For most new apartment buildings, the Owners Corporation starts life with little more than a bank account and the first quarterly strata levies.

At <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/9-gay-street-castle-hill-9-gay-street-castle-hill-nsw-2154">9 Gay Street</a> in <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/castle-hill-nsw-2154">Castle Hill</a>, it starts with around $7 million in reserve.

It's an unusual legacy of what was once one of Sydney's highest-profile apartment remediation projects. When the development, originally known as Skyview and built by disgraced developer Top Place, came under scrutiny by then NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler, an $11 million remediation bond was negotiated to ensure any building defects could be fully rectified.

The building underwent an 18-month remediation program, during which around $4 million of that bond was spent bringing the building up to the standard it should have been in from the outset.

After extensive inspections, all active rectification orders have been lifted. What's more, around $7.2 million remains secured for the Owners Corporation for the next 15 years.

In a twist few would have predicted, what began as a significant concern for purchasers has left the building with something almost unheard of in the apartment market: a multi-million-dollar financial reserve from day one.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359136]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/equitifund-group">Equitifund</a> Executive Chairman Greg Huxley said the structure offers buyers a level of certainty that is difficult to replicate.

"The $11 million bond established for the Skyview Castle Hill development represents exceptional value, providing genuine financial security for purchasers," Huxley said.

"Unlike a standard insurance policy, this bond consists of real funds held in trust for the Owners Corporation, offering a tangible layer of protection and added peace of mind."

The apartments themselves have been designed with a focus on practical, contemporary living. Interiors feature Smeg appliances, stone benchtops, tiled living areas, carpeted bedrooms, 2.7-metre ceilings, floor-to-ceiling glazing, and ducted heating and cooling throughout.

Residents also have access to a range of shared amenities, including two rooftop barbecue areas, a swimming pool, children's playgrounds, secure building access, storage cages, and visitor parking.

The location continues to be one of the project's strongest drawcards. Castle Hill Metro Station sits virtually on the doorstep, providing direct connections across Sydney's expanding Metro network, while Castle Towers offers extensive retail, dining, entertainment, and service amenities within walking distance.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359127]

The building, now named after its location at 9 Gay Street, comprises a diverse mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments starting from just under $600,000.

Equitifund National Sales Director Ben Hamblett said demand in the Hills District continues to be driven by buyers seeking convenience and connectivity.

"Interest from both owner-occupiers and investors in Castle Hill remains exceptionally strong, with buyers consistently prioritising developments in close proximity to the Metro station and Castle Towers Shopping Centre," Hamblett said.

"There is a clear trend in the market, with purchasers seeking convenient access to transport and lifestyle amenities that support a seamless, low-maintenance way of living."

On top of the long-term protection afforded by the remaining $7.2 million bond, Equitifund is offering a limited-time stamp duty rebate on selected apartments.

Eligible purchasers can also secure finance options, including a 3.99 per cent two-year variable rate, loan-to-value ratios of up to 90 per cent, and interest-only lending options through EquitiCredit.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=147685]

Joel Robinson

Why this Castle Hill apartment building starts with a $7 million advantage

For much of the past few years, conversations about Australia's property market have centred on the rapid growth seen in Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Perth. <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/melbourne-vic-3004">Melbourne</a> has followed a different trajectory.

That relative underperformance is now encouraging some buyers to reassess the city, particularly those willing to look beyond short-term market movements and focus on quality property in established locations, along with the long-term growth prospects of a city expected to overtake Sydney as Australia’s most populous.

John Bekiaris, Research &amp; Market Insights at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/equitifund-group">Projects by Equitifund</a>, said Melbourne's current position is attracting increasingly sophisticated purchasers.

"Melbourne continues to present one of Australia's strongest long-term investment stories," Bekiaris says.

"While other capital cities have experienced stronger recent growth, that relative underperformance is exactly what's attracting sophisticated counter-cyclical investors."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=1979 project_image_fid=363268]

Equitifund isn't just commenting on Melbourne's property market, it's investing in it.

The Sydney-headquartered capital partner has taken over the remaining apartments at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/victoriana-melbourne-20-queens-road-melbourne-vic-3004">Victoriana</a>, the recently completed glass-encased development opposite Albert Park Lake in Melbourne's tightly held St Kilda Road precinct.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> and built by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/hickory">Hickory</a>, Victoriana places residents between one of Melbourne's most recognised parklands and the CBD, offering oversized two and three-bedroom apartments aimed at owner-occupiers seeking a genuine alternative to a traditional family home.

The development comprises 232 completed residences alongside a suite of resident amenities, including a 25-metre indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, landscaped entertaining areas, resident lounges, EV charging, secure basement parking and a concierge-style arrival experience.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=1979 project_image_fid=363229]

The apartments have been designed with owner-occupiers firmly in mind.&nbsp;Open-plan living and dining areas flow onto generous balconies framing views across Albert Park Lake, Fawkner Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Melbourne skyline.

Kitchens feature Gaggenau appliances, stone benchtops and generous preparation space. Bedrooms include built-in robes, while bathrooms feature full-height textured tiling. Hardwood flooring and ducted air conditioning complete residences designed for long-term living.

Rothelowman's architecture takes its cues from the landscape opposite the site. Sweeping horizontal glazing references the movement of Albert Park Lake, while generous balconies and expansive glazing strengthen the connection between the apartments and the surrounding parklands. The result is a building designed to deliver the scale and amenity expected of luxury apartment living, while offering the larger floorplans increasingly sought by owner-occupiers.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=1979 project_image_fid=363284]

The location is one of Victoriana's defining characteristics. Positioned on Queens Road, residents are directly opposite Albert Park Lake and within easy reach of Fawkner Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens, South Melbourne, St Kilda Road and the CBD. With few comparable development opportunities remaining in the precinct, buyers are increasingly placing value on outlooks that are unlikely to be interrupted by future construction.

Greg Huxley, Founder of Equitifund, believes those qualities become even more valuable over time.

"Premium real estate has always rewarded buyers who take a long-term view," Huxley said.

"Victoriana represents the kind of asset that's increasingly difficult to recreate today, particularly in an established location like Queens Road."

He said rising construction costs are also changing the way buyers assess completed developments.

"When you combine an irreplaceable location with thoughtful architecture and premium finishes, you create something that becomes increasingly difficult to reproduce as construction costs continue to rise."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=1979 project_image_fid=363228]

According to National Sales Director Ben Hamblett, enquiry has been driven largely by Melbourne downsizers and buyers upgrading from smaller apartments.

"Interest in Victoriana continues to build, with strong buyer focus on the larger owner-occupier residences within the development," Hamblett says.

"Enquiry is increasingly driven by local buyers who recognise the rarity of what's on offer: park-facing apartments in an established neighbourhood where new development opportunities are becoming increasingly scarce. At Victoriana, the view is not just a feature; it's an appreciating asset in its own right."

He said interstate enquiry has also strengthened as buyers reassess Melbourne's position within the national property cycle.

"Melbourne currently stands as the most compelling entry point of any major Australian capital, and discerning buyers are beginning to recognise what those who move early always understand: the best opportunities are taken before the price rise confirms them."

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=1979]

Why now is the time to buy in Melbourne's premium apartment market

Developers and apartment buyers have a narrowing window of opportunity before Brisbane's Olympic infrastructure pipeline begins competing directly with residential construction, pushing up costs, tightening labour supply and making new projects increasingly difficult to deliver.

While Brisbane's apartment market continues to benefit from strong population growth and limited housing supply, industry research suggests the years leading up to 2027 could prove to be the most important period for developers looking to secure builders and buyers hoping to purchase before the next wave of price increases.

A new Colliers report, Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Creating Solutions, highlights the scale of the challenge. While thousands of new homes are planned across South East Queensland, the Brisbane Olympic Athletes Village alone will deliver more than 10,500 beds during the Games before being converted into around 1,750 to 2,000 apartments. Equivalent to almost two years of typical inner-city apartment supply, the project will also absorb a significant share of the construction workforce and building materials.

The broader construction pipeline paints an even clearer picture.

Construction Skills Queensland's Horizon 2032 report forecasts Queensland's annual construction pipeline will average $69 billion over the coming years before peaking at $75 billion in 2027-28. Demand for construction workers is expected to increase by 17 per cent to almost 150,000 people, with the industry facing an annual shortfall of around 19,000 workers that could blow out to as many as 35,000 during the peak construction period.

The Olympic venues, athletes village and supporting infrastructure will account for billions of dollars worth of work across South East Queensland through to 2032, creating intense competition for labour at a time when Australia's residential construction sector is already under pressure.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=373834]

Colliers Queensland Residential Director Andrew Scriven said the convergence of these projects is creating a clear window of opportunity for both developers and buyers.

"From 2027 onwards, the market will shift dramatically," Scriven said.

"Labour will increasingly be locked into government-led infrastructure and Olympic projects, which means private residential developments will face higher costs and tighter margins. The developers who move now are the ones most likely to get projects off the ground."

Scriven said the same dynamic would also affect buyers, with fewer apartment projects expected to launch once construction capacity tightens.

"If you're looking to change your lifestyle over the next five years, now is your window of opportunity to buy."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150713 project_image_fid=373827]

Developers are already positioning themselves ahead of that window.

Following the success of Monarch at Toowong, Consolidated Properties is preparing to launch two new Brisbane apartment projects in the second half of 2026. They include <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/gloriette-30-bedivere-street-yeerongpilly-qld-4105">Gloriette</a> at Yeerongpilly Green, a 25-storey tower within one of Brisbane's key Olympic precincts, and <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/castile-47-skyring-terrace-newstead-qld-4006">Castile</a>, a recently approved 25-storey riverfront development at 47 Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

Hutchinson Builders will deliver both projects, with early works already underway at Yeerongpilly and Newstead expected to commence later this year.

The timing comes as Brisbane's fundamentals continue to strengthen, with strong interstate migration, population growth and vacancy rates remaining below 1.5 per cent.

Colliers Queensland researcher Pragya Sharma said Greater Brisbane is forecast to require around 40,000 new apartments between 2021 and 2031.

"There's a real mismatch emerging between when housing is needed and when it will be feasible to build," Sharma said.

"As a result, the period leading up to 2027 presents a key window of opportunity for developers to secure approvals, funding and construction capacity, while buyers will have greater choice before supply constraints intensify."

Colliers research outlines a critical pre-2027 window to start residential projects before labour squeeze: now is the time to buy

Developers, buyers on watch in South East Queensland ahead of construction crunch: Colliers

It's taken less than nine months for developer Sherpa Property Group to sell out all 51 apartments in its <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-oasis-palm-beach-7-9-sixth-avenue-palm-beach-qld-4221">Flourish Oasis</a> development in <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/palm-beach-qld-4221">Palm Beach</a>, over a year before its anticipated completion.

&nbsp;

Located at 7-9 Sixth Avenue, the $67 million development has resonated strongly with both local owner-occupiers and downsizers seeking high-quality apartments within walking distance of the beach, dining precincts and everyday amenities.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151449 project_image_fid=357458]

Christie Leet, Founder of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sherpa-property-group">Sherpa Group</a>, said the sell-out reflected both the strength of the Palm Beach market and the success of Sherpa's community-first approach to development.

"The sell-out of Oasis is a fantastic outcome and reinforces the strong demand we're seeing for thoughtfully designed apartments in lifestyle locations," Leet said.

"From the outset, our vision was to create a development that genuinely enhanced the Palm Beach community while providing residents with exceptional homes and wellness-focused amenities.

"We've been incredibly encouraged by the level of local support throughout the campaign, 72.5 per cent of buyers are locals, with a significant proportion of purchasers choosing Oasis as their future home rather than an investment."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151449 project_image_fid=357463]

Construction is now progressing following development approval, with trusted builder LPS Group delivering the project and completion anticipated in Q3 2027.

Oasis forms part of Sherpa Group's successful Flourish collection, which has become recognised for its focus on wellness, community and elevated coastal living.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151449 project_image_fid=357469]

Residents will have private access to a rooftop amenity space featuring a pool, gym, sauna, steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, spa and barbecue facilities.

"The success of Oasis demonstrates that buyers continue to prioritise quality, location and lifestyle," Leet said.

"We are proud to have delivered a project that has resonated so strongly with the market and look forward to bringing Oasis to life for our future residents."

Sherpa recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-soleira-palm-beach-1150-1160-gold-coast-highway-palm-beach-qld-4221">Flourish Soleira</a>, its third instalment of the Flourish brand in Palm Beach following Flourish Oasis and <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/amargo-6-12-sixth-avenue-palm-beach-qld-4221">Flourish Amargo</a>.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=151449]

Sherpa sells out Flourish Oasis in booming Palm Beach

Urban Property Group's <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/la-vera-macquarie-park-94-talavera-road-macquarie-park-nsw-2113">La Vera</a> is leading the next phase of Macquarie Park's residential evolution, with the new apartment development set to become the first of several new apartment projects in the precinct to complete.

The 169-apartment building has now topped out ahead of its scheduled completion in the third quarter of 2026, as new residential investment continues to reshape one of Sydney's largest employment hubs into a true mixed-use precinct.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134951 project_image_fid=368645]

Cox Architecture has designed La Vera to capture the best of its unique positioning on Talavera Road, orienting the building towards Lane Cove National Park.&nbsp;The building features a sculpted northern façade with flowing curves inspired by the surrounding landscape, while its city-facing elevation adopts a more structured architectural expression to maximise skyline views.

"The vision for the project was to conceive a building that adopted an organic and curvilinear form to the northern portion that faces the Lane Cove National Park," <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">Cox Architecture</a> Director Felipe Miranda said.

"The residents that reside in the northern portion of the building benefit by having beautifully crafted curved balconies that speak to the natural context and heighten the relationship of their internal living spaces to the external balconies."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134951 project_image_fid=358802]

La Vera offers a diverse mix of one, two, three, and four-bedroom configurations, with prices currently starting from $740,000. Buyers so far have been a mix of Sydney-based investors,&nbsp;metro commuters, owner-occupiers and downsizers from surrounding North Shore suburbs.

Both investors and owner-occupiers have been drawn to La Vera's proximity to Macquarie University, Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie Centre and the Sydney Metro, infrastructure that supports both strong rental demand and a convenient lifestyle for residents.

The apartments feature full-height glazing, timber flooring throughout living areas, stone kitchen benchtops, SMEG appliances, floor-to-ceiling bathroom tiling and ducted air conditioning.

Residents will have access to a rooftop recreation level featuring a swimming pool, sauna, barbecue facilities and landscaped relaxation areas, complemented by additional communal space at ground level. Many apartments enjoy uninterrupted views across Lane Cove National Park, reinforcing the project's connection to its natural setting.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134951 project_image_fid=364551]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a>, a family-owned developer and builder with nearly four decades of experience, holds a 4.5-star iCIRT rating and was Australia's first developer to introduce 10-Year Latent Defects Insurance (LDI). La Vera is the first apartment development in <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/macquarie-park-nsw-2113">Macquarie Park</a> approved to offer the additional insurance protection, alongside a five-year warranty on SMEG appliances.

Urban Property Group CEO Patrick Elias said the additional protection reflects changing buyer expectations in the off the plan market.

"Consumers are a lot more weary and a lot more concerned in buying off the plan than they ever have been. Having LDI is a tool to portray the confidence that we have in our product, and a confidence we want buyers to share," Elias said.

Following completion of the building later this year, buyers will move into their apartments well before Christmas.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134951]

La Vera closes in on completion as Macquarie Park continues residential transformation

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="/news">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