TFGA VOICE magazine September 2012 edition by zest.

VOICE Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association

september 2012

your future, our future

Telstra cables on rural properties

What's happening with biochar?

Carbon Farming Initiative - risky business for farmers e ur

Ag r

ureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s F ut ult ic

ure

tur

Yo u r

Profile:

Grant & Kim Archer

VOICE

september 2012

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association

your future, our future

Ag r

e ur

tur

Yo u r

ure

• President’s Report.

Features

Industry update

• Profile: Grant & Kim Archer. • Obituary - Vale Rod Thirkell-Johnston • Norm Frampton reports on the Chinese dairy Industry. • Letter to the Editor: Tom Burbury.

• Intensive Animal Farming Industry Development – Pigs and Eggs. • Fear and paranoia permeate milk marketing. • Potatoes Unearthed. • Bluetongue outbreak exercised. • Beautiful Chinese farms. • What’s happening with biochar? • AFI says Carbon Farming Initiative very risky for farmers.

Snapshots

16 19

Introduction • From the desk of the CEO.

ure’s F ut ult ic

FGA House, PO Box 193 T Cnr Charles & Cimitiere Sts, Launceston 7250 Tel: (03) 6332 1800 Fax: (03) 6331 4344 Freecall 1800 154 111 (in Tas) Email: voice@tfga.com.au www.tfga.com.au

Editor Nardia Deverell, TFGA. Tel: (03) 6332 1818 Email: Nardia@tfga.com.au Layout & Design/ Advertising enquiries zest. advertising. design. web. 41 Cameron Street, Launceston 7250 Tel: (03) 6334 3319 Fax: (03) 6331 3176 Email: info@zesttas.com.au www.zesttas.com.au The views expressed in Voice are not necessarily endorsed by the Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text or advertisements. Advertisements must comply with the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Responsibility for compliance with the Act rests with the person, company or advertising agency submitting the advertisement. Voice editorial policy: contributions must be relevant and suitable for Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers and will be used at the discretion of the editor, in whole or part, or not at all, in the next scheduled issue or subsequent issues. The publishers do not pay for editorial submitted.

Issue 26, September 2012

ISSN 1838-384X

• Take three mushrooms a day. • Startling facts – 23 million Aussies in August. • Juice company grows fruits embossed with own logo.

Policy issues • Industrial Relations News - Hiring new employees – your obligations. - Pastoral Award Rates updated as of 1 July 2012. • Telstra cables on rural properties.

People • Succession planning – the process.

did you know? Australian farming is world-leading and ultra-competitive. In fact, despite a 50 percent fall in agricultural terms of trade since 1960, Australian farmers have tripled their production, as well as quadrupled the real gross value of their produce, (from $10,557 million in 1960-61, to $48,330 million in 2009-10). Source: Australian Government Productivity Commission, Trends in Australian Agriculture 2005 ABARES, Australian Commodity Statistics, 2011

President,s Report

David Gatenby, TFGA President

we live in dynamic times. We are under constant scrutiny and also under constant pressure to reduce costs while increasing productivity

The landscape has changed. I am not talking about the impact of irrigation on what we grow, what we are able to produce now. I am talking about the market dynamics and the fundamentals that apply to our industry. The high Australian dollar is having an enormous impact on farm businesses. Can you remember when it used to be worth 55 US cents? It’s now almost twice that. That means that not only are our exports more expensive to the buyer, but also imports of the same commodities are much cheaper for Australian consumers. Those two realities of the exchange rate mean we are challenged. Plus we have market forces operating against us with a supermarket duopoly that seems to believe that price cutting at the retail level will not lead to lower prices to producers who are at the bottom of the supply chain. In addition to that, we are under the microscope from animal welfare groups about how we treat our animals and how others treat the animals we supply to the market. At the same time, conservationists seek to dictate to us what we can and cannot do on our land, all the time sabotaging our overseas timber and paper products markets. What all this means is that we live in dynamic times. We are under constant scrutiny and also under constant pressure to reduce costs while increasing productivity. We have to be equally dynamic in the way we operate our businesses. In my view, it is inevitable that our core commodity strengths will remain: wool, dairy, vegetables, lamb, beef, grains, poppies and pyrethrum. It is what we grow well; our climate is suited to them; our public and private infrastructure is geared towards them. However, like any portfolio of investments, diversification is the key. That requires innovation, research and a constant eye on the market. Tasmanian farmers are canny; they are always looking outside the square; they think laterally; they constantly search out new enterprises. Many have turned to farm tourism, others to aquaculture, to niche products such as garlic, hazelnuts, cherries, fruits and wine. One of the outstanding ventures is Richard Sattler’s Barnbougle golf links course at Bridport. This had been unproductive land that is now rated among the top links courses in the world. Golfers from all over the world come to this former farmland to play golf in heaven. This venture ticks all the boxes: economic, social and environmental. It is a fantastic balance of what can be achieved. We can’t all convert our unproductive land to a links golf course, though we might wish to. But the lesson of Barnbougle for all of us is that we must have access to all viable options. You will know that by 2015 we will not be able to convert any more forested land to pasture or to other agricultural enterprises. Is that really in the best interests of the state? I think not.

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

From the desk

of the CEO There’s been some talk around town lately about the possibility of another group being set up outside the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) to represent the business community here. Whilst the TCCI has had some serious internal issues to confront, in my view it is the default industry representative because of its links with peak national bodies and regional bodies, such as the chambers of commerce. That’s why we are members. I believe the TCCI deserves the opportunity to get its house in order, to restore its credibility. I raise this because it is fundamental to advocacy groups such as the TFGA and the TCCI that we speak with the support of our membership. Governments and organisations involved in policy issues

must have confidence that peak bodies they are dealing with legitimately represent the interests of their members. It just happens to be an efficient way of doing business, on both sides. Governments have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to small groups that profess to espouse the common interest but, in fact, represent an outlier position and have neither the membership nor the credentials to back up their claims. Far better, I say, for those ginger groups to try to effect change through their peak bodies. As politicians might say, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association is a broad church. We represent a great diversity of farming enterprises and primary producers with a range of divergent opinions. Our challenge is to chart a course through issues and come down with a position that meets the expectations of most. That doesn’t mean everyone will agree with us on every thing – far from it. It does mean though that the positions we take need to be solidly based on logic and science (where appropriate), and clearly focused on the future - and we need to be prepared to explain the background to decisions and why we’ve landed on a particular place.

So, if you are a farmer seeking to bring about change, then I would urge you to use your membership of the TFGA, be part of discussions within the organisation, rather than take pot shots from the outside. If you don’t, you may well be fighting a losing battle. The TFGA is held in high stead with policy makers and, if they are faced with demands for change or reform from ginger groups, we are often the first ones they will turn to for advice. We have shown on issues such as the use of agricultural chemicals and forestry reform that we are fearless and that we are not afraid to hold governments accountable. Conversely, when there are opportunities to work constructively with government, we’re prepared to pitch in and do that too. I’m thinking here about issues like expanding irrigation, protecting our biosecurity status, technology including Wealth from Water and Sense-T, and promoting agriculture. Nowhere is that old saying about ‘united we stand, divided we fall’ more true than in the work peak bodies like TFGA does.

...if you are a farmer seeking to bring about change, then I would urge you to use your membership of the TFGA, be part of discussions within the organisation, rather than take pot shots from the outside. www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

Another in the series of profiles of Tasmanian farmers and graziers to mark the Australian Year of the Farmer in 2012.

Profile Words by Bruce Montgomery. photography chris crerar.

Archer Grant and Kim

ď ł

In the orthodox world of the city, we save our money for a deposit on a house, buy the house, try to continue saving, perhaps buy an investment property, collect the rent, and, if we are good money managers, buy some more investment properties. Translate that scenario to the country and you have acquisitive farming. It should all make perfect sense.

voice september 2012 â&#x20AC;˘ www.tfga.com.au

Longford’s Grant and Kim Archer are among Australia’s most successful dairy farmers. They have been winning awards for years. Their success has seen their net wealth increase seven-fold in a decade, yet they do things differently. In farming terms, the Archers make money by renting out their cow herds and their labour. They have made share-farming an art form; so much so that one of the farms they currently share, Rob and Jo Bradley’s Rosemount at Cressy, has been named the Australian Dairy Business of the Year. How do the Archers do it? Grant Archer grew up on a farm at Elizabeth Town and in 1986 moved with parents John and Sally to their new 323 ha dairy farm at Mella, west of Smithton. Though it was the family farm, it was to be Grant’s first share-farm. “Most share-farms operate as one-third partnerships or 50:50 partnerships,” he said. “If you supply only your labour and the landowner supplies the land and the cows, you get one-third of the farm profits and the landowner gets two-thirds. “With 50:50, you supply the stock, the owner provides the land and you split the profits 50:50.” Grant became a one-third share-farmer at Mella while still living on his parents’ farm. He married Kim, a teacher, in 1995. The next year they decided to buy the 600 cows on the farm and to become 50:50 sharefarmers with his parents. “Kim kept teaching and I kept milking,” he said. In his first year in the 50:50 share

arrangement, Grant assessed the farm’s performance against its peers and concluded it was not travelling very well. He had to improve its performance through higher stocking rates and producing more milk solids per hectare.

found it be a really good way of building up your assets quickly.” They now own more than 1000 cows.

He convinced the then Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment to assist in that task by holding skills courses in the area. He also formed the state’s first dairy business and engaged wellrespected farmer Duncan Sadler to give him independent third-party advice and act as a go-between Grant and his parents.

The Archers’ move to the north brought them into contact with Rob and Jo Bradley at Rosemount and later, Jo’s brother Bill Chilvers and wife Jill at Oakdene at Symmons Plains. In July 2008, Grant and Kim became 50:50 share farmers at Rosemount. The Bradleys had been involved in cropping and sheep production and had no experience in dairying, but they were keen to make the transition. The Archers brought some of their Mella cows to Rosemount.

In 2002 Grant and Kim bought the farm, which by then was supporting a 800-head dairy herd of Jersey/Friesian crosses.

In 2008/9 they were milking 370 cows. By 2010/11 it was up to 500. This year it will be 900. They have a new 54-bale rotary dairy.

How do you milk 800 cows twice a day? You have a 50-bale rotary dairy and some full-time help.

To be named the Australian Dairy Business of the Year (and the Archers were also named share-farmers of the year), Rosemount produced an 18.4 per cent return on capital from an operating profit margin of 41.7 per cent. Its pasture harvest produced 13.7 tonnes of dry matter a hectare, it had a labour efficiency of 150 cows per full-time equivalent and core cost control of $429 per cow.

“It would take us about two and a half hours each time,” he said. Over that period they improved the property, farmed it better and their equity increased. In 2007 they put the farm in the hands of a manager, Jareth Hume, and moved east to be closer to Launceston schools for their three children and to look for a new farming opportunity for themselves. They eventually entered a 50:50 sharefarming arrangement on the Mella farm with Leigh and Kellie Schuuring, existing Circular Head share-farmers who brought 650 of their own cows into the business. The Archers provided another 280 cows, which were subject to a side agreement to the 50:50 deal. In their first year, the Schuurings were runners-up in the Tasmanian share-farming awards. “There were great advantages for us,” Leigh Schuuring said, “In theory we could get up and go if we wanted to; we are not bogged down with owning the farm. But we have

The Archers now have a similar share-farm arrangement at Oakdene with Bill and Jill Chilvers, where they will be milking 960 of their own cows this year on a 50:50 sharefarm basis. So that gives the Archers the Mella farm in freehold, three share-farms and 1900 cows. It has made more sense for them to sharefarm than to continue to acquire land and, providing they can find the right staff, it may be the way they will continue. “Staff are the key to the success of all this,” Grant said. “If you don’t have the right people in place it won’t work. If you do, it can work very well for all concerned.”





They have made share-farming an art form; so much so that one of the farms they currently share... has been named the Australian Dairy Business of the Year.

www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

vale rod thirkell-johnston

Obituary

by Bruce Montgomery

One of a kind Rod Thirkell-Johnston

Photo courtesy of Tasmanian Country

A voice of reason and sagacity in the Australian wool and racing industries has been stilled with the death on August 30 of Rod Thirkell-Johnston, a Cressy woolgrower whose relentless advocacy for his causes earned him an international reputation for integrity. In moments of crisis, his was the articulate and sound advice, born of commonsense, intense research and the hard graft of experience. Rod Thirkell-Johnston once cited the late John Allwright as the greatest agro-politician that Tasmania produced, but he himself fits the bill. Where Allwright rebuilt the national farming organisation and brought together the divided associations in Tasmania, it was Thirkell-Johnston who rode shotgun on the Australian wool crisis of the 1990s in the aftermath of the crash of the reserve price system and the massive stockpile that it produced. He was cast aside in the final throes, but few doubt that, had he had his way, the crisis may have been averted.

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

“We are coming into calmer and more sensible waters now,” he said recently in an interview with the ABC. “The industry is smaller but the people are committed.” Perhaps he will be remembered most for his championing of the Australian wool industry in its darkest hour, but the Tasmanians who came to know him in other roles recognise that Rod Thirkell-Johnston was a singular, brilliant, individual whose command of the language might have seen him in silk. He had the look of an intellectual, an academic who had strayed into the shearing shed and, instead of walking straight back out again, had decided to make the wool industry his life’s work. In many ways that is true. Thirkell-Johnston was the only child of a woolgrowing family with properties at Epping and the Nile. He was educated in Launceston and at Sydney University. He was one of the few of his contemporaries to return to the farm after university; the majority pursued careers with bodies such as the CSIRO. “Now it is commonplace (for graduates to return to the farm),” he said. “That is a tremendous advance for Australian agriculture.” Thirkell-Johnston developed mixed farming properties at Macquarie Hills and later at Saundridge, both at Cressy, though he said

that he always had a soft spot for Macquarie Hills. It was the undeveloped remnant of a former family property that took a lot of work in the face of little available capital. In the end, that lack of capital has left a model farm, with bush left intact to provide shelterbelts and environmental reserves that today’s standards require. The merino flocks he bred at Macquarie Hills traced their origins to the original three ewes and a ram that he first bought. During his school years, as a single child, he had spent his term holidays learning what would become his expertise from the wise heads among the woolgrowers of the northern Midlands, men who understood innately the pedigrees and the characteristics of the local superfine merino flocks without having to refer to any documentation. He applied that acquired knowledge to his first flock. “It was part of our heritage; you just naturally learn it,” he said. So Thirkell-Johnston grew up in an era when superfine merinos were the supreme breed that produced the golden fleece. It led to the establishment in 1971 of the Australian Superfine Wool Growers Association (ASWGA), whose members are found around Yass and Goulburn in NSW, in the western districts of Victoria and the Tasmanian Midlands. In the 1990s Thirkell-Johnston became its president and a member and chairman of



It was a traumatic and dramatic period in Australia’s history, an era from which

a more concentrated wool sector is only just emerging.

In those tumultuous years that eventually saw the industry brought to its knees, he argued, along with fellow Tasmanian growers Allan Cameron and David McEwan, against a fixed release schedule of the wool stockpile. He believed that if the Tasmanians had held sway, the crisis might have been avoided. “One thing about Australian woolgrowers is that they are all passionate and they all think they have the solution to a problem,” he said, “That makes it hard to make them work cohesively.” He joined the Tasmanian Farmers, Stockowners and Orchardists Association before it combined with the Tasmanian Farmers’ Federation to become the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA). He had an unbroken relationship with the TFGA through its wool, environmental and game management bodies and served as its president and chairman of the wool council for many years. He was awarded life membership. John Lord said of Thirkell-Johnston:

“ He was someone who possessed an extraordinary commonsense. You listened to him and each time you said to yourself, ‘yes, that makes a lot of sense’.” Thirkell-Johnston was also active in other industry roles, including the Tasmanian Fine Merino Breeders’ Association, the Tasmanian Racing Board, the Tasmanian Turf Club and the Tasmanian Thoroughbred Racing Council. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2001 in recognition of his outstanding contributions. David McEwan said Thirkell-Johnston’s contribution to the wool industry benefited those at the grower level right through to International Wool Textile Organisation.

“ He had a perception and understanding of the workings of all sectors through the whole wool pipeline,” Mr McEwan said. “He leaves an outstanding legacy.” Allan Cameron, who worked with him for 40 years, said he had been a great character, a lovely man. “We went through some big battles in the wool industry together. We worked on rural industry training together. He was always there; you could always rely on Rod; he was very dedicated in everything he did. We would go to meetings at night; he would always go home and, no matter the hour, write up his notes so he was ready for the next day.

“ He was a lateral thinker; he always listened to people; listened to their point of view. He had such a good mind, a phenomenal memory. He is going to be a huge loss to the industry.” Ian Dickenson worked with Thirkell-Johnston through the TFGA and the National Farmers’ Federation. “I have just a huge respect for him,” he said. “The amount of time he dedicated, particularly to the wool industry, was immense. He was a firm advocate for the right to farm.

“He didn’t take fools lightly. It didn’t matter who they were. He would stand them straight up and put them right. He wasn’t intimidated by anyone.” TFGA president David Gatenby said Tasmania has lost one of the lions of the land. “In Tasmania, Rod was regarded as a font of all knowledge. His grasp and memory of rural affairs was extraordinary. He was also a great conciliator. In moments of tension, Rod was able to see the path through the middle or was able to recognise the strategy might be a temporary retreat.

“ He was highly respected at all levels of government. His passion and his attention to detail in everything he did were his trademarks. His submissions were always soundly argued and written in flawless English.” TFGA chief executive Jan Davis said it was a huge loss for his family and the farming industry, in Tasmania and more broadly. “He will be deeply missed by our TFGA family; but also by so many others in our industry across the country. His unfailing commitment to the wool and racing industries; his prodigious memory; his generosity and selflessness, and his genuine concern for the greater good will leave a hole in our hearts.” ASWGA president Helen Cathles said at the time he was awarded life membership: “Rod Thirkell-Johnston has had an enormous impact on the superfine merino wool industry. There is not a single woolgrower whose enterprise has not benefitted by Rod’s tireless efforts to make representation to governments and industry bodies, highlighting the deficiencies and supporting the solutions.” Rod Thirkell-Johnston is survived by wife Diana and children Andrew, Ian, Anna and Hugh and their respective families. www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice





the Australian Wool Council. He joined the council two days after the effective collapse of the wool market.

Feature

China's dairy industry TFGA members, Norm and Lesley Frampton, recently headed off on a tour of the Chinese dairy industry. Norm has shared this experience with us... In May, ten Australian farmers, one Scottish farmer and a group of NZ farmers took the unique opportunity to visit China to learn more about their agricultural systems, how these are developing and their marketing priorities. The tour was organised by C R McPhail, which organises agricultural tours throughout the world. Our group arrived at Beijing's large airport and were met by our local guide. Unfortunately, the city was bathed in low cloud and smog so visibility was limited. Greater Beijing is a city with a population of 22 million, 6 million cars and an area of 6,400 sq km. We did so many interesting things on the tour and I will try to capture some of the highlights here. First off, we travelled for 1.5 hours to Tangshan where we visited Fonterra's Yutian 1 dairy farm. We were met by Nicola Morris, General Manager, China and Cameron Gillatt, Hub Operations Manager. Many will remember Nicola as the former General Manager of VDL's Woolnorth dairy operations at Smithton. This new free stall dairy farm has been developed on 42 hectares of land in Yutian County, Tangshan City, which is halfway between Beijing and Fonterra's existing farm in Hangu, also in Tangshan City. The location has good access to bore water, feed supplies and locally grown crops like corn silage. It consists of 12 barns, feed storage facilities, 50 aside Milfos milking parlour and waste water treatment system.

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

When 3 dairy farms are fully stocked they expect to breed enough heifers to stock the next farm. The land is leased for 50 years and the rental is nominal. The enterprise does not pay tax. The farm brings benefits of employment and a boost to the local economy. There are 12 milk processors within one hour of the farm. Some milk is sold under a 6 month contract while some is sold weekly. Price 3.50 to 4 yuan per litre. (6 yuan = 1AUD). Feed is sourced locally except for alfalfa, which is imported. We were told the feed supply is reliable, but they do compete with pig farmers for feed. Cows are fed a TMR (Total Mixed Ration) which consists of maize silage, alfalfa, cottonseed, sugar beet pulp, soybean plus other feedstuffs. Composition of the TMR is modified to match market prices. Cows can put on weight under this regime, 550kg to 680kg at Hangu. We walked around the complex, visiting the milking parlour, and sheds housing cows, young calves and weaned calves. Sheds have been well designed with sand resting pads and plenty of fans and water jets. Stock looked in good health. 15kg of sand per bed per day is used. Sand is separated from the effluent and reused. Effluent is spread on a maize grower’s farm. We also saw the 180 metre long concrete blinkers each of the 4 bunkers is capable of holding 15,000 tonnes of maize silage. Feed intakes are around 22kg DM per day for 2 year olds and 25kg (up to 29kg) for cows. Feeding takes place over 14 hours in 24 with 2 shifts. There are 103 staff divided into feeding, milking, (27 in the milking team), effluent, and vet, maintenance and support teams. Employees work a 48 hour week, (40 hours plus 8 hours overtime). The production manager earns 1,400 yuan per month;

and 65% of the workers live on the farm. Training is important and the Ag ITO has developed a training program for Fonterra’s Chinese employees. Demand for dairy products will outstrip supply in China; and Fonterra could supply 1 billion litres by 2020. The next visit was to the Beijing Dachang Fuhua Cattle Farm, which is located in Dachang County (a Muslim area), east of Beijing, where we were shown around by the manager, Mr Liu. Six hundred years ago this land was pasture land for the Ming Dynasty Emperors. Beef and sheep were supplied to the Forbidden City. Established in 1997, this enterprise has a total of three slaughter plants, 2,000 employees and processes 80,000 cattle and 200,000 sheep. The company is now establishing a 1000 cattle feedlot in conjunction with the government and a university to improve cattle genetics. At this location the land area is 200mu (1311 ha); there is a hot pot restaurant; one slaughter plant and a feedlot finishing between 2,000 cattle. (Areas of farmland are called mu: 15 mu = 1 hectare). Thirty staff are employed to run the feedlot. They are paid 2,500 yuan/month on average, plus 3 free meals per day. There are two slaughter days per week, Wednesday and Saturday, and 300 killed per day. The halal method is used. They supply Carrefour, Pizza Hut and KFC. This diversified business also has a catering division with 260 'Hot Pot' restaurants, 50 of whom in Beijing. They make up to 20,000 tonnes of corn silage per year, which they buy from local farmers. The cattle in the feedlot are watered and fed three times daily on a diet of corn silage, grain, cottonseed, brewer’s grain and mineral supplement. Feed cost is about 20 yuan/head/day. Most of the cattle



They currently milk 2,200 cows and will peak at 3,200 plus replacements. Producing 34 litres per cow per day at 4.1% fat and 3.1% protein. SMC 140,000, 3 milkings a day, which take place over 21 hours. Cows are New Zealand genetics with heifers being imported and then bred using New Zealand semen. Sexed semen is used with the heifers and non-sexed with the mixed age cows.

Nicola Morris, (middle), General Manager China Fonterra and previously at Woolnorth, Smithton with Norm & Lesley.

Fonterra has a big challenge to succeed in China but from what we saw and learnt at Yutian they are making excellent progress with plans for more farms well under way. are Simmental/Chinese Yellow cattle cross; and 80% are bulls. They also finish Charolais/ Simmental cross and Chinese Yellow. Cattle are bought at around 300kg LW for about 6000 yuan (20yuan or $N714 per kg) and finished at around 500kg (up to 700 kg). The cattle are in the feedlot for 3 to 4 months on average so gain at least 1.6 kg per day. The Chinese Yellow cattle are slow growing but are well marbled. They are individually tethered for a month to teach them to eat the TMR when they first come into the feedlot. David Oliver from ORIENZ has lived in China for 16 years importing western products for international schools. He said it can be frustrating dealing with Chinese bureaucracy and controls; and there are emerging food quality issues for example farmers not adhering to withholding periods for hormones and drugs used on animals and some food suppliers repackaging out of date goods. Water quality and shortages are emerging as a major problem. Inefficient irrigation and reticulation systems mean a lot of water is wasted. The group travelled to Hohhot, the capital city of Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia was part of China before 1946, but now is an independent country, which is 1.5 million square kilometres with a population of only 2.5 million. Inner Mongolia is 1.2 million square kilometres with a population of 24 million; of whom 79% are Han Chinese and 16% Mongolian. Inner Mongolia has 70% of the world’s known reserves of rare earths and large reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas and oil. Wind power and solar power generation are expanding. Hohhot is known as the Blue City because after the blue bricks used to build the city in the Ming Dynasty. Like many Chinese cities, it includes rural areas way outside the main city area. The central city has a population of 2 million and 'greater' Hohhot is known as the 'dairying capital of China', or the 'Golden Milk Resources Area'. The city is also called the 'Capital of Temples' - there are 81 in the city. Thirty five different ethnic groups live here.

Hohhot has a population of 2.9 million. Of these, one million are farmers. We visited the impressive Yili Group dairy factory, HQ and 'flagship processing plant' that has milk powder, yoghurt, and liquid HT milk and ice cream departments. Yili is the second largest dairy company in China, and was a sponsor of the 2008 Olympic Games. It aims to be one of the top 10 dairy companies in the world by 2015. The State government has 10% ownership and private shareholders have 90%. It has 130 factories, 200 farms and 2 million cows. Yili produces over 1,000 products including liquid milk, yoghurt, cheese, ice cream and milk powder. Liquid milk including organic milk and low lactose milk makes up 70% of the production. Yili aims to have a world brand and export to over 30 countries. Revenue in 2005 was 19.2 billion yuan and in 2011 30.7 billion yuan. The company paid tax of 2.2 billion yuan. Company slogans include 'Yili benefits all people' and 'milk with social responsibility'. They aim to have 15 to 20 organic farms. Organic milk sells for 7 yuan per litre compared with ordinary milk at 4 yuan. They have an agreement with a Finnish company for yoghurt cultures Thirty years ago, liquid milk consumption in China was 4 kg/person/year, now it is 24 kg/ person/year and the aim is to lift this to 40. Recognising that 70% of Asians are lactose intolerant, this is a major achievement. This compares with 80-90 kg/person/year in NZ and USA. Inner Mongolia is the main livestock region of China; with 3 million cows (10 million in China), 100 million sheep (300 million in China) and more than 70% of China's cashmere goats. The province stretches 2,400 km east to west. Lamb and milk production is mainly in the east and cashmere in the west. In the east where there is good rainfall grass grows up to I metre. In the middle area grass grows to 30cm and in the west with only 20 mm rain per year goats browse bushes. Following the factory visit, we drove nearby to see one of the farms owned by Modern Farming. The Helin farm is one of 16 farms they have in operation; 4 more are under construction; and another 10 are planned.

This is a vast improvement on what we had seen previously. The Mehl farm is 560 million sq metres, cost 0.94 billion yuan, milks 5,000 cows producing 150 tonnes of milk with an SMC of 240,000. (The average in China is 600,000). It includes a complex of free stall barns carrying 10,000 dairy cattle with different milking parlours 60 bale rotary, 50 aside herringbone, a 6 aside herringbone and a robotic milker. Electricity and fertilizer is being produced from the waste. They claim to have cloned 20 cows capable of producing 15 to 25 tonnes of milk per year. The feed ration on this property was mainly 60% grass silage and 40% maize grain. Mengnui (a diary processing factory) pays Modern Farming 3 yuan per kg and other farmers 2.5 yuan. From here, the group returned to the city for lunch. Later that day, we visited the Kousei Cashmere and Wool Processing Company, which opened in 2006. We were shown the various processes: combing, weaving, dying, ironing, quality control and packaging. The company employs 500 staff and manufactures scarves, shawls, blankets, wraps and rugs. It imports 20% of the wool from Australia and a little from NZ. Inner Mongolia produces 60% of the world's cashmere. They make wool, cashmere and blended products, exporting to the USA, Germany, Italy, France, Norway, Russia and Pakistan. The pace of development in China is truly incredible. Political reform has not kept pace with economic development and is likely to become a huge issue for China. Fonterra has a big challenge to succeed in China but from what we saw and learnt at Yutian they are making excellent progress with plans for more farms well under way. This report is a small snapshot of some of the things we did and we were very lucky and grateful to C R McPhail for this valuable and insightful opportunity. If you are interested in reading the full report you can find it at www.tfga.com.au/industries/dairy/





Nicola Morris, (2nd from left) General Manager China Fonterra, with some members of the touring group taken at Fonterra farm in China.

www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

letter to the editor

Tom Burbury, a TFGA member, submitted the following article as a letter to the editor of Tas Country in July 2008. It makes for interesting reading... Many people will be well aware of the growth in India and China. The growing middle class in these countries and others is demanding more protein rich diets. This skyrocketing growth is putting world supply and demand of food on a knife’s edge. With world grain stocks at all time lows, this year’s crop (worldwide) is expected to fall just short of demand putting upward pressure on price. Any natural disasters around the world such as flood, drought, storm that reduce potential yield will put further upward pressure on price. This just the short term, this growth in Asia is set to continue for some time. We are all aware of the amount of farm land being used for tree production. Throw in growth of cropping for fuel (Countries such as Brazil and America have devoted large areas of cropping land to fuel production) and you can see the sort of upward pressure this has to have on the price of food. This can only be good news for farmers. On the flip side, there is climate change. Whether you believe it is manmade or not, there is no doubt that the climate is changing (and always has). Whether we like it or not, we need to adapt to the new economies that emerge out of the attempt to reverse this climate trend. It is vital that the agricultural sector has a large input into how these economies can function. The potential to sequester carbon into soil using biologically friendly farming practices is enormous and should be included in any carbon trading scheme. With the pressure to grow more food crops on less land (due to biofuel and trees) the option to plant trees as our primary means to sequester carbon becomes clearly untenable. There is increasing pressure on businesses to become more environmentally friendly. A farming business has enormous potential to make positive contributions to the environment - and many already do. However, the cost of these environmental services has always been borne by the farmer to a large extent. The price of food has not historically factored in a cost to the environment. As a result, many farmers have been forced to “mine” their land just to survive. As consumers, to remain environmentally friendly ourselves, we will have to pay for the full cost of producing that food. There are already a large number of farms conducting their farming in an environmentally friendly manner using a combination of different practices including:12

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

•N o/minimum till conservation farming: sowing crops with as little disturbance to the soil as possible, keeping ground cover using crop residues; • T ime controlled grazing (cell grazing); • Matching grazing to available feed to maximize plant growth biological farming; •W orking with natural processes to promote plant growth with minimal synthetic chemicals or fertilisers; • P asture cropping: Sowing crops into perennial pasture base without killing the pasture; •O rganic: no chemicals or fertilizers (certified). This list is by no means exhaustive, but they all have one thing in common. They are aimed at maximizing available nutrients and water to the plant so as to maximize the amount of photosynthesis that occurs in a given area of land. Many of these systems recognize the importance of grazing animals in the system. By using careful grazing management strategies farmers can ensure perennial pastures stay at the optimal growing height, maximizing the photosynthesis on the given area.

What farmers need are government policies that encourage these types of systems. It is important that those who have already achieved improvements in the ecological health of their land be recognised for that. Policies need to be implemented in a manner that reward farmers financially for making a positive contribution to the health of our environment. One possibility might be a sustainability score for primary producers. Producers that rate higher on their sustainability score could receive more for their produce than those that don’t. There is evidence the market is already moving in that direction, however there is only so much the free market

system can achieve in the short amount of time that we appear to have to address the problem of global warming. Farmers could rate themselves on a scale of one to ten depending on how many sustainable practices they employ on their farms. Anyone who chooses not to get actively involved in the system is given a score of say 4 which would mean they may have small deduction from their produce prices on their BAS statements. Employing more practices that increase sustainability would raise your score to five where you would not have to make any extra payments. The more sustainable practices employed, the higher the score. The higher the score, the more you get paid for your produce (return on BAS statement). This type of system provides an incentive to be more sustainable as well as productive because the sustainability bonus is linked to the price of product received. The difficulty is deciding what sustainable practices to include in the system and how to prove you are implementing them. The onus of proof would have to go onto the produce (unfortunately more paperwork for farmers). The higher you score, the more proof that would be required. There would have to be an auditing system like the tax system that penalised people for claiming to be more sustainable than they are actually are. This sort of system could be introduced very soon as it allows for adjustments to be made “on the run”, either to which practices achieve what score or what the financial rewards are for each step up in the sustainability score. Carbon is the key at the current time. Obviously those practices that sequester high amounts of carbon, or reduce emissions by the most, should count more heavily towards your sustainability score. In future, once carbon is back under control due to the huge effort made by humanity, priorities might change to practices that conserve water for example. Also drought assistance could be linked to your score and not to means tests. To receive assistance, you need to demonstrate minimum sustainability scores. This would be far more satisfactory than the current system that penalises good managers and encourages poor decisions to be made during drought. There would need to be constant reviewing of policy to ensure that change was happening fast enough. If change was occurring too slowly, the rewards for sustainability might need to be increased or people could be penalised more heavily for not joining the scheme. One thing that is critical for success of this or any scheme like it is involvement of farmers in the development and review of the policy.



Feature

Intensive Animal Farming Industry Development – Pigs and Eggs The Tasmanian Government announced in the 2012-13 Budget that it would commit $2.5m to increase the ability of Tasmanian producers engaged in intensive animal farming, the egg and pig industries. It justifies this decision on the basis that it is a response to market trends that indicate consumers are increasingly sensitive to animal welfare. The objective of the Intensive Animal Farming Industry Development (IAFID) project is to achieve sustainability and growth for the two industries through investment in higher animal welfare standards. The Minister for Primary Industries and Water, Bryan Green, stated that the funding would be for the egg and pig industries, and would include ‘the phasing out of battery hen farming in Tasmania and ‘fast-tracking a planned ban on sow stalls’. Further information provided by the Minister’s office indicated that, of the $2.5m, $2m was to be allocated to the egg industry and $500,000 to pig meat producers. The TFGA continues to strongly oppose continuing ad hoc decisions made by the Tasmanian government on animal welfare issues that appear to be reactionary responses to minority group pressures, and which are not based on nationally agreed standards or in the best interests of industry.

Pigs: The Minister’s office has advised that for pigs these changes will involve: • A ban on sow stalls that will impose (from 1 July 2013) a 10-day maximum confinement in gestation stalls, with a maximum of 5 days post-mating, and • $500,000 to be used primarily to assist current pork producers with operations that will not comply with the new restrictions to adapt or construct new sheds. A percentage of the funding should also be directed towards marketing and/or training to benefit the Tasmanian industry as a whole. Both TFGA and the Tasmanian Island Pork Alliance have pointed out that the original decision announced in 2010 has caused great disruption and financial hardship in the industry. This assistance is therefore welcomed, even though the funding falls well short of enabling our family-owned pig producers to cover the cost of the transition. A business case is being developed which sets out a robust case for top up funding to assist all pig producers to make the transition within the extremely tight timetable.

Eggs: In relation to the egg industry, the Minister‘s office has indicated that battery hen farming was intended to denote egg production from cage systems as defined in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry, 4th Edition. The Code defines both barn and free-range systems as non-cage systems, and is therefore not considered to be within the scope of this proposed phase-out. The Minister‘s office also advised that for eggs this would involve: • A cap on cage egg production at 2012 levels; • Assistance to current cage producers to transition to non-cage; • Marketing to increase demand for locally produced eggs; • Assistance to non-cage producers to grow their businesses;

•A review of government egg procurement criteria; and • A review of progress after two years. The allocation of $2,000,000 is to be used either for the transitional grant program or for a plan to market or otherwise grow the Tasmanian egg industry as a whole. This will be determined by the Steering Committee in consultation with the industry. There are a number of external processes currently underway with regard to the labelling of eggs, including an ‘Egg Labelling Bill‘ under development by the Minister for Consumer Protection, Nick McKim, which will require Tasmanian egg producers to comply with a range of new requirements with regard to consumer-driven labelling. Nationally, a Primary Industries Standing Committee Working Group has formed to develop a nationally consistent approach to the labelling of eggs. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is considering an application from the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL) to register the Egg Standards Australia certification trade mark. The AECL‘s CTM application proposes a number of industry standards, including standards addressing stocking densities for free range egg production. If implemented, the Egg Labelling Bill will require changes to the packaging of Tasmanian eggs. This will impose additional costs to the Tasmanian egg industry. The initiative is in the early stages, and there is a commitment to undertake extensive industry consultation. TFGA will be carefully monitoring development of this Bill. A significant focus of the latter two processes is the circumstances under which an egg producer will be permitted to label their eggs ‘free range‘. If the outcomes of those processes require major producers to adapt their ‘free range‘ production methods to continue to label and market their eggs as such, the companies may have to deal simultaneously with changes to both their cage and free range production systems. This would be expected to place even greater financial and operational pressure on the two companies and will therefore need to be closely monitored. www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice



The government’s repeated assertions that these changes will enable Tasmanian farmers to achieve a price premium for their product are laughable. Research shows that sales of caged eggs account for 65 per cent of the market nationally and in Tasmania; and as yet there is no proven market for pig meat produced in sow-stall-free facilities as no other jurisdiction in Tasmania has mandated such a system. It makes no sense for the government to mandate these higher standards when there is clearly no significant market demand, and when it is clear that

Tasmanian producers will simply lose market share to lower cost competitors.

Industry

The Commercial Egg Producers Association is as confused as we are. They say they are open to change and they will adapt their production methods to meet demand, even go free range, but the majority of people have shown that they are not prepared to pay a premium price for free-range eggs.

If anyone is ever looking for evidence of the divide that exists between some Australian media representatives and Australian agriculture, then they need look no further than the recent controversy that erupted over the use of permeate in milk processing.

TFGA wants the government to answer these pertinent questions: • Who will supply the Tasmanian demand for caged eggs once local production stops? • Is it suggesting the demand for caged eggs (which are cheaper) will disappear in Tasmania? • If so, what analysis leads it to that conclusion? • Will the government allow the production of eggs in barns? Primary Industries Minister Bryan Green appears to be saying yes but the Greens are saying no, that only freerange eggs will be allowed. • When will enabling legislation be introduced? The Greens say this year and it will ban all but free-range eggs. • How can $2 million compensate commercial egg producers throughout the state when just one of them, producing 30 million eggs a year, has spent $6 million in the last six years upgrading its cage sizes to conform to state government requirements and those cages have a lifespan of 25-30 years? • When will the Tasmanian government start buying Tasmanian eggs instead of Queensland caged eggs?



For more information, please contact Kim Haywood, TFGA Policy Advisor – Commodities, on 6332 1800 or kim.hayward@tfga.com.au

02883_12



Fear and paranoia permeate milk marketing

We have called on the state government to explain exactly what it has in mind when it says it will phase out caged hen egg production.

Permeate is a technical term used to describe the clear liquid containing lactose, vitamins and minerals, that is one component that can be separated from whole milk by filtration. It is sometimes added to or subtracted from milk in varying amounts (both in Australia and overseas) to standardise the composition of fresh milk, which the Australian Food Standards Code decrees must contain at least 3.2% fat and 3% protein. Without the use of permeate, the composition of processed milk varies throughout the year depending on seasons and other factors. The ‘Today Tonight’ current affairs program recently ran a program that ‘exposed’ the use of permeate in the milk industry, replete with an anonymous industry whistleblower, and a reporter dressed in a white laboratory coat for extra authority. The tone of the report can be gauged from the following transcript: What dairy producers are putting in your milk – and there’s a lot of it – will shock you. If you think the milk you drink is pure and straight from the cow, it’s time to think again. Milk is being tampered with, and waste products are being added to it. Now for the first time, an industry whistleblower has come forward to spill the beans. The whistleblower claimed he had to stay anonymous, because he feared repercussions if the ‘industry’ discovered his identity. Exactly how the dairy industry had kept this practice a secret for so long, despite the many thousands of workers who have access to this so-called secret was not revealed. The report then involved an extensive interview with a milk manufacturer who does not use permeate (and who stood to

Unlock Unlock your your potential potential with the the Company Company Directors Course Course Directors To enrol visit w:companydirectors.com.au/cdc t: 03 6242 2206 e: iwren@companydirectors.com.au

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

gain market share as a consequence of the revelations, if consumers were sufficiently convinced that permeate presents a risk to them). At no stage did the report identify how long this terrible practice had been occurring, or whether it also occurred overseas. Almost immediately, major retailers responded by saying that henceforth, their home-brand milk products would no longer contain permeate. Exactly why they decided this was not spelled out, but the inference was that there might be health or safety issues associated with permeate use. How they would test or check to make sure no permeate was used was also not clarified, and nor was it mentioned that it is not possible to test whether or not milk has permeate added. If dairy processors choose not to use permeate, and use that fact as a marketing angle to convince consumers to pay extra, that is a great outcome. Unfortunately, the way Today Tonight approached this story created a very strong impression that permeate makes milk unsafe, and that consumers should be fearful and avoid drinking milk which contains it. There is absolutely no evidence or justification for this, as the representative of Choice mentioned when interviewed. But this was ‘drowned out’ by the overall shock-horror tone of the program, which has unnecessarily created doubt in consumer’s minds and damaged the reputation of the Australian dairy industry. Source: http://www.farminstitute.org.au/newsletter/ August_crossingthedivide.html

Gain practical knowledge you immediately apply Fivecan day programs 2012/13 to your business. Hobart Hobart 12 - 16 November 2012 12 2012 21-–16 25November January 2013 21 – 25 January 2013 15 – 19 April 2013 15 – 19 April 2013 Launceston Launceston 14––18 18 January January2013 2013 14

Potatoes Potato lovers will vigorously defend the humble spud. They'll block their ears against diet-conscious criticism from those who say the potato is nothing but a carbohydrate calamity. The potato was revered for thousands of years in its native South America, where it was cultivated as a dietary staple. But it created controversy when it arrived in Europe in the 1500s. Europeans initially saw the potato as food for the poor. Dubbed ''Ireland's lazy root'', it was considered ''ungodly'' by early Scottish Presbyterian ministers because there was no mention of it in the Bible. The French also sometimes scoffed at the spud. The antiquarian and historian Legrand d'Aussy was scathing in his 1783 History

of the Private Life of the French. ''The pasty taste, the natural insipidity, the unhealthy quality of this food, which is flatulent and indigestible, has caused it to be rejected from refined households and returned to the people whose coarse palates and stronger stomachs are satisfied with anything capable of appeasing hunger,'' he wrote. The potato was more popular in Germany, but not with everyone. Nietzsche linked potato consumption to ''the use of liquor'' (and rice to opium abuse). His warning apparently fell on deaf ears. Germans are among the world leaders in potato consumption. I'm not sure where the country ranks in alcohol consumption. Some say it was Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette who really popularised the potato. When these keen gardeners planted potatoes, people were intrigued. Why was a king growing a vegetable popular with the plebs?

Despite all this criticism, the vitamin- and mineral-dense spud provides substantial nutrition for very few kilojoules. A boiled potato with no added butter only contains about 260 kilojoules. Importantly, it also contains folate, vitamin C, niacin, vitamin B6, iodine, thiamine, potassium, phosphorous, calcium and zinc. In other words, the potato is power-packed. Little wonder, then, it is among the top 10 vegetables found in the modern Australian kitchen.

Easy to grow and with a huge selection of varieties available, the potato has become an Aussie staple. Source: http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/ potatoes-unearthed-20120723-22jof.html

TIMELINESS IS EVERYTHING in the management of a good poppy crop. Your TasAlk Field Officer can advise.

www.tfga.com.au â&#x20AC;˘ september 2012 voice

Bluetongue outbreak exercised Animal Health Australia (AHA) played a key role in management of a simulated ‘outbreak’ of bluetongue disease in sheep as part of a major national training event called Exercise Phantom Fox. The exercise, which was held in May, was hosted by Biosecurity South Australia and involved a total of 150 personnel from around Australia, including the national Rapid Response Team (RRT). The RRT is a group of 50 personnel from state, territory and Commonwealth governments with expertise in managing outbreaks of emergency animal diseases whenever they occur in the country. Bluetongue disease occurs generally in sheep. However, other species including goats, cattle, buffalo, camels, llamas and deer can be affected. It has never been reported in commercial livestock in Australia.

An outbreak of bluetongue would severely impact on Australia’s trade in international markets.

The beauty of agriculture ...in China! Tassie farming areas are beautiful – but there are other places in the world that look amazing too. Here are some amazing photos of agriculture in China.

Animal Health Australia’s Training Manager, Dr Kathy Gibson, said AHA has been actively engaged in planning Exercise Phantom Fox since 2010, along with Biosecurity SA and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). “These types of exercise are regularly conducted around the country and are vital in testing the policies, systems and procedures to improve the way we respond to an emergency animal disease outbreak,” Gibson said. AHA livestock industry members directly involved in the exercise included the Australian Alpaca Association, the Goat Industry Council of Australia, Wool Producers Australia, Sheep Meat Council of Australia, the Cattle Council of Australia and the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association. Australasian Farmers & Dealers’ Journal, August 2012



This exercise builds on previous AHA training activities.

reservations: 1800 814 676 p: 03 6235 5355

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

What’s happening with biochar? However, there remain concerns around the soil benefits or otherwise that need to be clarified before the practice will be undertaken widely, and the direct economic benefits from the Clean Energy Fund – Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) are still unclear. It is not likely that carbon from biochar or other carbon storage activities will replace other farm commodities, or be a great economic windfall to farmers. Rather, the indications are that success of the carbon farming initiative will not be measured by the economic or environmental benefits independently of one another, but by the way one facilitates the other, as Australia transitions to a low carbon economy. Biochar is a good example of the way this may work. Firstly, its application as a soil conditioner has the potential to increase agricultural productivity, its production can also generate biofuel that could be used on farm, and thirdly, there should be a means of earning carbon credits for producing it, under the voluntary carbon crediting mechanism . Collectively, these benefits could make the investment in the technology worthy of investment. The environmental benefits are also potentially multifaceted, ranging from the soil preservation properties to the chemical nature of the product that results from its unique production process. Biochar is produced through the process of pyrolysis which involves the heating of organic material in an oxygen free environment. The product is a stable, carbon – rich form of charcoal. Stable refers to the fact that the carbon is in a form that does not readily degrade, and has been known to remain stable in soil for hundreds to thousands of years. Ordinarily, carbon produced in the process of photosynthesis is stored in plant material and a large portion of this is ultimately released back into the atmosphere through the process of biodegradation. The remaining fraction is incorporated into soil formation processes. So the appeal is that the quantity

of carbon sequestration by the soil is increased dramatically and for longer than under normal processes. The other benefit is that it provides a good option for organic waste products, other than usual composting or disposal activities. Organic materials suitable as feedstock for biochar production include crop stubble, wood chips, manure and municipal waste. Each of these produces biochar with different qualities, and the CSIRO is researching the benefits or other wise of each, as soil conditioners. Soil responses to biochar addition varies across different soil types, and climates, and these are also likely to vary over time, so the research process will be necessarily lengthy. The actual mechanisms that stimulate crop productivity are also being investigated with these facts in mind. One of the clues being pursued is that biochemical reactions that occur between the soil particle, and the biochar particle, enhance beneficial soil microbial activity, by providing a micro-habitat. The micro-habitat is thought to provide protection against environmental extremes, such as wet and dry cycles, that can temporarily deplete soil forming microbe populations. Therefore, a constant microbial population will enable constant soil formation processes which support soil structure and make available plant nutrients. A current Grains Research and Development Corporation project aims to assist farmers to make informed decisions about biochar, and how it can improve soil nutrient heath and crop productivity. This will have the benefit of being able to optimise fertiliser use by combining biochar and conventional fertilisers. In this way, it is thought it can also reduce N2O production which is considered to be 300 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The highest rate of emissions from this process occurs after N application and subsequent wetting. Depending on its texture, biochar can also improve the water holding capacity of some soils - but the downside is that it can have a high binding affinity with some pesticides, thereby rendering them inactive or less effective. Some tests showed that biochar from rice and wheat products were

2500 times more effective than soil in sorbing diuron herbicide. All of the advantages and disadvantages of biochar are being addressed, and the results are not too far away. Based on this brief investigation into the application of biochar it seems there is good potential to increase farm productivity, and while at the same time mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed this is what the Carbon Farming Initiative was intended to achieve. Beyond Tasmania’s shores, biochar has the potential to relieve many of the issues of developing countries trying to enhance their productivity on currently sub optimal soils, at the same time as storing carbon. Some results from the studies described may already be available to assist enterprise decision making, and should be investigated thoroughly before embarking on such pioneering activities. Small scale pyrolysis plants that use 50 – 1000 kg per hour of feedstock are available commercially. As with many of the Carbon Farming Initiative activities, progress is being made slowly, but it is important to stay informed and up to date. In partnership with NRM North, TFGA will be conducting information sessions throughout September and October on the CFI, specific to Tasmania. These will focus on existing methodologies for nitrous oxide amelioration by efficient fertiliser application. Proposed and approved forestry methodologies will be described by Private Forests Tasmania, and a range of expected methodologies to be delivered in the future will also be covered. Details of these events will be announced through Fastnews. The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries is currently developing a methodology for earning carbon credits. A discussion paper on this should be released in the next few months for pubic consultation, in anticipation of the methodology to be available mid 2013. If you have views on this that you would like the TFGA to convey by way of submission, please contact Brigid Morrison, TFGA Policy Advisor – Environment, on 6332 1800 or brigid.morrison@tfga.com.au.

Green Team SMC1566

There has been alot of interest lately in the potential of biochar production in Tasmania.

Where she learned confidence. ‘My teachers helped me be the best I could be. They gave me the confidence to be a leader, to give everything a try. I can’t put it better than Christopher Robin to Pooh: “Promise me you’ll always remember: you’re braver than you believe, and stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.”’ Alison Watkins Chief Executive Officer, GrainCorp Limited Non-Executive Director, ANZ Banking Group Limited

setforlife.net.au Scan the code to see what Collegiate has to offer.

www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

AFI says Carbon Farming Initiative

Startling

facts!

very risky for farmers THERE will be some rewards for farmers participating in the carbon farming initiative (CFI) but also considerable risks, according to Australian Farm Institute (AFI) executive director Mick Keogh. Mr Keogh said while there may be the opportunity to diversify income streams through things such as carbon sequestration through tree planting, farmers would have to be prepared to expose themselves to various risks, such as a change in policy with a change of government and also the price of carbon. While he said it would be possible to set up projects in certain areas that may generate profits, he said the stringent regulations regarding projects such as the clause that an area must remained forested for 100 years meant farmers needed to exercise caution before signing up. “If you’re going to participate, be prepared to be in it for the long haul, otherwise you will be liable for abandonment fees.” In terms of the different schemes different farmers could participate in, Mr Keogh said most broadacre farmers would be looking at sequestration projects. Mitigation schemes would be more of an impact on intensive livestock industries such as piggeries, although some fertiliser would be eligible for a rebate if it had a coating slowing the release of nitrogen into the atmosphere. He said farmers also needed to look at whether particular schemes were accredited under the international Kyoto

23 million Aussies in August

Protocol on climate change. Things such as forestry projects and fertiliser coatings are recognised by the Kyoto Protocol, but the storing of soil carbon is not. Pricing will be steady in the first couple of years, as the federal government has fixed the price of carbon at $23/tonne After that, the rate will float and farmers would have to be prepared for the price volatility that surrounds other agricultural commodities, Mr Keogh said. “Carbon is just a commodity like anything else.” In the high rainfall zones where trees could grow quickly (like Tasmania) Mr Keogh said a carbon forestry scheme could generate revenue after about four years, but added there would be about $10,000 in costs getting the project up and running, along with labour costs associated with the large amount of paperwork involved. Also, the commitment has to be for 100 years – which leaves farmers open to all sorts of risks that are unknowable and often unmanageable. The focus to date in calculating likely cost impacts of the carbon tax to farmers had been on intensive agriculture, Mr Keogh said there would also be an impact on industries such as grains. “It could get up to $12/t in costs over the next decade. “In the first year, treasury predictions are for only around $2/t, but over time that will increase, with the costs spread roughly half and half between on-farm and post-farm costs.”

23,000,000 - Australia hit its new population milestone of 23 million around 7am on Sunday, 26 August, 2012.

2.5 years - It has taken just over 2.5 years to add our most recent million.

1966 - In 1966 our population had just hit 11.5 million, so it has doubled in 46 years. 40 percent were aged under 21, today it is just 27 percent.

184 - There were just 184 Australian Centenarians in 1966, compared to 4248 today – thats 23 times as many! Source: McCrindle Research www.mccrindle.com.au

Source: http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/ nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/ big-risks-in-cfi-keogh/2618943.aspx?src=rss&utm_ source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Staying overnight in Launceston? Make Quest your first choice.

Quest Launceston is centrally located for business and pleasure. Our distinctive range of fully serviced studio, two or three bedroom apartments are designed to provide maximum comfort where you can work or relax. Apartments feature kitchen facilities, laundry and separate living and dining areas. Conference facilities are also available

Ask us about our special rates for TFGA members. To book, call 03 6333 3555 or visit questlaunceston.com.au

Quest Launceston

The Quest Serviced Apartments Group – over 140 properties throughout Australia, New Zealand & Fiji.

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

Your perfect travel companion.

zest. 4347dev

16 Paterson Street, Launceston, TAS 7250 Australia 03 6333 3555 questlaunceston.com.au

snapshots Take three mushrooms a day

Juice company grows fruits embossed with own logo!

Vitamin D deficiency is one of the most common nutritional and medical conditions in Australia where programs such as Slip, Slop, Slap campaign has made us cautious of too much exposure to the sun. However, adequate Vitamin D is important for healthy bones and the prevention of rickets and osteoporosis. Since September last year, Vitamin D Mushrooms have been on the market in New South Wales and Queensland.

Dealer license number 3330

An advertising agency from Brazil has developed a way to grow fruit that is embossed with a company logo. The tropical fruits are sealed in a plastic mould whilst still on the trees and, as they mature, become embossed with the grower or company’s logo. Not only does the plastic mould emboss the logo, the fruits are actually grown into the shape of a fruit box – complete with a straw!

Eating just 100g (three medium button mushrooms) of these mushrooms can supply 100 per cent of the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) of Vitamin D. The Vitamin D is naturally generated by exposing the mushrooms to a few quick pulses of UV light. This activates a property known as ergosterol and converts in into Vitamin D. This occurs in nature when wild mushrooms are exposed to sunlight. Tests show there are virtually no changes to the levels of Vitamin D in the mushrooms for the shelf life of the product or during the cooking process.

Sportsrider, 31-33 Tamar Street, Launceston Phone 6331 9913

www.sportsrider.com.au

email: sales@sportsrider.com.au

Motorcycle Scene Burnie Phone 6431 7255

City Bike Centre Devonport Phone 6431 7255

www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

industrial news

Policy

Hiring new employees - your obligations There are a number of requirements that the Fair Work Act insists employers comply with when hiring any new employees – whether they are full-time, part-time or casual. • Employers must give each new employee a Fair Work Information Statement (available from the TFGA or from the Fair Work Ombudsman Office) before, or as soon as possible after, the employee starts employment. • At the time of engagement you must inform each employee of the terms of their employment. This includes: - Whether they are full-time, part-time or casual; - Their ordinary days/hours of work (unless casual); - The award and classification that you are employing them under; - Whether or not a probationary period applies; and

Classification Pastoral Award 2010

Adult Rate per hour Full time/ Part time

Adult Rate per week (based on 38 hr wk)

Adult Rate per hour Casual

FLH1

$15.96

$606.40

$19.63

FLH2

$16.25

$271.70

$20.30

FLH3

$16.65

$632.80

$20.48

- Any allowable variation to the standard terms that are agreed to by both parties.

FLH4

$17.05

$648.00

$20.98

Also note that a standard work week is 38 hours under either the Pastoral or Horticultural Awards. Any hours worked in excess of this will attract penalty rates or time off in lieu.

FLH5

(pre 2010 level 3)

$17.36

$659.60

$21.36

FLH5

$17.82

$677.16

$21.92

FLH6

$18.00

$684.00

$22.14

FLH7

$18.58

$706.10

$22.86

FLH8

$19.45

$758.70

$23.93

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the employer being fined as well as being required to back-pay employees any wages shortfall. • With Keep – deduct $113.12 from the weekly minimum rate A number of allowances may be payable – for more information contact the TFGA. Junior rates are a percentage of the adult rate for the applicable pay classification scale and apply as follows: • Under 16 years of age 50% • 16 years of age 60%

(pre 2010 level 4)

Rates apply to employers previously bound by the Farming and Fruit Growing and the Farming and Fruit Growing Division 2B Awards.

• 17 years of age 70% • 18 years of age 80% • 19 years of age 90% • 20 years of age 100% Please note that different rates apply for employees undergoing training.

Deal with a 100% Australian owned company.

Australian Made Building Products For all your steel product needs: • Roofing & Walling • Gutters & Downpipes • Colorbond Fencing • Home Improvements • C & Z Purlins • Structural Formwork - BONDEK® • Complete range of building accessories

36 Murphy St, Invermay

T. 03 6333 8400 F. 03 6334 6608 20

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

zest. 3510L

Open 7:30am to 5:00pm Monday - Friday

www.lysaght.com

Telstra cables on rural properties Every year, we get reports from members about incidences of accidental severing of Telstra cables when ploughing paddocks and the subsequent charges by Telstra for undertaking repairs. The TFGA has been trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution to this issue with Telstra and have made some progress in this direction. Unfortunately a combination of factors such as soil shift and tilling have, over time, caused cables that have been uninterrupted for years to now be closer to the surface, exposing them to the risk of being cut when paddock preparation is undertaken. This means that, just because you have not had an issue in past seasons, that you are immune from risk. Following a few basic steps before undertaking any work on farm that will

involve the breaking of ground, such as ploughing or putting in new fence posts, will help avoid incurring the hassle and costs involved in damaging cables. 1. Phone Dial-Before-You-Dig to ascertain the location of cables in the area you will be working if you have not already done so recently. You should contact DialBefore-You-Dig for updated information every couple of years or whenever you are aware of work on cables in your area. 2. I f excavating or digging post holes it is advisable to firstly dig a couple of ‘test holes’ along the given course of the cable to ensure firstly the accuracy of the stated cable location. 3. I f you already know the precise location of cables on your property make sure they are included in any farm mapping.

Acknowledging that information provided to Dial-Before-You-Dig by Telstra is not always one hundred percent accurate, taking this precautionary measure will demonstrate best endeavour by farmers to mitigate any damage to cables and give them a strong case to avoid incurring charges for repairs carried out by Telstra.

If you have had any problems with damaged Telstra cables in recent seasons, contact Mel King at the TFGA by phoning 6332 1800 or email mel.king@tfga.com.au to discuss what options are available to avoid future instances.

Take the guess work out of digging

Locate underground pipes & cables first iPhone App available now www.tfga.com.au • september 2012 voice

succession planning - the process

People Succession planning is an issue that eventually faces nearly every farming family.

is written down, it is easy to communicate between family members and to your professional advisors. One person could take responsibility for gathering this information for the family. 2. Clarify the main priorities The legal land owners need to decide what is most important to them. These priorities form the basis for future discussions.

It involves the transfer of the ownership and management of the farm. The successful outcome of any succession plan will be designed to meet the needs of all family members and ensure a viable and sustainable farm for the future. Sometimes succession planning can seem like a huge task, with too many difficult decisions. There may be a risk of conflict or disagreement, and this can discourage families from starting the process. One approach is to break it down into bite size tasks that can be shared between family members. It can be useful to seek the assistance of a succession planning professional. The sooner these decisions are discussed, the more choices are likely to be available to the family. However it is never too late to start. When families ignore succession planning, they may find that they are forced to sell assets in order to free up money to settle an estate, or to deal with family disharmony. The Planning Process 1. Gather all the background information It is useful for everyone involved in the planning process to have a clear understanding of all the people in the family, the past history and current financial position of the farm. If this

• What do the land owners really want to happen to the farm? • What are the needs and desires of the children? • What are the owners’ financial needs for the future? • What are the tax implications of the decisions?

3. The first meeting At some point everyone who may have an interest in the farm needs to be included in the consultation process. People who need to be considered and consulted include the owners and their spouses, farming and non-farming children and their spouses. You may want to hold a meeting right at the very start of the process - that way everyone will know what is going on, and you could share tasks between those involved. If you have family business meetings, it is highly recommended that you use a professional facilitator. They will ensure that everyone gets a fair hearing and that all the important issues get discussed. It is essential not to assume that you know what everyone wants - their situation and desires may change over time.

There can be a degree of conflict within the family or extended family and using an independent, skilled facilitator will give the meeting the best chance of success and a positive outcome for all involved. 4. Investigation Once you have a broad idea of what everyone wants, it is time to consider the range of options. You will probably need to undertake further research into possibilities and it is suggested that you consult with professional advisors such as your accountant and solicitor for more detailed specialist advice. 5. Decisions You will probably need more than one family meeting to discuss possibilities and options. Again, it is recommended that you use a professional facilitator to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly. Often a person’s position may change once more information and options have been considered, and they have heard and thought about what others want. Succession planning takes time and it can be stressful and emotional for those involved. However, ignoring the issue may do more harm to families than going through the process and coming up with an agreeable situation for all. Source: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farmingmanagement/fire-flood-other-emergencies/droughtinformation/drought-videos/farm-succession-planning

ContaCt RAE & PARTNERS on 6337 5555, oR VIa emaIl Will EdWARdS WIll.edWaRds@RaePaRtneRs.Com.au oR Phil lEbSki PhIllIP.lebskI@RaePaRtneRs.Com.au

www.facebook.com/RaePartners

www.raepartners.com.au 9853

level 3 Cimitiere house 113 Cimitiere street launceston tas 7250

voice september 2012 • www.tfga.com.au

Visit TFGA on Facebook or Twitter and keep up to date with the latest news that affects you. Not that many years ago media and communications in the farming community revolved around collecting the mail and the paper from an upturned milk churn at the farm gate, usually in the middle of the day, and reading them at night. Today many of our members are connected 24/7 by their smartphones. They keep up to date while they work. One of the important roles that we have at the TFGA is to keep those members informed about developments affecting their business without turning them into desk jockeys.

Search for TFGACEO https://twitter.com/TFGACEO

We also have to represent their interests through optimum use of the news media, using the modern tools of communication. We constantly tailor our output. • Our website, www.tfga.com.au, is the hub of our information platform. It is constantly updated with all TFGA activity. • We have our own Facebook page and Twitter account. • Members can receive all our daily media releases. • We use FastNews for regular news feeds by e-mail. • Our award-winning VOICE magazine, posted out, provides a monthly printed summary.

Search for Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers www.facebook.com/pages/Tasmanian-FarmersGraziers-Association/205762849468041

e ur

Ag r

ure’s F ut ult ic

Facebook - search for Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Twitter - search for TFGACEO or use the links at the top of our website.

tur

ure

Visit us on Facebook or Twitter

Yo u r

Corner Cimitiere & Charles Streets, PO Box 193, Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Phone (03) 6332 1800

www.tfga.com.au

Meet Simone, Craig and Robyn. They’re good people to know for insurance. Introducing your local WFI Area Managers. They’re locals just like you, so they find it easier to understand your farm, business and strata issues. They’re able to assist you from your first enquiry right through to making a claim. That’s just one of the reasons why WFI, part of Wesfarmers Insurance, is a leading Australian farm, business and strata insurance company. So for friendly, personal service, call your local WFI Area Manager today. Simone Dodge 0477 308 655 | WFI Hobart, 2nd Floor, 136 Davey Street Craig Hazeldene 0418 137 669 | WFI Launceston, 93 York Street Robyn Keene 0407 563 612 | WFI Burnie, 72-74 Wilson Street visit wfi.com.au To see if our products are right for you, always read the PDS from the product issuer, WFI (ABN 24 000 036 279 AFSL 241461). Craig Hazeldene (AR 252731) is an authorised representative of WFI.