Farming

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
<ul style="list-style-type: square;">
<li>I would like to know to what extent regenerative agriculture practices could play a role in reducing carbon emissions and producing food, including meat, in the future. From what I have read it seems to offer much, but I am curious about how much difference it would make if all of our farmers moved to this kind of land management practice. Or even most of them. – a question from Virginia</li>
</ul>
To identify and quantify the potential of regenerative agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we first have to define what it means. If regenerative practices maintain or improve production, and reduce wasteful losses on the farm, then the answer tends to be yes. But to what degree is it better, and can we verify this yet?
Let’s first define how regenerative farming differs from other ways of farming. For example, North Americans listening to <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science" target="_blank">environmentally conscious media</a> would be likely to define most of New Zealand pastoral agriculture systems as regenerative, when compared to the tilled fields of crops they see across most of their continent.
If milk and meat-producing animals are not farmed on pasture, farmers have to grow grains to feed them and transport the fodder to the animals, often over long distances. It’s hard to miss that the transport is inefficient, but easier to miss that nutrients excreted by the animals as manure or urine can’t go back to the land that fed them.
Healthy soils
Returning nutrients to the land really matters because these build up soil, and grow more plants. We can’t sequester carbon in soil without returning nutrients to the soil.
New Zealand’s style of pastoral agricultural <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870806000107" target="_blank">does this well</a>, and we’re still improving as we focus on reducing nutrient losses to water.
Our pastoral soils tend to have <a href="https://doi.org/10.4141/S04-082" target="_blank">as much carbon</a> as they once did under forest, but concerns have been raised about <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.11.012" target="_blank">carbon losses in some regions</a>. Yet, we do still have two big problems.
First, the animals that efficiently digest tough plants – including cows, sheep, and goats – all belch the greenhouse gas methane. This is a direct result of their special stomachs, and chewing their cud. Therefore, farms will continue to have high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of meat and milk they produce. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">IPCC</a>) report <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49238749" target="_blank">emphasised this</a>, noting <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">that changing diets can reduce emissions</a>.
The second problem is worst in <a href="https://www.dairynz.co.nz/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gases-in-the-dairy-industry/">dairying</a>. When a cow lifts its tail to urinate, litres of urine saturate a small area. The nitrogen content in this patch exceeds what plants and soil can retain, and the excess is lost to water as nitrate and to the air, partly as the powerful, long-lived greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.
Defining regenerative
Regenerative agriculture lacks a clear definition, but there is an opportunity for innovation around its core concept, which is a more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.269" target="_blank">circular economy</a>. This means taking steps to reduce or recover losses, including those of nutrients and greenhouse gases.
Organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of antibiotics and synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, could potentially include regenerative agriculture. Organics once had the same innovative status, but now has <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/11/673094/when-less-is-better" target="_blank">a clear business model and supply chain linked to a price premium</a> achieved through certification.
The price premium and regulation linked to certification can limit the <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00886434/document" target="_blank">redesign of the organic agricultural systems</a> to incremental improvements, limiting the inclusion of regenerative concepts. It also means that emission studies of organic agriculture may not reveal the potential benefits of regenerative agriculture.
Instead, the potential for a redesign of New Zealand’s style of pastoral dairy farming around regenerative principles provides a useful example of how progress might work. Pastures could shift from ryegrass and clover to a more diverse, more deeply rooted mix of alternate species such as chicory, plantains, lupins and other grasses. This system change would have three main benefits.
Win-win-win
The first big win in farming is always enhanced production, and this is possible by better matching the ideal diet for cows. High performance ryegrass-clover pastures contain too little energy and too much protein. Diverse pastures fix this, allowing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.01.009" target="_blank">potential increases in production</a>.
A second benefit will result when protein content of pasture doesn’t exceed what cows need to produce milk, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1442-1" target="_blank">reducing</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.04.023" target="_blank">diluting</a> the nitrogen concentrated in the urine patches that are a main source of nitrous oxide emissions and impacts on water.
A third set of gains can result if the new, more diverse pastures are better at capturing and storing nutrients in soil, usually through deeper and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2463-z" target="_blank">more vigorous root growth</a>. These three gains interrelate and create options for redesign of the farm system. This is best done by farmers, although <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.015">models</a> may help put the three pieces together into a win-win-win.
Whether you’re interested in local beef in Virginia, or the future of New Zealand’s dairy industry, the principles that define regenerative agriculture look promising for redesigning farming to reduce emissions. They may prove simpler than <a href="https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/currently-science/climate-change-new-zealand-farms-low-emission-future" target="_blank">agriculture’s wider search</a> for new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including <a href="https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/key-step-forward-for-game-changing-grass/" target="_blank">genetically engineering ryegrass</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123090/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Troy Baisden, Professor and Chair in Lake and Freshwater Sciences, University of Waikato.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-regenerative-farming-can-help-grow-food-with-less-impact-123090" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Climate explained: regenerative farming can help grow food with less impact

<html><body>
Farm trespassers will face the toughest penalties in the country including up to three years jail time, under legislation set to be introduced by the NSW Nationals in Government.
The Minister for Agriculture Adam Marshall will also today give notice of the NSW Government’s intention to introduce a Right to Farm Bill into Parliament.
The Bill will introduce: 
<ul>
<li>The toughest penalties in Australia for farm trespass, including three years jail time and up to $22,000 in fines. Currently there is no jail time for farm trespass;</li>
<li>New offences and aggravating factors for trespassing as a group, damaging property and releasing livestock and tampering with farm gates and ramps;</li>
<li>Legal recognition of a farmer’s right to farm, shielding them from nuisance complaints, claims and legal action from their neighbours and other third parties.</li>
</ul>
Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW John Barilaro said the Bill would help address increasing attacks on farming families. 
“The people of NSW have had a gutful of vile attacks against our farming families. This legislation is all about sending the clearest possible message: enough is enough,” Mr Barilaro said.
“If you invade a farm in NSW you will face up to three years behind bars. 
“We are telling our farmers today ‘we value the work you do and we will protect you and your families from these criminals,” he said.  
“Here in NSW we back our farmers 100 per cent, so it makes sense we’d have the toughest penalties for those that decide to wreak havoc on our primary producers,” Mr Marshall said.
“The community has had a gutful of farm invasions and have said existing penalties of up to $5,500 in fines are just a slap on the wrist. We’ve listened to that and will now establish the toughest possible penalties in the nation for farm invasions.
“If you’re farming legally, and have so for many years, you’re not going to cop a nuisance claim and potential legal action just because some folks from the city moved next door and decided they didn’t like the sound of your dairy cows.”
The Bill comes on top of regulatory changes recently introduced under the Biosecurity Act 2015, which impose further offences and large financial penalties for farm trespass that breaches on-farm biosecurity plans. This includes on-the-spot fines of $1,000 and fines of up to $220,000 through the courts.
The Right to Farm Bill was an election commitment by the NSW Nationals in Government.
</body></html>

Right to farm to be legislated by NSW Government

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Farming emits greenhouse gases, but the land can also store them.
We can’t achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement without managing emissions from land use, according to a <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">special report released today</a> by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Emissions from land use, largely agriculture, forestry and land clearing, make up some 22% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Counting the entire food chain (including fertiliser, transport, processing, and sale) takes this contribution up to 29%.
The report, which synthesises information from some 7,000 scientific papers, found there is no way to keep global warming under 2℃ without significant reductions in land sector emissions.
Land puts out emissions – and absorbs them
The land plays a vital role in the carbon cycle, both by absorbing greenhouse gases and by releasing them into the atmosphere. This means our land resources are both part of the climate change problem and potentially part of the solution.
Improving how we manage the land could reduce climate change at the same time as it improves agricultural sustainability, supports biodiversity, and increases food security.
While the food system emits nearly a third of the world’s greenhouse gases – a situation <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-a-global-top-ten-deforester-and-queensland-is-leading-the-way-87259" target="_blank">also reflected in Australia</a> – land-based ecosystems absorb the equivalent of about 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This happens through natural processes that store carbon in soil and plants, in both farmed lands and managed forests as well as in natural “<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-desperately-need-to-store-more-carbon-seagrass-could-be-the-answer-105524" target="_blank">carbon sinks</a>” such as forests, seagrass and wetlands.
There are opportunities to reduce the emissions related to land use, especially food production, while at the same time protecting and expanding these greenhouse gas sinks.
But it is also immediately obvious that the land sector cannot achieve these goals by itself. It will require substantial reductions in fossil fuel emissions from our energy, transport, industrial, and infrastructure sectors.
Overburdened land
So, what is the current state of our land resources? <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">Not that great</a>.
The report shows there are unprecedented rates of global land and freshwater used to provide food and other products for the record global population levels and consumption rates.
For example, consumption of food calories per person worldwide has increased by about one-third since 1961, and the average person’s consumption of meat and vegetable oils has more than doubled.
The pressure to increase agricultural production has helped push about a quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land area into various states of degradation via loss of soil, nutrients and vegetation.
Simultaneously, biodiversity has declined globally, largely because of deforestation, cropland expansion and unsustainable land-use intensification. Australia has experienced <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-reduce-fire-risk-and-meet-climate-targets-over-300-scientists-call-for-stronger-land-clearing-laws-113172" target="_blank">much the same trends</a>.
Climate change exacerbates land degradation
Climate change is already having a major impact on the land. Temperatures over land are rising at almost twice the rate of global average temperatures.
Linked to this, the frequency and intensity of <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-means-more-extreme-weather-heres-what-the-uk-can-expect-if-emissions-keep-increasing-112745" target="_blank">extreme events</a> such as heatwaves and flooding rainfall has increased. The global area of drylands in drought has increased by over 40% since 1961.
These and other changes have reduced agricultural productivity in many regions – <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-farmers-are-adapting-to-climate-change-76939" target="_blank">including Australia</a>. Further climate changes will likely spur soil degradation, loss of vegetation, biodiversity and permafrost, and increases in fire damage and coastal degradation.
Water will become more scarce, and our food supply will become less stable. Exactly how these risks will evolve will depend on population growth, consumption patterns and also how the global community responds.
Overall, proactive and informed management of our land (for food, water and biodiversity) will become increasingly important.
Stopping land degradation helps everyone
Tackling the interlinked problems of land degradation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and food security can deliver win-wins for farmers, communities, governments, and ecosystems.
The report provides many examples of on-ground and policy options that could improve the management of agriculture and forests, to enhance production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make these areas more robust to climate change. Leading Australian farmers are already <a href="https://www.aciar.gov.au" target="_blank">heading down these paths</a>, and we have a lot to teach the world about how to do this.
We may also need to reassess what we demand from the land. Farmed animals are a major contributor to these emissions, so plant-based diets are increasingly being <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-vegetarianism-healthier-we-asked-five-experts-112133" target="_blank">adopted</a>.
Similarly, the report found about 25-30% of food globally is lost or wasted. Reducing this can significantly lower emissions, and ease pressure on agricultural systems.
How do we make this happen?
Many people around the world are doing impressive work in addressing some of these problems. But the solutions they generate are not necessarily widely used or applied comprehensively.
To be successful, coordinated policy packages and land management approaches are pivotal. Inevitably, all solutions are highly location-specific and contextual, and it is vital to bring together local communities and industry, as well as governments at all levels.
Given the mounting impacts of climate change on food security and land condition, there is no time to lose.
<hr>
Mark Howden, Director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121551/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
The author acknowledges the contributions to authorship of this article by Clare de Castella, Communications Manager, ANU Climate Change Institute.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121551/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/un-climate-change-report-land-clearing-and-farming-contribute-a-third-of-the-worlds-greenhouse-gases-121551" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Land clearing and farming contribute a third of the world’s greenhouse gases: Mark Howden

<html><body>
Elders is set to acquire Australian Independent Rural Retailers (AIRR).
The acquisition will give Elders a footprint in the wholesale supply of farm products.
It has been suggested it positions Elders to compete more strongly with Canadian fertiliser giant Nutrient.
Elders has made a $187 million scrip and cash offer for unlisted private wholesale buying group Australian Independent Rural Retailers.
The agribusiness announced on Monday it had entered a scheme of implementation to acquire 100 per cent of AIRR’s shares, with the half-scrip, half-cash bid already receiving the blessing of the takeover target’s board.
Elders, which remains in a trading halt, said it was funding the acquisition through a $137 million equity raising and the issue of $79 million of new Elders shares to AIRR shareholders as scrip consideration.
The $10.85 per share deal values AIRR at $157 million on an equity basis and $187 million on an enterprise value basis.
Elders said the acquisition will allow it to enter the wholesale rural services market with net synergies of $6.6 million to $9.33 million per annum to be gradually realised over the next two years.
“Acquiring AIRR will give Elders a national wholesale platform,” Elders chief executive Mark Allison said.
</body></html>

Elders to acquire Australian Independent Rural Retailers (AIRR)

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Most of us are familiar with cases of data being used in ways that go beyond consumer expectations – just think of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-used-our-secrets-for-profit-the-same-data-could-be-used-for-public-good-98745" target="_blank">Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>.
However this is also an issue relevant to Australia’s agricultural sector. Modern farms create a huge amount of data, but farmers have very little control over the collection, aggregation and potential distribution of that data.
Agricultural data collected by governments, agribusinesses and banks is regulated in a piecemeal fashion, and ends up beyond the reach of the very farmers who generated the data.
There are signs this may be starting to change.
Privacy and data rights
On April 4, animal activists engaged in <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-well-intentioned-vegan-protesters-are-getting-it-wrong-115224" target="_blank">widespread protests</a> that disrupted Australian cities and farming communities.
The next day Federal Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources David Littleproud took the extraordinary step of including Aussie Farms Incorporated – a self-described animal rights charity that publishes a map of farming and animal processing locations – as an “organisation” under the <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/" target="_blank">Privacy Act</a>.
Littleproud <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6008670/questions-over-pms-call-for-class-action-against-vegan-activism/" target="_blank">said</a>: "Federally, we’ve done our bit – we’ve brought Aussie Farms and its attack map for activists under the Privacy Act so that misuse of personal information results in enormous fines."
This is the first time in Australia such collation and publication of farming data has been addressed with a significant legal response.
It comes at a time when the new consumer data right (CDR) is imminent. This right, soon to be enshrined in new rules developed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), will provide Australians with greater access to and control over their own data.
On April 15, the ACCC released draft CDR rules for consultation. These are in preparation for the implementation of the first phase of the CDR set for July 1, 2019. The <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20draft%20CDR%20rules%2029%20March%202019.pdf" target="_blank">ACCC’s rules</a> set out how the CDR will operate including data sharing and privacy safeguards.
The decision to include Aussie Farms Incorporated under the Privacy Act and the introduction of the CDR feeds into an important conversation about governance and control of Australian agricultural data.
The value of agricultural data
Australian farms generate huge volumes of agricultural data. Examples include the types of crops being grown, crop yields, livestock numbers and locations, types of fertilisers and pesticides being used, soil types, rainfall and more.
This data is typically collected through the use of digital farming machinery and buildings featuring robotics and digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and devices connected to the internet (“internet of things”, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-someone-watching-you-online-the-security-risks-of-the-internet-of-things-55701" target="_blank">IoT</a>).
Big data, data analytics and machine learning are incorporated into agriculture through electronic livestock tracing systems, electronic weather data, smartphone mapping and other remote sensing applications.
Over the past five years, <a href="https://www.crdc.com.au/precision-to-decision" target="_blank">numerous reports</a> have <a href="https://www.ey.com/gl/en/industries/consumer-products/ey-digital-agriculture-trends-opportunities" target="_blank">highlighted</a> the myriad benefits a data revolution can <a href="https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/talking-2030-growing-australian-agriculture.pdf" target="_blank">bring to agriculture</a>.
Many think this data revolution will provide an opportunity for farmers to get closer to the consumer, make farms and farmers more efficient, and provide a way for farmers to show banks how sustainable practices lower long-term risk of things like droughts and pests.
Indeed, big data in agriculture is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/6-ways-big-data-helps-improve-global-water-and-food-security/39791" target="_blank">often seen</a> as the solution to the world’s impending food security crisis.
Piecemeal regulation
But a recent <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">review</a> from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics highlights the patchy and fragmented nature of existing government and industry approaches to agricultural data. What that means is Australian farmers are currently not adequately protected from their farm data being collected and used without their knowledge or consent.
Perhaps not surprisingly then, <a href="https://www.crdc.com.au/sites/default/files/P2D%20producer%20survey%20-%20CSIRO%20Final%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">recent research</a> into farmers’ attitudes about sharing their farm data reveals their level of mistrust about the way in which that data may be used or misused. More than 60% of farmers surveyed indicated they had little to no trust in technology providers to maintain their privacy and not engage in unauthorised use of their data.
A strong future for digitally-enabled Australian agriculture needs a data governance framework. Such guidelines must encompass the legal, social and ethical rules we need to protect the agricultural sector, the interests of farmers and farmer privacy.
This latter point is key, as agricultural data is often connected to farmers’ personal information. For example, the location of the farms, or the location of GPS-enabled farming equipment, may be digitally linked to farmer names and financial information.
Within industries, anecdotal stories abound about banks and insurance companies knowing more about the incomes and businesses of farms than the individual farmers themselves.
Towards a solution
Farmers are aware of the changing data landscape, with proposed federal government legislation on <a href="https://dataavailability.pmc.gov.au/" target="_blank">data availability and use</a>, and the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/consumer-data-right-cdr-0" target="_blank">consumer data right</a> being rolled out across industry sectors. As Shadow Minister for Agriculture Joel Fitzgibbon <a href="http://www.joelfitzgibbon.com/speech_rabobank_farm2fork_summit_doing_more_with_less_innovation_sustainable_agriculture_thursday_28_march_2019" target="_blank">recently observed</a>: "If given the opportunity, a Labor government will reform the research system and improve data availability. If we want to develop good evidenced-based policy we need more and better data."
Yet the problem is that many farmers don’t know if, and under what circumstances, they should share their agricultural data.
We argue that Australian agricultural industries need to urgently address issues such as data sharing protocols and governance arrangements. Perhaps the group best placed to coordinate such activities is the National Farmers’ Federation (<a href="https://www.nff.org.au/" target="_blank">NFF</a>).
What should those rules look like?
We have seen attempts to improve the position of farmers against anti-competitive practices of supermarkets through the recent re-appointment of <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/agriculture" target="_blank">Mick Keogh as Agricultural Commissioner</a> to Australia’s competition watchdog, the ACCC.
In other countries, attempts to improve agricultural data management practices have been administered through the introduction of voluntary agricultural data codes of practice in the <a href="https://www.fb.org/issues/technology/data-privacy/privacy-and-security-principles-for-farm-data" target="_blank">US</a>, <a href="http://www.farmdatacode.org.nz/" target="_blank">NZ</a> and now the <a href="https://www.ecpa.eu/news/code-conduct-agricultural-data-sharing-signing" target="_blank">EU</a>.
Australia’s <a href="https://www.nff.org.au/" target="_blank">NFF</a> is currently <a href="https://www.nff.org.au/read/5873/budget-roadmap-charts-course-for-100" target="_blank">considering</a> developing an agricultural data code for Australia as well.
But an agricultural data code of practice is just one piece of the large puzzle of how best to protect farmers and their data while maximising the potential for agriculture.
Providing guidance around agricultural data is not just about privacy, but also productivity.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115228/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Leanne Wiseman, Associate Professor, Griffith Law School, Assoc Director Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), Griffith University
Jay Sanderson, Professor, Head of USC Law School, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/farms-create-lots-of-data-but-farmers-dont-control-where-it-ends-up-and-who-can-use-it-115228" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Farms create lots of data, but farmers don’t control where it ends up and who can use it

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Climate change has already <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13604" target="_blank">reduced yields for Australian wheat growers</a>, thanks to increasingly unreliable rains and hostile temperatures. But our new research offers farmers a way to adapt.
By sowing much earlier than they currently do, wheat growers can potentially increase yields again. However, our study <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0417-9" target="_blank">published today in Nature Climate Change</a> shows that to do this they need new varieties that allow them more leeway to vary their sowing dates in the face of increasingly erratic rainfall.
Sowing wheat is a matter of delicate timing. Seeds of current varieties need to be planted at just such a time so that, months later, the plants flower during a window of just 1-2 weeks, known as the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429017306895" target="_blank">optimal flowering period</a>.
In Australia’s wheat belt this window is generally in early spring. At this time the soil is moist after the cool, wet winter; days are getting longer and sunnier; maximum temperatures are still relatively low; and frosts are less frequent. If crops flower outside the optimal window, yields decline sharply.
Crops and colonies
When Europeans first started trying to grow wheat in Australia, they used varieties that were suited to the cool, wet climate of northern Europe, where the optimal flowering period is in summer. These varieties were much too slow to flower in Australian conditions, and yields were very low. Wheat breeder <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/farrer-william-james-6145" target="_blank">William Farrer</a> used faster-developing wheats from India to create the <a href="https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/federation-wheat" target="_blank">Federation</a> variety, which revolutionised wheat production in Australia, earning Farrer the ultimate honour of <a href="https://www.williamfarrerhotel.com.au/" target="_blank">having a pub named after him</a>.
Federation wheat is a “spring wheat”, moving rapidly through its life cycle regardless of when it is planted. If you sow it earlier, it flowers earlier. For more than a century Australian wheat breeders have bred spring wheats, allowing growers to adjust their sowing time to get their crops to flower during the optimal period. Anzac Day has traditionally been the start of sowing season, after autumn rains have wet the soil enough for seeds to germinate.
Here is where climate change is causing a problem. If farmers sow later than mid-May, the wheat is likely to miss its spring flowering window. But southern Australia has experienced <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00035.1" target="_blank">declining April and May rainfall</a>, making it harder for growers to <a href="https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.1833" target="_blank">sow and establish crops at the right time</a>. This in turn means crops flower too late the following spring, meaning yields are reduced by drought and heat.
Growers could start sowing earlier, and use stored soil water from summer rain (which hasn’t declined and has even <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/cp/CP11268" target="_blank">increased at some locations</a>), but current spring wheat varieties would flower too early to yield well. For farmers to sow earlier, they need a different sort of wheat in which development is slowed down by an environmental cue. One such environmental cue is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernalization" target="_blank">vernalisation</a>. Plants that are sensitive to vernalisation will not flower until they have experienced a period of cold temperatures. These strains are thus called “winter wheats”.
Ironically enough, the wheat varieties that Europeans first brought to Australia were winter wheats, but they were further slowed by sensitivity to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoperiodism" target="_blank">day length</a> which made them too slow to reach the earlier flowering times needed in the hotter, drier colony.
But this problem can be sidestepped by using a “fast winter wheat”, which is sensitive to vernalisation but not to day length. Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429018300819" target="_blank">previous research</a> showed that this type of wheat was very suited to Australian conditions – it can be sown early but still flower at the right time. In fact, the vernalisation requirement means that this wheat can be sown over a much broader range of dates and experience fluctuating temperatures, and still flower at the right time.
Yielding results
In our new research, we developed different lines of wheat that varied in their response to vernalisation and day length, and grew them across the wheat belt to compare which ones would yield best at earlier sowing times.
We found that a fast winter wheat performed best over most of the wheatbelt, and on average yielded 10% more than spring wheat when they flower at the same time.
We then used computer simulations to investigate how these crops would perform at the scale of an entire farm. Our results showed that if Australian growers had access to adapted winter varieties in addition to spring varieties, they could start sowing earlier in seasons where there was an opportunity. If the rains come early, farmers can use the winter wheat; if they come late they can switch to the spring wheat, which yields better than winter wheat at late sowing times.
This would mean that more area of crop would be planted on time, and yields would increase as a result. If realised, this could increase national wheat production by about 20%, or roughly 7.1 million tonnes.
The main hurdle is that growers do not currently have access to suitable winter wheats. Breeding companies have <a href="https://www.agtbreeding.com.au/news/longsword-opens-the-sowing-window-in-medium-to-low-rainfall-areas-across-australia" target="_blank">started work on them</a>, but it will be several years before suitably high-quality varieties become available.
Australian growers urgently need to keep pace with climate change. Although Australia only produces 4% of the world’s wheat, it accounts for 10% of exports and is thus important in determining global supply and price. If global wheat supply is low, prices rise, and it becomes unaffordable for many of the world’s poorest people, potentially causing malnutrition and civil unrest. Steeply rising wheat prices were <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-I7695e.pdf" target="_blank">among the factors</a> behind the food riots that broke out in more than 40 countries in 2007-08, which helped to trigger the Arab Spring uprisings of 2010-12.
The world’s poorest people deserve to be able to buy wheat. But Australian wheat farmers also need to earn a decent living and stay internationally competitive. The only way to meet all these needs is to keep production costs low – and increasing yields by sowing the right wheat cultivars for Australia’s changing climate is one way to go about it.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112306/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-hunt-694832">J</a>ames Hunt, Associate Professor, La Trobe University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/early-sowing-can-help-save-australias-wheat-from-climate-change-112306" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Early sowing can help save Australia’s wheat from climate change

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
This week, an animal rights charity, Aussie Farms, unveiled an interactive map of factory farms, slaughterhouses and other “animal exploitation” facilities across Australia.
The group’s <a href="https://map.aussiefarms.org.au/" target="_blank">website says</a> the map "is an effort to force transparency on an industry dependent on secrecy. We believe in freedom of information as a powerful tool in the fight against animal abuse and exploitation".
The map – which also encourages visitors to upload photographs or videos obtained at the properties – drew ire from some farmers and politicians. National Farmers’ Federation President Fiona Simson called it a “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-22/aussie-farms-map-sparks-outrage-from-farmers-and-ag-minister/10736006" target="_blank">gross invasion of privacy</a>” and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/when-does-activism-turn-into-terrorism/10734448" target="_blank">told the ABC</a> it bordered on “terrorism”. She also said Aussie Farms should be stripped of its charitable status.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud was equally unimpressed, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-22/aussie-farms-map-sparks-outrage-from-farmers-and-ag-minister/10736006" target="_blank">calling the map</a> an “attack list” for activists. He said it posed biosecurity and other personal risks by encouraging vigilantes to break into properties.
So what does the law say about publicising materials like the map, or airing footage that may have been obtained when trespassing on private property?
Footage obtained through trespass
The law is somewhat ambivalent when it comes to trespassing on property to photograph and film the conduct of landowners. Trespassing itself is only one factor to be weighed up by the courts in determining whether to protect farmers’ interests.
Courts will only ban the use of footage obtained from private properties as a last resort. They will do so only if the trespasser acted in a manner that the average citizen would regard as unfair, and if the owner would suffer irreparable harm if the publication were to go ahead. 
The leading case on this subject is the 2001 case <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2001/HCA/63" target="_blank">ABC v Lenah Game Meats</a>. Activists had placed a hidden camera without permission inside a factory in Tasmania’s Lenah Valley. They later retrieved the camera, which contained evidence of cruelty to brush-tail possums being processed for export.
On objection from the meat processors, a lower court granted an injunction, banning the ABC’s 7.30 Report from airing it on the show. The ABC appealed to the High Court.
The High Court lifted the injunction. It decided that although the footage had been filmed without the owners’ permission and involved a trespass, it was more important for the evidence of animal cruelty to be screened.
The public interest in witnessing greater transparency into suspect meat processing methods trumped the interests of a private business trying to shield its practices from public scrutiny.
What about just punishing trespassers?
So, if they cannot stop the publication, can the farmers targeted by Aussie Farms punish the trespassers privately through the courts?
Farmers can sue for damages (compensation), but they would need to find the actual trespassers and be able to quantify their losses, both of which may be difficult.
Also, what if the people supplying the footage were not trespassers but whistle-blowing employees? There is no joy for farmers here either, because there is no trespass.
Can farmers stop someone who is simply filming over the fence? The law does not assist landowners here either. We go back 80 years to find a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1937/45?stem=0&amp;synonyms=0&amp;query=title(Victoria%20Park%20Racing%20and%20Recreation%20Grounds%20Co%20and%20Taylor%20)&amp;nocontext=1" target="_blank">High Court decision</a> that says the rights of an occupier or owner don’t include a right to prevent neighbouring occupiers from looking over the fence, or filming from adjacent land.
What about <a href="https://theconversation.com/drones-finally-get-mps-talking-tougher-on-privacy-laws-29197" target="_blank">filming from drones</a>? The old law was if you owned the land, you owned the sky. This is no longer the case. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Drones/Report" target="_blank">The rule today</a> is you “own” the land and sky to a depth and height only for your reasonable use and enjoyment of the land.
Unless the drone is a persistent nuisance, there is no remedy for breach of privacy.
What about revealing personal details?
But surely there must be a remedy for farmers whose personal details, such as names, addresses and maps of their properties, can be found online? Well, no, not unless the farmer can establish, under defamation law, he or she suffers an injury to their character by that publication. 
The test is: does that website, in naming people who it asserts may be cruel to animals, hold them up for contempt or ridicule, and harm their reputation in the eyes of right-minded observers? It’s not an easy case for farmers to win, because few people are going to think less of farmers just because they are slaughtering meat for the market.
The defendant may argue a right-minded person would give some leeway for primary producers in putting food in the marketplace, so the activists’ information-spreading exercise can’t be defamatory.
And if there was clear evidence of cruelty, the activists have a defence against a claim for defamation because what they were saying was true.
One would hope a constructive dialogue will emerge out of this that will usher in a world of best-practice farming. This should improve the live animal export business, which remains perpetually under a cloud. But it’s unlikely the use of the term “terrorism” by the critics of Aussie Farms is an ideal start for any such dialogue.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110279/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Rick Sarre, Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/animal-activists-v-private-landowners-what-does-the-law-say-110279" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Animal activists v private landowners: what does the law say?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Soil is a non-renewable part of the environment. Can it sustain food production for our growing population?
It takes a lot to make a room of soil scientists gasp.
Last month, I presented at the <a href="http://soilscienceconference.org.au/" target="_blank">National Soils Conference</a> in Canberra, and asked 400 colleagues a simple question: do you think soil will play as significant a role in food production in 100 years as it does today?
A sea of hands went up: the consensus was clearly “yes”. I demurred, saying I’m not so sure.
Gasps rippled across the room. Why say that? You’re a soil scientist! Are you crazy?
A century is a long time. Most of our scientific horizons seem no more than a decade or two away. But how we manage food and our environments needs very long-term, inspired thinking.
Within my concern about whether the future of food production is on terra firma, there is also a hope.
That hope rests in the desire that there will be adequate, quality food for all of the 10 billion, 15 billion or 20 billion people in the future. To achieve that, perhaps we don’t need to rely on the our planet’s thin skin of soil after all.
Future farming
We already see the advance of vertical and hydroponic farming, and the potential for growing meat-like protein in the lab. Synthetic biology is one way forward.
We have seen the advances of hydroponic farming.<a href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hydroponic-farm-153790559?src=LJEAtFK80lQ9mtfEm-Fw-Q-1-9"> </a>
So will we have the technological know-how, and will we be able to afford the infrastructural investment to produce all our food away from natural soil within a century?
Technologically we would like to think this is possible. But will we have the need? Do we have the will?
There are two predominant modern movements in relation to food. The first is the ethical and environmental movement, which holds that food should be produced without harm to the environment or perhaps even to animals. Soil is an important – and non-renewable – part of the environment. This raises the crucial question of whether it can continue to sustain the world’s growing population.
Alongside this is the slow food movement, with its concern for the production of high-quality food of known provenance. It’s sometimes called “paddock to plate” or “field to fork”.
Already, modern food production techniques to manage energy and water use can potentially give 10 times the yield per unit area that normal field conditions provide. This could be transferred to vertical growing spaces, 100 units high.
That alone means we would need just 0.1% of the land area we use now for food production. This could free up huge tracts of land to allow soil to recover from degradation, restoring ecosystems across the planet. It would represent a high-tech answer to the question of environmental ethics.
Returning areas of soil currently used for food production back to native vegetation could help us conserve wildlife, defend against floods, and provide natural buffer areas that can filter water and cycle nutrients. Locations may include soils in rainforests with copious biodiversity and voluminous water-cycling capability, or wetlands upstream of cities prone to flooding.
In Australia, the decline of carbon in cropping lands, soil erosion and nutrient imbalances continue largely unchecked and unabated.
This approach is not necessarily incompatible with the slow food movement. Indeed, it could actually help the movement achieve its goals, because it would take the pressure off the world’s soils, thus ensuring there is enough high-quality soil left to pursue high-quality ethical production.
More food for more people
The United Nations Food &amp; Agricultural Organisation predicts a need to double agricultural production by 2050 to meet the demand of an estimated population of 9.5 billion. This must be done while simultaneously maintaining functioning ecosystems; therefore securing soils and their life-supporting functions have never been more crucial.
In Australia, while soil care has improved, it is not yet sustainable. Widespread soil acidification and the decline of carbon in cropping lands, soil erosion and nutrient imbalances continue largely unchecked and unabated. With the new approach the appropriate soil and terroir could be dedicated to high-quality sustainable bespoke food and wine production.
The great loessial soils of North America, Russia and Ukraine are often regarded as the best in the world – they could be managed sustainably for the production of cereals for centuries to come. Even some of these most food-productive soils could be returned to their former pre-agricultural state. In Australia our famous red-brown earths might be more useful for forestry than being pressed into service for cereal production.
That said, the infrastructural costs of producing food entirely without soil will be enormous. It’s more likely we will land on a blended solution that combines highly engineered growing spaces and “under the sky” soil-based agriculture.
Over the coming century, our challenge will be to move away from our almost total reliance on soil – that mutable and vital thin skin of the earth – to allow large tracts of our most vulnerable soils to repair. Healing our wounded soils will be an important step on the road to global sustainability.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108049/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-mcbratney-129" target="_blank">Alex McBratney</a>, Professor of Digital Agriculture &amp; Soil Science; Director, Sydney Institute of Agriculture, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-100-years-time-maybe-our-food-wont-be-grown-in-soil-108049" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

In 100 years' time, maybe our food won't be grown in soil:  USYD's Alex McBratney

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
On the eve of the recent National Drought Summit, prime minister Scott Morrison and deputy prime minister Michael McCormack visited Mulloon Creek near Canberra, shown recently on the ABC’s Australian Story. They were there to see a creek that was still flowing, and green with vegetation, despite seven months of drought.
Mulloon Creek was the legacy of a long collaboration between prominent agriculturalist Peter Andrews, and Tony Coote, the owner of the property who died in August. For decades they have implemented Andrews’ “natural sequence farming” system at Mulloon Creek.
Central to the system is slowing flow in the creek with “leaky weirs”. These force water back into the bed and banks of the creek, which rehydrates the floodplain. This rehydrated floodplain is then said to be more productive and sustainable.
McCormack, who is also the minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development, was impressed and declared the success of Mulloon as a “model for everyone … this needs to be replicated right around our nation”. The ABC program suggested this form of farming could reduce the impact of drought across Australia. So, what is the evidence?
The promise of natural sequence farming
There are plenty of anecdotes but little published science around the effectiveness of natural sequence farming. What there is describes some modest floodplain rehydration, little change to stream flows, some trapping of sediment and some improvements in soil condition. These results are encouraging but not miraculous.
How much each of the different components of natural sequence farming contributes is not always clear, and the economic arguments for widespread adoption are modest. At present, there is not the standard of evidence to support this farming method as a panacea for drought relief, as proposed by the deputy prime minister.
But if the evidence does emerge, why wouldn’t farmers simply adopt the methods as part of a sensible business model? Don’t all farmers want to do better in drought?
In the ABC show, and elsewhere, supporters of natural sequence farming argue that it is hard for farmers to adopt the methods because government regulations restrict use of willows, blackberries and other weeds, that they claim, are particularly effective in restoring streams.
Governments are correct to be wary of this call to use weeds, and some research suggests that native plants can do a similar job. This restriction on use of weeds might be galling for proponents of natural sequence farming but it should not be a fundamental impediment to adoption.
A more important frustration for natural sequence farming practitioners is how widely the approach can be applied. In Australian Story, John Ryan, a rural journalist, says:
"I am sick of politicians, farmers groups, and government departments telling me that Peter Andrews only works where you’ve got little creeks in a mountain valley … I’ve seen it work on flat-lands, steep lands, anywhere."
Natural sequence farming arose in the attempt to restore upland valleys and creeks in southern NSW that were once environmentally valuable chains of ponds or swampy meadows. But these waterways have become deeply incised, degraded, and disconnected from their floodplains. Not only does this incision produce a great deal of sediment pollution, but it produces many agricultural problems.
In reality, small and medium-sized stream systems across much of Australia have deepened after European settlement. If the leaky weirs of natural sequence farming are effective, then they could be applied across many gullied and incised streams across the country.
We’ve already been doing it
The good news is that landholders and governments have already been using aspects of natural sequence farming in those very gullies for decades to control erosion.
Since the 1970s, across the world, one useful method for controlling erosion has been grade-control structures. They were once made of concrete but are now usually made of dumped rock (called rock-chutes), and also logs.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245122/original/file-20181112-83576-gdkx4q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Rock chutes in Barwidgee Creek, 1992, Ovens River catchment, Victoria. Source: T McCormack NE Catchment Management Authority. T McCormack NE Catchment Management Authority <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245124/original/file-20181112-83567-1nbqe1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The same creek in 2002. It is now heavily vegetated and has pools of water, just like Mulloon Park. T McCormack NE Catchment Management Authority
These structures reduce the speed of water flow, trap sediment, encourage vegetation, and stop gullies from deepening. These are all goals of natural sequence farming using leaky weirs.
There are thousands of such structures, supported by government initiatives, across the Australian landscape acting as an unrecognised experiment in rehydration and drought protection.
Perhaps governments should already have evaluated these structures, but the rehydration potential of these works has not been recognised in the past. It is time that this public investment was scientifically evaluated.
We may find that natural sequence farming and the routine government construction of grade-control structures have similar effects on farmland and the environment.
But whatever the outcome, gully management is not likely to mark the end of drought in the Australian landscape.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106232/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Ian Rutherfurd, Associate Professor in Geography, University of Melbourne.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-everyone-talking-about-natural-sequence-farming-106232" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why is everyone talking about natural sequence farming?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
More than <a href="https://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/diet-diversity/" target="_blank">half the world’s plant-derived energy</a> intake comes from just three crops: rice, wheat and maize. These crops, like most land plants, live in an evolutionarily ancient partnership with a certain type of fungus, called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
These fungi penetrate plants’ roots, even entering the root cells themselves. In a win-win relationship, the fungi provide the plants with crucial nutrients and the plant provides the fungi with sugar.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236795/original/file-20180918-158225-l6jwah.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236795/original/file-20180918-158225-l6jwah.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Fungi associate with plant roots, forming a symbiotic relationship. Created with BioRender
By helping plants take up nutrients from the soil, these fungi can enhance crop yields, increase pest resistance, and reduce the need for fertiliser. So it’s hardly surprising that there has been a long-held interest in harnessing these soil-dwelling fungi for agriculture.
But our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003807171830275X#bib33" target="_blank">research</a> shows that in some cases these fungi can harm crops instead of helping them. This means we need to proceed with caution in pursuing the benefits of using these fungi as fertilisers.
Biofertilisers
The idea of using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as “biofertilisers” is <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12976#fec12976-fig-0001" target="_blank">not new</a>. Many companies already sell fungal products that <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04090.x" target="_blank">boost crop growth and mineral uptake</a>.
Yet the effects of these biofertilisers on crops are actually highly variable. And despite the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13199-012-0208-9" target="_blank">growing market interest</a>, there is little proof they are necessarily beneficial in every situation.
Biofertilisers can boost plant growth and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139316302116" target="_blank">pest resistance</a>, but this effect often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x" target="_blank">depends on the context</a>. Different species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can provide different benefits, or sometimes no benefit at all.
Results can vary between crops too. One cultivar might get a significant boost from biofertiliser, whereas another one may not. Differences in soil type, nutrient availability, and even season can also affect the outcome.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238295/original/file-20180927-48653-te8eod.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238295/original/file-20180927-48653-te8eod.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associate with plants by colonising their roots.
To work properly, fungal biofertilisers also need to be compatible with local conditions, including the microbes that are already present in the soil. A crucial question is whether the inoculant fungi are superior competitors to the “native” fungi already established? What’s more, little is known of the long-term effects of introducing these fungi to the soil and surrounding ecosystem.
Fungal friends or foes?
Mycorrhizal fungi can also have negative effects on crops. In our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003807171830275X?via%3Dihub#bib33" target="_blank">research</a>, my colleagues and I explored the effects of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community on the growth of wheat and its resistance to tiny worms that attack the roots. These pests, called plant-parasitic nematodes, cause an estimated <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/mpp.12057" target="_blank">US$80 billion per year</a> in crop damage.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237657/original/file-20180924-170656-qz57mi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237657/original/file-20180924-170656-qz57mi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduced crop growth and suppressed important defence-related compounds which may have caused an increase in nematode populations in the soil. Created with 'Biorender'
We found that fungal inoculation actually reduced plant growth and suppressed important defence-related compounds in the roots. We also observed an increase in nematode populations in the soil, potentially due to lowered plant defences.
Of course this is only one example. And this experiment was not done in the field. Yet it is not the only study to have identified potentially negative consequences of biofertilisers.
Soil probiotics
Biofertilisers are similar to gut probiotics, in that both approaches aim to inject “good” microbes into places where they will prove beneficial. But just as the widely touted health benefits of gut probiotics <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867418311024?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">don’t work for everyone</a>, our results paint a similar picture for soil fungi.
Put simply, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all fungal biofertiliser that will boost every crop in every environment. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards improving our ability to use these fungi. In fact, this should be a priority – biofertilisers can be a powerful tool to help tackle the challenges posed by population growth and climate change.
In the right situation, biofertilisers can dramatically increase crop yields and pest resistance, potentially helping us grow more food, more sustainably. But we need to learn more before we can turn this ancient symbiosis between plants and fungi to our advantage.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103236/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Adam Frew, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Charles Sturt University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/soil-probiotics-promise-bigger-healthier-crops-but-theres-a-downside-103236" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Farming

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Farming

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News