University of Western Australia - research proposal?

For the last year, I have been working on a research proposal to the University of Western Australia, titled "Farmer engagement in the development of innovation". I think it is of major importance to farming in Western Australia, but it is a moving target, and I am happy to share with anyone interested, as it takes shape.

Why we can now handle stubble

Following a previous post about stubble problems -
Previous post about 2013 stubbles
- an interesting point from a farmer at the Newdegate field days was that over the last nine years, they have upgraded their harvester four times, and increased horsepower from about 300 HP to 550 HP. They could now harvest at "beer can height", as well as being able to handle damp straw an hour earlier and an hour later each day.
This explains why the heavy stubbles of 2013 were rarely a problem at seeding for the 2014 crop, based on roadside observation. Most farmers have been slowly upgrading harvest machinery, and can now cope with heavier stubble loads.
How do you add that to your cost-benefit analysis on up-grading the harvester?

Who said farmers have to be price takers?

This is a rhetorical question, because for broad-acre farmers, we are price takers. We therefore have to find opportunities for production efficiency.

But for Julie Bateman and Over the Moon Organics, west of Albany, a different business model has been achieved. Julie spoke at the ABARE outlook day in Albany on August 21st. They have set up a dairy on 30 acres, with 24 cows. 

In itself, a unit of that size would not be viable producing for a mass market. Instead, by processing the milk themselves, and usually selling direct through farmers markets, they have built a profitable business.

The Facebook site for the business is worth a look to understand how they have achieved this -
https://www.facebook.com/overthemoonorganics
It makes the point that good profits are available beyond the farm gate. Obviously farming itself is not the only way to make a living.

Farming worth less to Western Australia than mine rehabilitation?

At a recent update in Albany by Microblitz - the soil bacterial survey of Western Australia -
http://www.microblitz.com.au/
- the statistic was shown that the gross value of farm produce in the State was $5 billion a year. In comparison, the "industry" of mine rehabilitation was spending $4 to $6 billion a year. I will try to confirm these figures, but if correct, they are a reminder about the relative importance of farming to the State's economy.
The point is that we need to find our own opportunities in a farm business. Everyone else has their own challenges, so in reality, nobody really cares about farm issues. Fortunately, most farms can easily find ways for improvement, albeit from long term investment.

Our South Coast native garden

Our South Coast offers an amazing native garden, that probably only few people are aware of. Stephen Hopper described some recent discoveries about our flora at a recent Albany UWA lecture. One species described was Eucalyptus virginea, a tree up to 22 meters tall, found only in a small population at Mount Lindesay near Denmark, and only recognised as a distinct species in 2004 -
 http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/nuytsia/article/425

On the way to finding this tree, with the keen eye of a local enthusiast, during a walk of perhaps some two hours, we saw seven species of flowering orchid, and another one with an unopened flower. Most were quite inconspicuous, and few people would be aware of this richness of our flora.

Little Pink Fairy orchid

Helmet orchid

Jug orchid

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.