Stakeholder expectations for environmental assurance in agriculture: Lessons from the pastoral industry

This paper outlines the expectations of a wide range of stakeholders for environmental assurance in the pastoral industries and agriculture generally. Stakeholders consulted were domestic consumers, rangeland graziers, members of environmental groups, companies within meat and wool supply chains, and agricultural industry, environmental and consumer groups. Most stakeholders were in favour of the application of environmental assurance to agriculture, although supply chains and consumers had less enthusiasm for this than environmental and consumer groups. General public good benefits were more important to environmental and consumer groups, while private benefits were more important to consumers and supply chains. The 'ideal' form of environmental assurance appears to be a management system that provides for continuous improvement in environmental, quality and food safety outcomes, combined with elements of ISO 14024 eco-labelling such as life-cycle assessment, environmental performance criteria, third-party certification, labelling and multi-stakeholder involvement. However, market failure prevents this from being implemented and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In the short term, members of supply chains (the people that must implement and fund environmental assurance) want this to be kept simple and low cost, to be built into their existing industry standards and to add value to their businesses. As a starting point, several agricultural industry organisations favour the use of a basic management system, combining continuous improvement, risk assessment and industry best management practice programs, which can be built on over time to meet regulator, market and community expectations.

Impact of nitrification inhibitor (DMPP) on soil nitrous oxide emissions from an intensive broccoli production system in sub-tropical Australia

Vegetable cropping systems are often characterised by high inputs of nitrogen fertiliser. Elevated emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) can be expected as a consequence. In order to mitigate N2O emissions from fertilised agricultural fields, the use of nitrification inhibitors, in combination with ammonium based fertilisers, has been promoted. However, no data is currently available on the use of nitrification inhibitors in sub-tropical vegetable systems. A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) on N2O emissions and yield from broccoli production in sub-tropical Australia. Soil N2O fluxes were monitored continuously (3 h sampling frequency) with fully automated, pneumatically operated measuring chambers linked to a sampling control system and a gas chromatograph. Cumulative N2O emissions over the 5 month observation period amounted to 298 g-N/ha, 324 g-N/ha, 411 g-N/ha and 463 g-N/ha in the conventional fertiliser (CONV), the DMPP treatment (DMPP), the DMMP treatment with a 10% reduced fertiliser rate (DMPP-red) and the zero fertiliser (0N), respectively. The temporal variation of N2O fluxes showed only low emissions over the broccoli cropping phase, but significantly elevated emissions were observed in all treatments following broccoli residues being incorporated into the soil. Overall 70–90% of the total emissions occurred in this 5 weeks fallow phase. There was a significant inhibition effect of DMPP on N2O emissions and soil mineral N content over the broccoli cropping phase where the application of DMPP reduced N2O emissions by 75% compared to the standard practice. However, there was no statistical difference between the treatments during the fallow phase or when the whole season was considered. This study shows that DMPP has the potential to reduce N2O emissions from intensive vegetable systems, but also highlights the importance of post-harvest emissions from incorporated vegetable residues. N2O mitigation strategies in vegetable systems need to target these post-harvest emissions and a better evaluation of the effect of nitrification inhibitors over the fallow phase is needed.

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.