Will Direct Action on carbon would help farmers?

Farm soils should benefit from locking away carbon, which can act as a food source for soil microbes, as well as helping soil moisture and other desirable properties. So, at least theoretically, the $3 billion of government money now on offer to help lock up carbon should benefit everyone. In practice, it is likely to be a different story. A complicated tender system will have to be satisfied, and the proposed 15,000 "Green Army" could be more trouble to farmers than it is worth. 

Here is an outline of the proposals -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188

And, for one view, the University of W.A. is sceptical -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/nrn-soil-carbon/5611742

Quoting from this report -

"There's been controversy over the role of soil carbon storage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In its submission to the Government's Direct Action plan, the CSIRO said carbon storage would make only 'low level' cuts to emissions.

Marit Kragt, an assistant professor of agricultural economics at the University of Western Australia, says it will be a tough call for farmers as to whether it is worthwhile to undertake rigorous monitoring and reporting to earn carbon credits, especially for those who have already done significant environmental work on their property.

"With Australia's long history of natural resource management in agriculture, most farmers will have already taken those unproductive areas out of production," Dr Kragt said.

"I've seen a lot of farmers doing wonderful things, planting trees along their fields, fencing areas off for native vegetation. Those areas that they've already adopted those sustainable practices on won't be eligible for this new methodology.

"It won't be eligible for any carbon credits since this methodology has been approved."

Where is the GM profit margin?

In the polarising debate over GM canola, claims were made by both sides that now seem ridiculous. On one side, we would all be poisoned by an avalanche of Frankenstein food, while the other side offered economic salvation.

The doom-sayers could still claim that GM technology will be the end of the human race - eventually. Maybe they will prove to be right - eventually, whenever that is.

On the other hand, it is a good time to assess the chances of economic salvation that was promised with GM crops. As time moves on, with better margins for seed sales from GM seed, the consequent breeding effort should produce a wider gap in performance between GM and non-GM canola.
 
As for now, we still face a substantial price discount for GM canola, as well as extra cost for the seed. People are sowing increasing areas, but mostly this is for a special purpose weed control. Put aside the loss of goodwill for the industry from the Marsh/Baxter legal stouch.

Photo - ABC News Rebecca Trigger, of Michael Baxter leaving court.

The legal argument for this trial quoted that after five seasons, 406 farmers grew GM canola over 17 per cent of the canola area. I think the CBH total is around 4000 cropping farmers in W.A.
From this, you could conclude that for W.A. farmers, GM canola is a useful tool, but not game-changing technology. Most farmers would probably agree, and are likely to add that the seed companies are likely to take any windfall profit.
"T'was ever thus".

So back to my theme, for example in this blog -

http://davidreesconsulting.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/australian-farming-in-nutshell.html

- we need to maximise our own opportunities, not assume that commercial interests will deliver for us.