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.

Influence of plant traits on production costs and profitability of strawberry in southeast Queensland.

In Queensland the subtropical strawberry ( Fragaria * ananassa) breeding program aims to combine traits into novel genotypes that increase production efficiency. The contribution of individual plant traits to cost and income under subtropical Queensland conditions was investigated, with the overall goal of improving the profitability of the industry through the release of new strawberry cultivars. The study involved specifying the production and marketing system using three cultivars of strawberry that are currently widely grown annually in southeast Queensland, developing methods to assess the economic impact of changes to the system, and identifying plant traits that influence outcomes from the system. From May through September P (price; $ punnet -1), V (monthly mass; tonne of fruit on the market) and M (calendar month; i.e. May=5) were found to be related ( r2=0.92) by the function (SE) P=4.741(0.469)-0.001630(0.0005) V-0.226(0.102) M using data from 2006 to 2010 for the Brisbane central market. Both income and cost elements in the gross margin were subject to sensitivity analysis. 'Harvesting' and 'Handling/Packing' 'Groups' of 'Activities' were the major contributors to variable costs (each >20%) in the gross margin analysis. Within the 'Harvesting Group', the 'Picking Activity' contributed most (>80%) with the trait 'display of fruit' having the greatest (33%) influence on the cost of the 'Picking Activity'. Within the 'Handling/Packing Group', the 'Packing Activity' contributed 50% of costs with the traits 'fruit shape', 'fruit size variation' and 'resistance to bruising' having the greatest (12-62%) influence on the cost of the 'Packing Activity'. Non-plant items (e.g. carton purchases) made up the other 50% of the costs within the 'Handling/Packing Group'. When any of the individual traits in the 'Harvesting' and 'Handling/Packing' groups were changed by one unit (on a 1-9 scale) the gross margin changed by up to 1%. Increasing yield increased the gross margin to a maximum (15% above present) at 1320 g plant -1 (94% above present). A 10% redistribution of total yield from September to May increased the gross margin by 23%. Increasing fruit size increased gross margin: a 75% increase in fruit size (to ~30 g) produced a 22% increase in the gross margin. The modified gross margin analysis developed in this study allowed simultaneous estimation of the gross margin for the producer and gross value of the industry. These parameters sometimes move in opposite directions.