Adoption of environmental assurance in pastoral industry supply chains - Market failure and beyond

This paper describes adoption rates of environmental assurance within meat and wool supply chains, and discusses this in terms of market interest and demand for certified 'environmentally friendly' products, based on phone surveys and personal interviews with pastoral producers, meat and wool processors, wholesalers and retailers, and domestic consumers. Members of meat and wool supply chains, particularly pastoral producers, are both aware of and interested in implementing various forms of environmental assurance, but significant costs combined with few private benefits have resulted in low adoption rates. The main reason for the lack of benefits is that the end user (the consumer) does not value environmental assurance and is not willing to pay for it. For this reason, global food and fibre supply chains, which compete to supply consumers with safe and quality food at the lowest price, resist public pressure to implement environmental assurance. This market failure is further exacerbated by highly variable environmental and social production standards required of primary producers in different countries, and the disparate levels of government support provided to them. Given that it is the Australian general public and not markets that demand environmental benefits from agriculture, the Australian government has a mandate to use public funds to counter this market failure. A national farm environmental policy should utilise a range of financial incentives to reward farmers for delivering general public good environmental outcomes, with these specified and verified through a national environmental assurance scheme.

Evaluation of the efficacy and economics of irrigation management, plant resistance and Brassica(spot)(TM) models for management of white blister on Brassica crops

Options for the integrated management of white blister (caused by Albugo candida) of Brassica crops include the use of well timed overhead irrigation, resistant cultivars, programs of weekly fungicide sprays or strategic fungicide applications based on the disease risk prediction model, Brassica(spot)(TM). Initial systematic surveys of radish producers near Melbourne, Victoria, indicated that crops irrigated overhead in the morning (0800-1200 h) had a lower incidence of white blister than those irrigated overhead in the evening (2000-2400 h). A field trial was conducted from July to November 2008 on a broccoli crop located west of Melbourne to determine the efficacy and economics of different practices used for white blister control, modifying irrigation timing, growing a resistant cultivar and timing spray applications based on Brassica(spot)(TM). Growing the resistant cultivar, 'Tyson', instead of the susceptible cultivar, 'Ironman', reduced disease incidence on broccoli heads by 99 %. Overhead irrigation at 0400 h instead of 2000 h reduced disease incidence by 58 %. A weekly spray program or a spray regime based on either of two versions of the Brassica(spot)(TM) model provided similar disease control and reduced disease incidence by 72 to 83 %. However, use of the Brassica(spot)(TM) models greatly reduced the number of sprays required for control from 14 to one or two. An economic analysis showed that growing the more resistant cultivar increased farm profit per ha by 12 %, choosing morning irrigation by 3 % and using the disease risk predictive models compared with weekly sprays by 15 %. The disease risk predictive models were 4 % more profitable than the unsprayed control.

The Ethics of a Co-regulatory Model for Farm Animal Welfare Research

Standards for farm animal welfare are variously managed at a national level by government-led regulatory control, by consumer-led welfare economics and co-regulated control in a partnership between industry and government. In the latter case the control of research to support animal welfare standards by the relevant industry body may lead to a conflict of interest on the part of researchers, who are dependent on industry for continued research funding. We examine this dilemma by reviewing two case studies of research published under an Australian co-regulated control system. Evidence of unsupported conclusions that are favourable to industry is provided, suggesting that researchers do experience a conflict of interest that may influence the integrity of the research. Alternative models for the management of research are discussed, including the establishment of an independent research management body for animal welfare because of its public good status and the use of public money derived from taxation, with representation from government, industry, consumers, and advocacy groups.