that they acquire their energy in a liquid form, as soluble
carbon directly from actively growing plant roofs. By this process they are
actively drawing down atmospheric carbon and turning it into humus, often quite
deep in the soil profile, where it is protected from oxidation.
Where mycorrhizae are functioning efficiently, 40-80% of the
carbon fixed in green leaves can be channelled directly into soil as soluble
carbon, where it is rapidly polymerised with minerals and nitrogen and
converted to stable humic compounds in the soil food-web. The humates formed by
soil biota are high molecular weight gel-like substances that hold between four
and twenty times their own weight in water. Humic substances significantly
improve soil structure, porosity, cation exchange capacity and plant growth.
Mycorrhizal fungi access and transport nutrients such as
phosphorus, zinc and nitrogen in exchange for carbon from their living host.
Plant growth is usually higher in the presence of mycorrhizal fungi than in
their absence. In perennial grasslands, mycorrhizal fungi form extended
networks that take several years to develop. They have mechanisms that enable
them to survive while host plants are dormant but cannot survive if host
plants are completely removed from the ecosystem.
Under appropriately managed perennial groundcover, soil water
balance is improved by hydraulic lift and hydraulic redistribution in
seasonally dry environments. These processes bring moisture to the root-zone
that would not be available to an annual crop or pasture.[13]
3.17
Species of perennial grasses for pasture vary from region to region.
Western Australia, for example, has no native perennial grasses and relies
largely on Mediterranean species.
3.18
Certain species of perennial pasture grasses are favoured over others by
different farmers according to region, soil types, or personal preference.
3.19
Perennial pastures are also used as part of pasture cropping and some managed
grazing systems.
Pasture cropping
3.20
The submission made by the Southern Midlands Council Landcare Unit
outlines the method, process and benefits of pasture cropping, also known as
perennial cover cropping:
Pasture cropping is a land management method where cropping
and grazing are combined into a single technique with each enterprise enhancing
each other economically and environmentally. The process of pasture cropping
involves direct-drilling an annual grain crop without herbicide into dormant
perennial groundcover. The practice enhances plant-microbial associations,
vastly improves rates of biological nitrogen fixation, stimulates nutrient
cycling, facilitates sequestration of highly stable, humified soil carbon and
promotes formation of new topsoil.
Perennial cover cropping (pasture cropping) is becoming more
widely adopted in Australia and has been implemented in most states with
outstanding success. On the mainland a grain crop is largely sown in winter while
the perennial grasses are dormant. Additionally, there were good results in
Victoria and New South Wales by sowing summer forage crops into winter dominant
native perennial pastures. This is likely to be the most effective technique
for adoption in Tasmania.
Cropping into dormant perennial groundcover is a one-pass
operation that markedly reduces fuel costs and largely eliminates the need for
fossil-fuel based herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. Perennial cover
cropping has many similarities to annual cover cropping but brings with it the
ecosystem benefits of perennial groundcover.[14]
3.21
In her submission to the Committee, Dr Christine Jones also discussed
the benefits of pasture cropping and provided the example of NSW central west
farmer Nigel Kerin:
Nigel Kerin was NSW Farmer of the Year in 2008. The first
photo shows Mr Kerin in his newly sown crop (no bare ground) and in the second
Mr Kerin is admiring his bounty closer to harvest (perennial croplands look
like any other farmland once they approach maturity). This 'yearlong green'
land management technique produces high quality, nourishing food simultaneously
with restoring landscape function and providing ecosystem services such as
oxygen-rich air and clean water.[15]
3.22
This successful example of pasture cropping notwithstanding, Dr Jones
also pointed to the need for further research:
Broadacre cropping could benefit enormously from widely
spaced rows or clumps of long-lived perennial grasses and fodder shrubs. As yet
we do not know the required critical mass to restore soil ecosystem function,
but it might only need to be 5-10% perennial cover. The benefit of permanent
mycelial networks in terms of aggregate stability, porosity, improved soil
water holding capacity, reduced erosivity and enhanced nutrient availability
would be immense.[16]
3.23
In his evidence to the Committee, Dr Mark Howden, Chief Research
Scientist of CSIRO's Climate Adaptation Flagship, while also noting the
benefits of pasture cropping, was not convinced of its universal application:
In some circumstances that system has significant benefits,
because it uses both the summer and winter rainfall. The challenge is in places
where there is a lack of summer rainfall, in having effective persistent
perennial grass in that system, and so we are challenged by having a grass that
will grow adequately in very dry conditions and be grazed at the same time. So
there are some issues there in just getting that system to work outside of the
core areas in central New South Wales where it was initiated, but in those
places where we have both adequate summer and adequate winter rainfall it is a
system that makes a lot of sense.[17]
Rotational grazing
3.24
The Committee heard evidence and took submissions about different kinds
of managed grazing systems. Some managed grazing systems are used in
conjunction with perennial grasses and pasture cropping.
Holistic management
3.25
In its submission to the Committee, the Fenner School of Environment and
Society outlined holistic management (HM):
Unlike many other adaptive strategies to climate change, HM
grazing is a proactive, low-tech solution that has at its core a different way
of thinking about grazing systems, combined with the smarter application of
known management techniques. Adoption of HM grazing signals a change in farming
mentality from trying to gain control over the land to working with natural variability
and embracing an ethic of land stewardship. Farmers using HM grazing have reported
a wide range of benefits, including reduced soil erosion, increased water efficiency,
improved pasture species cover and composition, improved quality of life, and
more stable financial returns. Public good benefits include increased carbon
sequestration, more biodiversity, and reduced nutrient loads off-farm.[18]
3.26
The submission went on to explain some of the distinguishing features of
HM grazing:
HM grazing is a particular way of running a livestock grazing
enterprise that is used by a moderate but rapidly growing number of farmers. It
increases the resilience of individual farm enterprises to changes or
uncertainties in climate. HM grazing can be distinguished from other ways of
managing a grazing enterprise at levels: a fundamental level, and a technical
level:
n Fundamentally, HM
grazing is based on an explicit decision framework; explicit goal-setting;
monitoring practices and adaptive management; and the principle that the health
of the land is a fundamentally important basis for profitable farming.
n Technically, HM
grazing is based on high-intensity short-duration grazing (an extreme version
of rotational grazing) rather than continuous grazing; and the keeping of
'grazing charts' that provide a means of anticipating feed availability and
periods of drought.[19]
3.27
The submission notes that the use of grazing charts is one of the key
tools of HM grazing:
One fundamentally important aspect of holistic resource
management is the emphasis it places on the natural resource base as the
ultimate source of income and quality of life…Farmers employing HM grazing use
a number of practical tools to help them manage their livestock rotation
schedule. The most important of these tools is a 'grazing chart', which maps
out how much feed is available in any given paddock at any point in time. These
are easily created with graph paper and a pencil, and are updated after each
rain. Using these charts, an HM manager will know at any given point in time
how many 'days of feed' he has ahead of himself, if it does not rain. If the
number of 'days of feed ahead' becomes too small, the farmers can make
strategic decisions such as de-stocking before a drought actually hits, before
expensive supplementary feeding becomes necessary, and before the health of the
land is compromised.[20]
3.28
The Committee also heard evidence from Dr Fischer that HM grazing has
additional benefits over time:
One of the interesting things about rotational grazing is
that, when you bring a mob onto a patch, they no longer feed in a selective
way. If livestock are on the same patch of land for a long time, they basically
eat their favourite species of grass over and over, and that leads to
overgrazing. With rotational grazing you bring in a big mob and they nibble
whatever they can get their mouths on. So some of the things that the livestock
do not typically go for will get grazed as well. There are case studies of
people who have employed this for a long time and can demonstrate that they have
less weed cover than they used to have and instead have more perennial grasses
than they used to have. Even though they have not used any chemicals in the
process, through time the nutrient balance in the soil changes in such a way
that it is no longer favourable to those weeds and becomes more favourable
towards the things that are favourable from an economic perspective. So it is
not as instant as spraying, but over time, if you give it 10 years or so, you will
get changes in the system that are basically self-perpetuating.[21]
3.29
As part of the inquiry, the Committee visited the property of Mr David
Marsh, north of Boorowa in New South Wales, who uses HM grazing techniques.
There the Committee also met with Mr Bruce Ward, a leading exponent of HM grazing.
HM grazing is a both a production technique and a decision making process that
matches landscape, production and lifestyle. The rapid rotation of stock
through feeding paddocks ensured the recovery of grasses after feeding. There
is also the additional benefit of weed control, as stock tend feed less
selectively under rapid rotation. Use of a mixture of species of perennial
grasses ensured soil cover, soil health, soil moisture and over-competition of
weed species. Flexible stocking rates ensured that the system was never put
under unsustainable pressure. While overall productivity was lower than in high
input systems, HM grazing was more sustainable, reliable and had much lower
input costs, which also made it more flexible. On the day of its visit, the
Committee was impressed by the evident health of the pasture and the animals on
farm.
Biodynamic farming
3.30
Biodynamic farming uses a series of natural preparations to improve soil
biology and soil structure. In their submission to the Committee, the Carbon
Coalition Against Global Warming describe the broad approach:
Biodynamics adopts a homeopathic approach to preparing
natural fertiliser and times activities to align with cycles of the moon and the
stars. Many ordinary, sober farmers report great results with biodynamic
preparations.[22]
3.31
In their submission to the Committee, Biodynamic Agriculture Australia
explained the extent of uptake and some of the benefits of biodynamic farming:
Biodynamic practitioners can be found throughout Australia,
in every state and territory, across a wide range of agricultural production -
grazing, cropping, horticulture, viticulture and dairy.
Biodynamic practitioners have anecdotally reported
significant drought tolerance over the past 10 years; they experience better production
and returns than would be expected from previous drought situations. In times
of flood soils with better soil structure also do not erode or bog as badly as
low organic matter soils.[23]
3.32
In evidence to the Committee, Ms Cheryl Tillett of Biodynamic
Agriculture Australia expanded further on the benefits of biodynamic
agriculture:
Various studies have been conducted over the years and, in
general, it can be concluded that biodynamic farming practices have many
benefits. The total energy for fuel production of mineral fertilisers and
pesticides et cetera to produce a dry matter unit of crop was 20 per cent to 56
per cent lower. Biodynamically grown fruit had significantly higher brix
levels. This is due to the use of horn silica (501). With regard to soil
aggregate stability, soil pH, humus formation, soil calcium, microbial biomass
and faunal biomass, the biodynamic system was improved.[24]
3.33
Ms Tillett went on to enumerate some of whole-of-farm benefits that
promote greater resilience through the improvement of soil:
By using the biodynamic system you are looking at the whole
farm organism. You are building up the health of the farm organism and building
up the humus content and the structure of the soil so that there are better
water retention capabilities. As well as the water retention capabilities,
there is a reduction in the amount of irrigation. For instance, if the farm is in
an area where they need to irrigate, people who are using biodynamics tend not
to have to use the same quantity of water for the same outcome as a
conventional farmer might have to do. So there is the building of the carbon in
the soil through the build-up of humus, the sequestering of the carbon from the
atmosphere into the soil and then the water retention as a bonus so that the whole
farm becomes more resilient to changes that might be happening.[25]
3.34
In their submission to the Committee, Ms Julia Weston and Mr Frank Giles
of Seaview Farm provided an overview of how the use of biological farming
methods and practices has increased production and provided resilience during
drought on their Tasmanian property. They do not name the biological farming
practices they use, but show by example what farmers can do to adapt to changes
in climate:
We like the story of two farmers in North East Tasmania (not
us!) One follows a similar philosophy and practice as ours. His paddocks are
rich and green, his stock healthy. Just across the fence another farmer has
poor pastures and has to resort to pesticides and herbicides just to keep control
of the place. It is necessary to give his cattle bullets of mineral supplements
whereas the other farmer does not. And yet, the farmer with the poor paddocks
with simply a fence separating the two never asks "What are you doing that
I am not?"
It doesn't matter what you call it: biological, biodynamic,
organic or a mixture of all three, if it works use it! And if we are looking at
the effects of climate change and how to promote resilience then there is an
urgent need to change current farming practices which largely dominate the
thinking in agricultural circles today.
…It is an approach that is gaining ground even in mainstream
farming communities simply because it makes good sense, it does work, and in
the long term is cost effective.[26]
Tillage practices
3.35
Numerous submissions to the Committee referred to the benefits of
conservation tillage practices, often as part of a broader farming system. The
most commonly cited benefits were improved soil health and fertility, greater
water efficiency, and energy saving.
3.36
In conservation tillage, crops are grown with minimal cultivation of the
soil. When the amount of tillage is reduced, the stubble or plant residues are
not completely incorporated, and most or all remain on top of the soil rather
than being ploughed or disked into the soil. The new crop is planted into this
stubble. The tillage practices are commonly referred to in the submissions as
zero-till, no-till, and min-till and are differentiated from traditional
tillage methods mainly in the degree to which the soil is disturbed prior to
planting.
3.37
The tillage-based conventional approach did produce reliable crop yields
for some years. However a realisation began to emerge that the system was
inherently unstable in that soil structure was degraded, soil erosion was
accentuated, organic matter was reduced and energy inputs were high. The
effects of this system on soil erosion could be dramatic, with massive erosion
events occurring in southern areas of Australia, for example in the mallee
soils of Victoria and South Australia. This realisation was based on the impact
such an aggressive system had on soil structure, with structural decline being
widely found following repeated tillage operations.[27]
3.38
In its submission to the Committee, the Conservation Agriculture
Alliance of Australia and New Zealand (CAAANZ) articulated the benefits of
no-till:
The current farming practice of No Tillage, including full
stubble retention, has the ability to adapt to variable climate conditions (and
is doing so now) due to its seeding date flexibility, water harvesting capacity
and improved water use efficiency that leads to massive yield benefits over
conventional farming systems during periods of below average rainfall. The
system also improves soil health leading to long term sustainability of the
farm sector in Australia. To quote one of our farmer members "The No
tillage farming system is climate change ready".[28]
3.39
A research paper published by the Grains Council of Australia, while
enunciating the same benefits of conservation tillage practices as CAAANZ, also
noted that these practices protect soil from erosion, play an important role
for increasing soil carbon, and increase soil biomass, all leading to increased
productivity.[29]
3.40
The Grains Council paper and a Landcare Australia booklet both note that
conservation tillage practices also use substantially less fuel. The Landcare
Australia booklet, aimed at farmers, makes clear observations about the
relationship between tillage and carbon dioxide:
Excessive soil disturbance can expose soil carbon compounds
to oxidation and lead to their loss as carbon dioxide. The combustion of fossil
fuels to produce the energy used in soil tillage also results in emissions of carbon
dioxide.[30]
3.41
The Committee heard evidence from Mr Dale Park, of the Western
Australian Farmers Federation, indicating the uptake of conservation tillage
practices in Western Australia:
I would say that at least 90 per cent, and probably 95 per
cent, of cultivation these days is min till or no till. It is virtually not
done anymore. I know a couple of farmers up in the north-east do still use
ploughs in some of their country but they also do not put in crops every now
and again because they have not got enough rain. The vast majority are min
till.[31]
Controlled traffic farming
3.42
In its submission to the Committee, the Tasmanian Institute of
Agricultural Research, described Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF):
In CTF systems, all machinery used in crop production is
restricted to permanently located wheel tracks. A paddock farmed using
controlled traffic can be thought of as a series of uncompacted "root
beds" that are ideally suited to crop growth, separated by compacted
"road beds" that are ideally suited to traffic. CTF can directly address
soil erosion, soil structure decline and organic matter decline caused by
conventional tillage and traffic practices. CTF can also improve water use
efficiency and crop productivity, while reducing energy and fertiliser related
greenhouse gas emissions. The essence of CTF is as simple as - "Plants
grow better in soft soil, wheels run better on roads".[32]
3.43
The TIAR submission also draws attention to CTF as a system that
leverages the advantages of a range of existing practices, such as zero-till.[33]
3.44
Dr Tullberg, of the Australian Controlled Traffic Farming (ACTF)
Association, gave evidence to the Committee about the benefits of CTF in
reducing on-farm emissions:
It is well known that, by reducing tillage, you reduce the
amount of fuel you use, so you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that gets
produced as a result of burning diesel fuel…If you are going on permanent wheel
tracks which are hard you use a lot less fuel - about half the fuel. Those are
the emissions related to diesel fuel use.
People often do not consider the energy that goes into
producing herbicides, which is one of the issues of zero tillage… But the big
one in terms of energy going into modern cropping systems, as I am sure you
know, is nitrogen fertiliser. There is very little difference between
conventional mulch tillage and zero till. There is a significant improvement in
controlled traffic again because of course you do not put fertiliser on
permanent wheel tracks and because you do not get the inefficient fertiliser
use associated with compacted soil.
The final one to be concerned with is emissions from the
soil, primarily nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is produced when you have soil at
a particular levels of water filled porosity. That occurs much more often when
you have a compacted layer further down the profile. You avoid this in
controlled traffic farming. Zero tillage alone actually increases emissions
because you will get more soil compaction, particularly in heavy soils…CTF can
reduce emissions by approximately 45 per cent.[34]
3.45
The Committee also heard from Dr Tullberg that using CTF would increase
soil carbon:
The other thing that should be mentioned is that because you
are producing more crops, more biomass, you are also going to provide the
maximum chance of increasing soil carbon because you have absolute minimal soil
disturbance; you do not need to disturb beneath seeding depth. If you are in
non-compacted soil, it maximises the chance of carbon sequestration.[35]
3.46
One of the issues hindering the broader adoption of CTF is the reliance
on global satellite positioning technology and the required base stations. Mr
John McPhee, an employee of the TIAR appearing in a private capacity, told the Committee:
You would not bother trying to do controlled traffic farming without
satellite guidance. As you would be aware, most growers around the country who
have moved in that direction have bought their own base stations.[36]
3.47
In its submission to the Committee, the TIAR explains further:
Regardless of the industry, successful adoption of CTF is
dependent on access to high quality Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
signals and data for machine guidance. The uptake of GNSS guidance for tractors
and harvesters in Australia has been rapid. Almost without exception, growers
have maintained their independence and bought individual guidance systems to
suit their needs. Victoria has taken a lead in the establishment of a
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) network that will ultimately
cover the state, and render the use of individually owned base stations obsolete.[37]
3.48
CTF Solutions, in its submission to the Committee, expressed
frustrations similar to those of the TIAR and the ACTF Association with the
individual systems of different machinery manufacturers:
Australian farmers have bought about 4000 RTK GPS base
stations[38], for about $100 million.
This is more than is required to cover the whole of Australia with the same
quality signal but only gives coverage to about 20% of Australia's cropping
country. This is because the GPS suppliers to agriculture decided to provide
only proprietary signals, i.e. differentiated by each company. These same
companies supply the same service to surveying applications with non-proprietary
signals. This is a rip-off, constrains CTF uptake since the GPS equipment is
not compatible with different makes of tractors and harvesters (the general
norm on Australian farms), and contractors cannot use the layouts of the farm
owner. This enormous cost to Australian agriculture is all unnecessary.[39]
3.49
The TIAR, in its submission to the Committee, recognised an opportunity
for government to augment a shift to farming practices that promote greater
resilience in the face of climate variability:
There is an ideal opportunity for government to show
leadership, and in conjunction with the private sector, facilitate the
establishment of CORS networks nation-wide, at least in the major cropping
areas. Such infrastructure would be invaluable in the expansion of CTF and
would lead to significant efficiencies in farming operations, not to mention a
range of other emergency services, infrastructure and environmental benefits.[40]
Surface irrigation
3.50
The submission to the Committee from the Murray Irrigators Support Group
describes methods to promote greater resilience in the face of climate
variability by saving irrigation water and using it more efficiently. Some key
points include:
n The Padman Stop, an
invention by John Padman, [is] a 100% water tight control structure used in
conjunction with the Fast Watering System also called low energy irrigation
developed by John Padman.
n Trials of over 500
farms have shown that the faster the water is applied to the bay, the less water
is used.
n Further to this it
has been demonstrated at the Padman Stops trial research site that it is
possible to control water application fairly accurately on to the bay, and to
achieve the highest efficiency possible, more research needs to be done on
application rates and frequency of irrigation.
n Higher flows can
easily be achieved by using the channels as storage.
n This form of irrigation
is carbon positive because it uses less energy and produces more crops, which
in turn will increase carbon sequestration.[41]
3.51
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Padman, a member of the Murray
Irrigators Supporters Group, talked about the Fast Watering system he
developed:
We are about water savings productivity, sustainability and
carbon reductions. That all sounds good, but we have demonstrated that we can
achieve all of these things. By way of background, 80 per cent of Australia’s
water is used in irrigation, 70 per cent of which is flood irrigation, which we
now refer to as surface irrigation. ‘Flood’ is a sort of bad word. This irrigation
has long been recognised as a low efficiency industry. After doing a bit of
research ourselves, we found that efficiency to be around 60 per cent. It was
clear to me when I started this project in about 2004 that we had to do something
about it…I guess for years we had plenty of water and all of a sudden our water
just disappeared and things just happened in a hurry.
At that time I did trials on what we called fast watering
technology. To prove this we built a pump with a meter on it and started doing
real farm trials. The results were magnificent. We started getting results of
between 30 per cent and 50 per cent water savings. For the first three farms we
submitted the results to the National Save Water Awards, and about this time last
year we won those awards.
Traditionally in surface irrigation it might take eight to 10
hours for the water to pass over the field. Fast watering permits watering many
times faster than farmers normally would. The key to fast watering is to
irrigate faster than the water can soak below the root zone. All of a sudden
you start to get a very efficient irrigation without water logging. Quite
common with the trials was a 30 per cent water saving. We found that, if you
extenuate that and start to add a few of the other things we put in our
submission, such as soil moisture monitoring, automation and event documentation,
you can get up to 50 per cent water savings.[42]
3.52
Mr Bryant, another member of the Murray Irrigators Support Group, gave
evidence to the Committee about his personal experience:
[M]y son bought the home farm from us three years ago… and I
thought I had the place all A's and done pretty well—he put in the Padman
Stops. We used to use 22 mega litres to water this particular area. When he put
in the Padman Stops—nothing else changed—it went down to 12 mega litres. That
shows you the savings that are there. I suspect that he grew a fair bit more
tonnage, too, because the plant was never waterlogged. Because you are not
putting as much water on you are not getting waterlogging.[43]
Property inspections
3.53
During the course of the inquiry, the Committee visited several
properties engaged in practices which assist in the adaptation to climate
change. It is interesting to note that many of the farmers the Committee spoke
to during these inspections, while aware of the climate change benefits of the
practices they were undertaking, were often motivated by the need to improve
productivity or manage environmental degradation. There was also a strong sense
that these innovations are being adopted in isolation, outside of any policy
framework, and without the benefit of government research support or
verification.
3.54
The Committee visited several properties in the Geraldton area which are
working with Dr Christine Jones in the use of perennial grasses to maintain
ground cover and build up soil carbon, thereby improving fertility and moisture
retention. The Committee was impressed by the obvious health of the plants and
soil and the apparent increase in carrying capacity of the pasture. Moreover,
the farmers involved are heavily engaged in the work of testing individual
solutions to their particular situations. Different mixes of grasses and shrubs
are being tried by each farmer to suit their individual needs. Different grazing
regimes are being utilised to suit the various plants. The Committee also
visited a test site for pasture cropping, where winter crops are planted
directly into dormant summer pasture. This has great potential to increase
productivity and diversity of income, a significant factor in improving the
reliance of farm enterprises.
|
|
 |
Members of the Committee inspecting a property in the Geraldton area with Dr
Christine Jones.
3.55
Mr Cam McKellar, a farmer near Spring Ridge on the Liverpool Plains of
New South Wales, is undertaking the restoration of soil carbon on his property.
He noted that the naturally carbon rich soils of the area were badly depleted
over decades of intensive cultivation using conventional tillage and artificial
fertilizers. Using carbon rich humus as the principle fertilizer he has raised
soil carbon on his property to 3% (from 0.5%). He has reduced pesticide use,
increased soil biology and is maintaining yields despite limited use of
nitrogen fertilisers. Improving soil health is also improving the nutritional
value of the food produced.
3.56
Mr Andrew Pursehouse, of Breeza Station on the Liverpool Plains, has
been using no-till farming methods since 1992. Breeza Station produces a range
of summer and winter crops. Mr Pursehouse indicated that no-till methods are
quite successful on his property and that he sees no reason to move away from
them.
3.57
Mr David Wallis is a biological farmer at Quirindi, and processor of fodder
for horse silage. He is passionate about value adding, noting that the horse
silage business was drawing produce from a dozen farms around the district. He
converted to biological farming methods, which has improved soil carbon levels
and retention of moisture in the soil. He finds that better soil also made
plants more pest resistant. He advises, however, that the switch from
conventional farming methods is something that takes time and money to produce
results. He urges more research into biological farming methods to test and
demonstrate the results he and others are getting.
3.58
Mr Neal Johansen, a farmer at Dululu, in the Rockhampton district of
Queensland, is using controlled traffic farming methods to produce a rotation
of wheat and legume crops. Improved moisture retention means that he is able to
sow opportunistically with a lower risk of crop failure. The principal concern
with controlled traffic farming is the need to have standardised machinery and
access to GPS technology (which also needs to be standardised).
3.59
On their property near Rockhampton, Anne and Gordon Stunzner run cattle.
They find that pasture improvement is the key to maintaining fertility and
productivity amongst the animals and improving moisture retention in the soil.
Perhaps somewhat against conventional wisdom, they use ripping to mitigate soil
compaction by the cattle. They also manage and harvest native vegetation for
commercial use and value adding on site using portable milling equipment to
produce sawn timber. They note that unmanaged regrowth is of little
environmental or commercial value.
3.60
The Groves family grow fruit at a property near Rockhampton. They
irrigate with their own bores and dams and have a comprehensive strategy to
deal with climate variability, including extremes of drought, storms, fire,
flood and pests. They noted that moisture monitoring is expensive to install
but ultimately pays for itself, and that use of drip irrigation has reduced water
use by two-thirds. They uses extensive ground cover and mulching for moisture
retention, and ground cover to prevent erosion. They use native trees as
windbreaks and to bring in birds and bats to control insects. Slashing and
grazing are used to reduce fire risks.
3.61
The Committee also visited the property of Arcturus Downs, near Emerald
in Queensland. Arcturus Downs had 15 000 ha of dryland farming, 1000 ha of
irrigated farming and ran 5000 head of cattle. On-site dams allow flood
harvesting for irrigation. Minimum tillage is used across the property;
however, controlled traffic techniques are restricted to the graded irrigated
land. Some tillage is regarded as essential for weed control, especially with
the appearance of herbicide resistant weeds. A mixture of drip and flood
irrigation is used. There was some discussion of the relative merits of each.
Drip irrigation is more water efficient and produces better yields. It is also
far more expensive than flood irrigation, and maintenance intensive. There is a
belief that current and prospective adaptations will allow Arcturus Downs to
meet the future challenge of climate variability.
3.62
The Committee visited several properties in the Hamilton district of
Victoria. Jigsaw Farms, owned and run by Mr Mark Wootton, runs a mixture of
lambs, wool, beef and timber. Some 24% of the property is under timber, meaning
the enterprise was covering its own emissions about twice over. The timber
provides environmental services and commercial return. There is extensive use
of ephemeral wetlands which are good for biodiversity and provide environmental
services. The system is otherwise high input to maximise production.
3.63
At ‘North Skene’, the Committee met with David Robertson and Graeme
Moyle, two farmers who moved out of the traditional mixed farming of the Hamilton
region into pure cropping. The cropping system they use is controlled traffic
farming on raised beds (for drainage) with stubble retention for moisture and
soil carbon. David and Graeme are members of Southern Farming Systems, a
farmer/subscriber based research organisation which focuses on cropping in high
rainfall areas.
Committee conclusions
3.64
The evidence presented to the Committee during the course of its inquiry
has highlighted the importance of soil carbon in Australian agriculture. It is
clear to the Committee that improving soil carbon is one way to develop
resilience in the face of climate variability and climate change. The Committee
applauds the work being undertaken by individuals to improve soil carbon in
agricultural soils, and supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee
on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport recommendation that:
The Government should significantly increase the research
effort in relation to the potential of soil carbon as a climate mitigation
measure, as a means of reducing the capital input costs to agriculture as a
means of increasing resilience in agricultural systems.[44]
3.65
There are a significant range of potential adaptations that could increase
the resilience of Australian farmers in the face of climate variability and
climate change. Many have win-win-win potential, in that they improve
productivity, environmental sustainability and reduce or mitigate emissions.
They will also confer social benefits as improved productivity and
sustainability increase personal and community resilience.
3.66
The Committee is concerned, however, that many of these adaptations are
not being identified, tested and disseminated in any organised way. Much of the
research into these adaptations is being undertaken by farmers in isolation or
with limited support. Given the potential consequences of climate change, and
the potential benefits of many of these adaptations, it would seem that a
better coordinated research and extension effort is required. The Committee is
aware of recent initiatives being undertaken by the Australian Government. It
will deal more closely with this issue in Chapters 6 and 7.
3.67
Given the increasing importance of GPS technology to farming, the Committee
is also concerned about the lack of GPS signal compatibility between different
makes of farming equipment. This situation, whereby different machinery on the
same farm cannot have GPS compatibility, or where contractors cannot integrate
their equipment with that of farmers, requires adjustment. The Committee
believes that action should be taken to establish a national CORS network
across Australia and that signal compatibility between different GPS systems
should be required by law.
Recommendation 3 |
|
3.68 |
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as
part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate
change, invest research funding in the following high priority areas:
n Soil
carbon sequestration;
n Soil
stabilisation and pasture improvements using methods such as perennial
pastures, pasture cropping, rotational grazing, biodynamic farming,
minimum/no till cultivation and controlled traffic farming;
n Soil
water retention strategies and water use efficiency;
n Landscape
planning and natural resource management; and
n Risk
management. |
Recommendation 4 |
|
3.69 |
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in
conjunction with State and Territory Governments, establish a national
Continuously Operating Reference Station network across Australia and
regulate for signal compatibility between different GPS systems. |
Biochar
3.70
Biochar is being investigated by a number of bodies as a soil
conditioner, alternative fuel source, and for its carbon sequestration
potential. Biochar is a form of fine-grain charcoal which is created by
converting organic matter (such as wood, leaves, food wastes and manure),
though heating in a low or zero oxygen environment.
3.71
The biochar production process begins with biomass being fed into a
pyrolysis kiln—a furnace that burns with little or no oxygen. At the end of
this, two main products come out of the kiln. The first is biochar, usually
representing about 50 per cent of the carbon content of the biomass. The other
is biofuel.[45]
(See Chapter 4).
3.72
Biochar production can be customised to suit the end purpose of the
product:
The pyrolysis conditions can be optimised for bioenergy or
biochar production. Biochar qualities can also be tailored for desired
properties (e.g. high stability, high adsorptive capacity, increased cation
exchange capacity, high nutrient content) through selection of feedstock and
processing conditions.[46]
3.73
In evidence presented to the Committee, the Grains Research and
Development Corporation flagged some potential for the use of biochar in grain
production:
We are interested because there are indications that it can
improve cation exchange capacity and improve crop nutrition and have some
benefits to crop production. That is the focus of our two projects. We are
looking at about 12 different source materials for chars—making them through a
number of processes and looking at their functionality and their benefits to
crop production through a series of trials, both for glasshouse and in the
field, and seeing if there is real benefit for crop production.[47]
3.74
A 2009 CSIRO report enumerates the benefits of biochar for plant
production when used as a soil amendment:
n reduce soil acidity,
n increase or retain
plant productivity with a lower amount of fertiliser use, and
n more efficiently
retain nutrients and avoid leaching from the soil profile.
Furthermore, biochar may enable soil and vegetation to adapt
to climate change by increasing water holding capacity of soils, and by
increasing soil pliability and water infiltration.[48]
3.75
In its submission to the Committee, the National Association of Forest
Industries points to the multiple applications of biochar:
Biochar can be incorporated in biofuel production as well as
provide an additional carbon sink with potential for increasing the quality and
fertility of agricultural soils. Further evaluation of these types of new
technologies is warranted.[49]
3.76
Under the Climate Change Research Program, the Australian Government has
provided funding for a research project into biochar, which will target gaps in
our understanding of this emerging technology and address uncertainties about
its use:
This project will draw together leading researchers in
Australia in the areas of biochar, bioenergy, soil science, emissions
management and life-cycle assessment into a national effort, aimed to address
key aspects of biochar generation and application in Australian agriculture.[50]
Key activities under the project will include:
n a life cycle
assessment of biochar from feedstock source to production to sink, including
costs, risks, benefits and implications for farmers
n categorisation of
biochars according to their properties and suggested usage
n economic assessment
of biochar for both net greenhouse gas emissions and potential profitability to
land owners
n analysis of risk
factors in terms of rates of applications as well as the potential production
of toxic by-products during pyrolysis.[51]
Lignite
3.77
The Committee heard evidence from Dr John White about a lignite-based
fertilisation system. The system complements and is used in conjunction with
other farming methodologies and improves soil biology. Lignite occurs in most
states.
It is a system. It is not just a product and it is not just
one company’s product. There are many suppliers of this, although at small
scale still; they need expanding. It means that you want to keep grass
coverage; you do not want bare paddocks. You do not want deep ploughing; you
want low tillage. You want seed drilling. You do not want to burn stubble; you want
to use folia sprays with biology to digest the stubble and add to the soil and
not burn it and kill more. You want to use biological organic based fertilisers.
You want to keep grass cover. It is a system, but it does not require
technology or knowledge that does not already exist and almost every farmer can
convert to it.[52]
Traditional farming in a range of ways has killed most
biology in most soils. You do not find an earth worm in many farm paddocks any
more; you do not find the fungi and bacteria mix that you need for healthy
plant, grass, crop, and tree growth. The main point of this fertilisation
system and other biological farming systems is to use modern technology and
better products to rebuild that biology and carbon mix to get healthy, fertile
soils and plant growth— and the worms reappear within a year or so.[53]
3.78
Dr White noted:
My confidence is based on the fact that a company we are in
joint venture with… has been developing and building this biological farming system
over 15 to 20 years. Its founder and managing director is a fifth-generation
wheat farmer, so he knows. He now has three factories that are manufacturing a
range of biological carbon based fertiliser products—liquid powder and high
compressive strength granules—to be used in the same farm machinery that they
use for spraying and MAP and DAP.[54] He is now fertilising over
300 farms, spreading from the WA wheat belt right across South Australia… into
western and south-western Victoria and heading to Gippsland. He is fertilising regularly
every year over 300 000 hectares. This is not R&D. This is not speculative.
The soil carbon and biology increase and crop yield—the productivity and
profitability—on these farms are measured, proven and known. It is spreading
across the farm fence because farmers look over and see their neighbour doing
better at less cost, regrowing biology and worms.[55]
3.79
Dr White described the fertiliser production process using lignite:
…which is brown coal. Certain patches of the lignite are very
young and just past being peat. Much of our brown coal is as good as or better
than peat… It is so young; it is pure, clean organic material. There is nothing
dirty about brown coal. It is two thirds water. It is low sulphur, low ash and
low heavy metals. It is pristine, beautiful organic material. Of course, if you
burn wet brown coal, you consume an enormous amount of heat to evaporate the
water and you make a lot of CO2.[56]
We blend [the lignite] with the required nutrients, such as
soft rock phosphate; with the trace elements, such as calcium, magnesium and
zinc, that you need for the soil; and particularly with a mix of bacteria,
fungi and enzymes that the soils need in a proper balance in order to be
fertile. We mix that with the brown coal and other nutrients.[57]
3.80
Dr White went to describe how the fertiliser is used:
It has an inoculant of biology to restart the biological
activity in the otherwise chemically killed, fungicide killed soil. It is not
surprising that, when you spray fungicides, you kill the essential fungi in the
soil that is needed for healthy plant growth. We make it in three types. We
make a liquid extract of high-concentrate humic-fulvic, which can be sprayed.
For example, you would spray it on stubble with a bacteria mix to biologically
digest the stubble within six months rather than have to burn it for the next
sowing season. We make a powder blend, which can be put out through a circular
spreader. Alternatively, we make a high compressive strength granule, which can
be seed drilled in the same way as MAP and DAP granules are. So it is a range
of products used in a range of different ways. But it is quite inexpensive to
make.[58]
Committee conclusions
3.81
The Committee believes that biochar and similar products have
significant potential to play a part in Australian farming systems, both as a
soil additive and a form of carbon sequestration. It welcomes the Australian
Government’s investment in biochar research.
Farm Forestry
3.82
A number of submissions to the Committee suggested that another way for
Australian agriculture to adapt to changes in climate and weather is to
diversify on-farm income. Growing trees on farms as part of an integrated farm
plan has potential to diversify farm income and provide other benefits such as
shelter for stock, enhanced biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Several submissions
outlined different ways of incorporating trees on farms, each with a different
emphasis on the numerous benefits that growing trees on farms can bring.
3.83
In evidence before the Committee, Mr Allan Hansard, CEO of the National
Association of Forest Industries stated:
Forestry can also complement a range of agricultural
activities which may be at greater risk from the effects of climate change.
Trees used strategically in the landscape can enhance pasture and plant
production and provide direct livestock production and calving benefits through
provision of shade and shelter, particularly during periods of climatic stress.
As a long-term perennial, trees are generally not as susceptible to seasonal
and climatic variations as some other types of crop. Trees can be planted as
woodlots and plantations or used in specific configurations to provide shelter
functions for some crops and pastures. This is not about forestry competing
against Australia’s food basket; it is about coexistence resulting in a
potentially larger, healthier and sustainable food basket.
Consequently, the forestry sector’s role as a complementary
land use can help reduce farm reliance on drought assistance and provide
alternative income sources in dealing with the longer term impacts of climate
change—in the same way the full recognition of wood biomass provides farmers
with a viable, alternative source of income. As part of a sustainable system, farmers
could provide wood biomass to regional based generation facilities, reducing
the reliance on fossil fuel energy and creating greater long-term energy
security for regional Australia.[59]
3.84
Mr Hansard also pointed out the particular benefits of farm forestry for
farms within proximity of commercial plantations:
What we have noticed over the development of the commercial
plantation industry over the last 40 or 50 years in Australia is that farm
forestry and agroforestry can benefit through proximity to commercial
plantations. Where you have farmers that grow trees that are close to existing
plantations, they can often piggy-back on a lot of the infrastructure and there
are often economies of scale that come with a commercial-size plantation.
Often, we have seen the development of commercial plantations in parallel with
the development of farm forestry.[60]
Trees on farms
3.85
Forestry Tasmania has developed a program which integrates forestry in
the farm landscape called Trees on Farms. In evidence to the Committee, Dr Hans
Drielsma of Forestry Tasmania explained:
This innovative program will provide farmers with the opportunity
to plant trees to reclaim weed infested land, secure a new revenue stream,
capture carbon and provide long-term habitat for threatened species such as the
swift parrot. This is a commercial solution to an environmental problem.
Reclaiming land infested with weeds, particularly gorse, is an expensive
problem for farmers, but we believe Trees on Farms converts that problem into
an opportunity. In a nutshell, Trees on Farms will enable landowners to joint
venture with Forestry Tasmania to established commercial wood lots on cleared
land, particularly degraded land with low agricultural productivity. In the
first instance we will work with individual farmers to identify suitable sites.
Once these sites are identified we will then enter into a contract where we
undertake to plant the trees at no cost to the farmer and the farmer undertakes
to protect the growing trees from browsing animals and stock. After 15 to 20
years, when the wood lot is ready to be harvested for timber, Forestry Tasmania
and the landowner will share in the revenue. If the parties agree, a new crop
of trees can then be grown.[61]
3.86
The Committee visited Mt Vernon, the property of Mr Peter Downie, who is
participating in the Trees on Farms program. His property contains plantations
of both native and introduced species with a view to providing environmental
services and commercial returns. Aside from demonstrating the value of farm
forestry on his property, Mr Downie also displayed a keen knowledge of the
impact of past agricultural practices upon the health of the soil and the
hydrology of the landscape, and the way in which the productivity of the land
had been undermined by land clearing and inappropriate production methods. It
provided an insight into the intergenerational impacts of past actions and the
fact that some acts of landscape restoration may require perspectives of 100
years or more.
Committee members talking to Peter Downie, Kempton, Tasmania
Agroforestry
3.87
The Otway Agroforestry Network (OAN) offers an extension service similar
to that of Forestry Tasmania except the focus is on community development. OAN is
a not-for-profit community organisation promoting the wider adoption of vegetation
management as an integral component of productive and environmentally sustainable
agriculture. The work of the Otway Agroforestry Network centres on trees as
part of the farm infrastructure, providing aesthetic value, environmental
services (habitat for birds as part of integrated pest management, stock
shelter and revegetation of water courses) while also providing an income
stream through the production of high quality saw logs. The key to success was
giving each farmer the training and tools to manage the timber on their own
properties, within the context of group leadership and peer support. Farmers
undertook formal training through the Master Treegrowers course, and had access
to expertise and support within the network. Network cooperation meant that
relatively small stands of timber could be harvested at commercial rates. The
result of the Network’s operation was a significant increase in tree cover
without loss of productivity, and an improvement in the commercial and
environmental sustainability of individual enterprises.
3.88
In its submission to the Committee, OAN described its approach:
We focus on facilitating and supporting farmer participation
in R&D using social networking, peer support, education, product research,
and market development. We help farmers design and manage forests that meet
their own needs as well as providing environmental and commercial benefits for
the wider community.[62]
3.89
The OAN submission went on to describe agroforestry and some of its
benefits:
Agroforestry is the strategic integration of multipurpose
trees and shrubs into farming systems to enhance productivity and protect
natural resources. Agroforestry offers a means of implementing multi-functional
agriculture - something which is urgently needed across the nation. Improved
water quality in our streams, protection of soils, crops and livestock, the
conservation of our unique flora and fauna and the promise of alternative
timber sources and other forest products, make well managed trees on farms a
good story for rural communities and the nation as a whole.[63]
Engineered woodlands
3.90
The Engineered Woodlands Project run by Southern New England Landcare
was a variation on the theme explored in the section above, with similar
outcomes in mind. Trees provided carbon offsets and other environmental services
such as windbreaks and stock shelters. They also provided a harvestable
resource. Through careful design, it was possible to place a substantial
proportion of a property under trees with no loss of carrying capacity or
productivity.
3.91
In its submission, Southern New England Landcare stated:
The Engineered Woodlands Project aims to demonstrate a
profitable land use that integrates the growing of native trees and shrubs for
biodiversity carbon and timber values within agricultural production systems.
Engineered woodlands are paddock-wide tree crops where the trees are
wide-spaced and allow normal agriculture to operate between them. In short, the
plantings do not displace pastures and conventional crops but are integrated
with them.
Key benefits of an Engineered Woodland are:
n Shade and shelter for
better livestock, crop and pasture production,
n Better habitat
connectivity for biodiversity,
n Improved soil
nutrient cycling and water use efficiency, and
n Income from timber
and carbon credits.
Key features of an Engineered Woodland are:
n Designed to produce
multiple products from traditional agriculture as well as the trees
n The use of the entire
paddock for tree establishment minimises fencing costs, thus substantially
reduces establishment costs
n Agricultural activity
can continue between belts once trees are sufficiently established (within 1-3
yrs for most sites)
n
Tree belts or copses are established at spacings to suit machinery, pasture and
stock management and are aligned to maximise microclimate benefits.[64]
Members of the Committee, with representatives of Southern New
England Landcare, inspecting an example of engineered woodland in the Tamworth
region.
3.92
In evidence to the Committee, Mr David Thompson of Northern Inland
Forestry Investment Group provided an example of productivity increases on one
farm involved in the Engineered Woodlands project:
For that particular farm [shown in the powerpoint
presentation], the one with the contours, we estimated that 70 per cent of the
benefit for that farm was going from stock shelter. On that particular farm,
there was a 50 per cent reduction in sheep losses and a 10 per cent increase in
lambing rates, with 11 per cent of the farm under trees. That translated to
around about $20 000 per year of increased income.[65]
Committee conclusions
3.93
Farm forestry provides a real opportunity for farmers to diversify
income while improving the environmental sustainability of their properties
within the context of existing production mixes. It is not about the wholesale
replacement of agriculture by forestry with all its attendant social, economic
and environmental consequences. Farm forestry also provides for emissions
offsets through the storage of carbon in trees, and, potentially, the creation
of income through carbon credits.
3.94
During the course of the inquiry, the Committee had the opportunity to inspect
sites related to all three of the above programs and was impressed by them all.
They had in common a desire to see forestry incorporated into the existing farm
enterprise rather than simply bolted on, and all showed sensitivity for the
ecological impacts of forestry in the landscape. None was a case of simply
changing land use for commercial return regardless of the environmental,
economic or social consequences. The key difference between them was the level
of ownership, responsibility and direct involvement in the forestry enterprise
by the farmer. All three provide models for future action.
Mitigation
Ruminant emissions
3.95
Australia's agricultural gas emissions are estimated to be sixteen
percent of the net national total.[66] It is also estimated
that 80 per cent of agriculture's emissions are generated by the digestive
processes of ruminant animals. This process, enteric fermentation, produces
methane. Methane emissions from ruminant livestock represent a loss of carbon
during feed conversion, which has implications for both animal productivity and
the environment because this gas is considered to be one of the more potent
forms of greenhouses gases contributing to global warming. In his evidence to
the Committee, Mr Robert Young, NSW Department of Primary Industries, informed
the Committee of recent ruminant emissions research:
We received $1.6 million … to undertake research on how we
might reduce methane emissions from ruminant livestock. That research again is
part of a national collaborative program, so different groups around Australia
are doing different components of that. Meat and Livestock Australia are also
integral to it. Our parts of the program are to look at the genetic capacity of
both cattle and sheep, through breeding, to reduce methane emissions and to
look at feeding strategies and ruminant manipulation as options to reduce
methane emissions.
To give you some examples, there is about a 20 per cent
difference between high-emitting methane livestock and low-emitting methane
livestock just because of their genetics. Methane is a net loss to the system,
if you like. If you can stop that methane emission you could convert that into
wool or meat or milk or whatever. It is a deadweight loss. If we can improve
the adoption of the livestock that are predisposed to low-methane
emissions—sheep, goats et cetera—there are significant gains.[67]
3.96
Another area of research to reduce methane emissions in livestock looks
at different types of stock feed. Mr Young continued:
In the area that you specifically mentioned, which was
tannins in legumes, yes, we recognise there are a number of options—and not
just in legumes. There are a number of shrubs as well that have high tannins
with the capacity to reduce methane emissions from livestock. We are also
looking at a range of rumen additives and a number of other factors.[68]
3.97
In his evidence to the Committee Dr Keating of the CSIRO told the Committee
of similar research being undertaken:
We do have an active program of work on tropical beef and the
emissions story in … Rockhampton. We are looking at a couple of things and I
will make three comments. Firstly, we are looking at the fundamental relationships
between animal diet and emissions. There are some early suggestions—and I
hasten to add that this is not yet peer-reviewed literature—that the emissions
levels in our current accounts, which do have an extra factor in them for
tropical beef, may be slightly overestimating the emissions of those tropical
beef. So there is a small potential gain. I do hasten to add that these
emissions and the protocols have to be internationally peer reviewed, but CSIRO
is very active in making sure that we have the best data going into that, so
one would hope in the near future that that material will be published and go
into the peer review. Secondly, there are some suggestions that some feed mixes
may actually be reducing the methane per unit intake. There are some
suggestions that leucaena as part of the diet might be having that effect… It
is a tropical leguminous shrub that is grown in Central Queensland and other regions.
That is just one example. We are looking for those sorts of feed additives that
may have some positives. It is very early days. Thirdly, one of the big
mitigation opportunities with the northern beef herd is to raise productivity.
If we can feed animals better, get offtake in a year earlier, we can have a
significant impact on the methane load per unit production.[69]
Committee conclusions
3.98
The Committee is conscious that emissions from agriculture form a
significant part of overall greenhouse gas emissions and supports further
research efforts into the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture.
Recommendation 5 |
|
3.99 |
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government
support further research efforts into the mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions from agriculture. |