The intrinsic plasticity of farm businesses and their resilience to change. An Australian example.

This paper examines the idea that plasticity in farm management introduces resilience to change and allows farm businesses to perform when operating in highly variable environments. We also argue for the need to develop and apply more integrative assessments of farm performance that combine the use of modelling tools with deliberative processes involving farmers and researchers in a co-learning process, to more effectively identify and implement more productive and resilient farm businesses. In a plastic farming system, farm management is highly contingent on environmental conditions. In plastic farming systems farm managers constantly vary crops and inputs based on the availability of limited and variable resources (e.g. land, water, finances, labour, machinery, etc.), and signals from its operating environment (e.g. climate, markets), with the objective of maximising a number of, often competing, objectives (e.g. maximise profits, minimise risks, etc.). In contrast in more rigid farming systems farm management is more calendar driven and relatively fixed sequences of crops are regularly followed over time and across the farm. Here we describe the application of a whole farm simulation model to (i) compare, in silico, the sensitivity of two farming systems designs of contrasting levels of plasticity, operating in two contrasting environments, when exposed to a stressor in the form of climate change scenarios;(ii) investigate the presence of interactions and feedbacks at the field and farm levels capable of modifying the intensity and direction of the responses to climate signals; and (iii) discuss the need for the development and application of more integrative assessments in the analysis of impacts and adaptation options to climate change. In both environments, the more plastic farm management strategy had higher median profits and was less risky for the baseline and less intensive climate change scenarios (2030). However, for the more severe climate change scenarios (2070), the benefit of plastic strategies tended to disappear. These results suggest that, to a point, farming systems having higher levels of plasticity would enable farmers to more effectively respond to climate shifts, thus ensuring the economic viability of the farm business. Though, as the intensity of the stress increases (e.g. 2070 climate change scenario) more significant changes in the farming system might be required to adapt. We also found that in the case studies analysed here, most of the impacts from the climate change scenarios on farm profit and economic risk originated from important reductions in cropping intensity and changes in crop mix rather than from changes in the yields of individual crops. Changes in cropping intensity and crop mix were explained by the combination of reductions in the number of sowing opportunities around critical times in the cropping calendar, and to operational constraints at the whole farm level i.e. limited work capacity in an environment having fewer and more concentrated sowing opportunities. This indicates that indirect impacts from shifts in climate on farm operations can be more important than direct impacts from climate on the yield of individual crops. The results suggest that due to the complexity of farm businesses, impact assessments and opportunities for adaptation to climate change might also need to be pursued at higher integration levels than the crop or the field. We conclude that plasticity can be a desirable characteristic in farming systems operating in highly variable environments, and that integrated whole farm systems analyses of impacts and adaptation to climate change are required to identify important interactions between farm management decision rules, availability of resources, and farmer's preference.

Climate Clever Beef: options to improve business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australia

The Rangeland Journal – Climate Clever Beef special issue examines options for the beef industry in northern Australia to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to engage in the carbon economy. Relative to its gross value (A$5 billion), the northern beef industry is responsible for a sizable proportion of national reportable GHG emissions (8–10%) through enteric methane, savanna burning, vegetation clearing and land degradation. The industry occupies large areas of land and has the potential to impact the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon or reducing carbon loss. Furthermore, much of the industry is currently not achieving its productivity potential, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve the emissions intensity of beef production. Improving the industry’s GHG emissions performance is important for its environmental reputation and may benefit individual businesses through improved production efficiency and revenue from the carbon economy. The Climate Clever Beef initiative collaborated with beef businesses in six regions across northern Australia to better understand the links between GHG emissions and carbon stocks, land condition, herd productivity and profitability. The current performance of businesses was measured and alternate management options were identified and evaluated. Opportunities to participate in the carbon economy through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) were also assessed. The initiative achieved significant producer engagement and collaboration resulting in practice change by 78 people from 35 businesses, managing more than 1 272 000 ha and 132 000 cattle. Carbon farming opportunities were identified that could improve both business performance and emissions intensity. However, these opportunities were not without significant risks, trade-offs and limitations particularly in relation to business scale, and uncertainty in carbon price and the response of soil and vegetation carbon sequestration to management. This paper discusses opportunities for reducing emissions, improving emission intensity and carbon sequestration, and outlines the approach taken to achieve beef business engagement and practice change. The paper concludes with some considerations for policy makers.

Leadership training and regular communication identified as key strategies for the development of the Australian pineapple industry

Changes in the circumstances of the Australian pineapple industry left growers with a leadership vacuum, limited technical support and no funds for conducting research and marketing. Inspirational leadership training together with regular district farm meetings were used to assist the Australian pineapple industry to successfully adapt to these challenges. All growers were assigned to one of a number of regional grower study groups and regular on-farm meetings commenced to facilitate communication between growers, transfer of technology, awareness of industry affairs and an opportunity to become involved in industry business. A leader was appointed within each study group and these leaders attended a leadership course consisting of three, three-day modules. These original course graduates formed the nucleus of a new grower representative group which subsequently instigated levies to fund research and marketing. Two more courses have since been conducted to provide the depth of leadership to satisfy the growers' desire to rotate industry leadership on a regular basis.