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>
Camm Agricultural Group is selling off its major cropping operation, Morocco near St George in Queensland.
Situated north of St George, Queensland, <a href="https://property.cbre.com.au/properties/surat-qld-4417/" target="_blank">the property</a> represents a significant irrigated and dryland cropping.
There are price expectations of around $18 million, following the family’s recent decision to divest its northern cattle properties to Rural Funds Group.  
A key feature is the 5,340 megalitre water allocation which, coupled with a reliable river system and ample on-farm water storages, completes a productive irrigation enterprise.
The 5,939 hectare farming property is located along the renowned Balonne River and accessed via the Carnarvon Highway.
The Camm family acquired Morocco for $10 million in 2006 from the Mobandilla Land company.
The decision to sell follows the family selling three cattle properties in central Queensland for $72.5 million to the listed Rural Funds Group.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Camm family list Morocco cropping farm near St George

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81747/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Domestic animals are rarely associated with Antarctica. However, before non-native species (bar humans) were excluded from the continent in the 1990s, many travelled to the far south.
These animals included not only the obvious sledge dogs, but also ponies, sheep, pigs, hamsters, hedgehogs and a goat. Perhaps the most curious case occurred in 1933, when US Admiral Richard E. Byrd’s second Antarctic expedition took with it three Guernsey cows. 
The cows, named Klondike Gay Nira, Deerfoot Guernsey Maid and Foremost Southern Girl, plus a bull calf born en route, spent over a year in a working dairy on the Ross Ice Shelf. They returned home to the US in 1935 to considerable celebrity. 
Keeping the animals healthy in Antarctica took a lot of doing – not least, hauling the materials for a barn, a huge amount of feed and a milking machine across the ocean and then the ice. What could have possessed Byrd to take cows to the icy south? 
The answer we suggest in our recently published paper is multi-layered and ultimately points to Antarctica’s complex geopolitical history.
Solving the “milk problem”
The cows’ ostensible purpose was to solve the expedition’s so-called “milk problem”. By the 1930s, fresh milk had become such an icon of health and vigour that it was easy to claim it was needed for the expeditioners’ well-being. Just as important, however, were the symbolic associations of fresh milk with purity, wholesomeness and US national identity. 
Powdered or malted milk could have achieved the same nutritional results. Previous expeditions, including those of Ernest Shackleton and Roald Amundsen, had survived just fine with such products. What’s more, William Horlick of Horlick’s Malted Milk sponsored Byrd’s second Antarctic expedition; the seaplane Byrd used was named for this benefactor. 
So if fresh milk was not actually a health requirement, and other forms were readily available, why go to the trouble of lugging three cows and their accoutrements across the ice?
Maximising publicity
The cows represented a first, and Byrd well knew that “firsts” in the polar regions translated into media coverage. The expedition was privately funded, and Byrd was adept at attracting media attention and hence sponsorship. His backers expected a return, whether in the form of photographs of their product on the ice or mentions in the regular radio updates by the expedition. 
The novelty value that the cows brought to the expedition was a valuable asset in its own right, but Byrd hedged his bets by including a pregnant cow – Klondike was due to give birth just as the expedition ship sailed across the Antarctic Circle. The calf, named “Iceberg”, was a media darling and became better known than the expeditioners themselves. 
The celebrity attached to the cows helped the expedition remain in the headlines throughout its time in Antarctica, and they received an enthusiastic welcome upon its return. Although the unfortunate Klondike, suffering from frostbite, had to be put down mid-expedition, her companions made it home in good condition. They were feted on their return, meeting politicians in Washington, enjoying “hay cocktails” at fancy hotels, and making the front page of The New York Times.
It would be easy, then, to conclude that the real reason Byrd took cows south was for the publicity he knew they would generate, but his interest in the animals may also have had a more politically motivated layer.
Eyeing a territorial claim
A third reason for taking cows to Antarctica relates to the geopolitics of the period and the resonances the cows had with colonial settlement. By the 1930s several nations had claimed sectors of Antarctica. Byrd wanted the US to make its own claim, but this was not as straightforward as just planting a flag on the ice. 
According to the Hughes Doctrine, a claim had to be based on settlement, not just discovery. But how do you show settlement of a continent covered in ice? In this context, symbolic gestures such as running a post office – or farming livestock – are useful. 
Domestic animals have long been used as colonial agents, and cattle in particular were a key component of settler colonialism in frontier America. The image of the explorer-hero Byrd, descended from one of the First Families of Virginia, bringing cows to a new land and successfully farming them evoked this history. 
The cows’ presence in Antarctica helped symbolically to turn the expedition base – not coincidentally named “Little America” – into a frontier town. While the US did not end up making a claim to any sector of Antarctica, the polar dairy represented a novel way of demonstrating national interest in the frozen continent.
The Antarctic cows are not just a quirky story from the depths of history. As well as producing milk, they had promotional and geopolitical functions. On an ice continent, settlement is performed rather than enacted, and even Guernsey cows can be more than they first seem.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanne-e-f-nielsen-139245" target="_blank">Hanne E.F. Nielsen</a> is PhD Candidate in Antarctic Representations, University of Tasmania.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-leane-267090" target="_blank">Elizabeth Leane</a> is Associate Professor of English and ARC Future Fellow, University of Tasmania.
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Cows in Antarctica? How one expedition milked them for all their worth

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78100/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australians were once world champion beef-eaters but now you’re much more likely to find chicken than steak on Australian dinner tables.
Total meat consumption per capita in Australia has been stable since the 1960s, at around 110 kilograms per person per year.
But the type of meat consumed has changed significantly, with chicken and pork both now far outstripping beef, mutton and lamb, according to historical data from researchers Wong et al and more recent data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.32.34%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.32.34%20PM.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999315000656" target="_blank">Wong et al and ABARES</a> 
(The apparent spike in beef consumption in the late 1970s is linked to Australia’s beef export trade crash and much of this spike was thought to have gone to pet food and by-products rather than the dinner table).
Whereas chicken was once a rare meal, eaten on special occasions, today the Australian chicken industry produces around 600 million chickens a year. Most are consumed domestically.
The per-capita annual consumption of chicken meat in Australia increased ten-fold from 4.6 kilograms per person in 1965 to 47 kilograms in 2016. The industry projects growth to 49.2 kilograms a person by 2019–20.
From the 1960s on, public health messages steered people away from red meats. There was also a rapid proliferation of fast food franchises selling chicken - notably the entry of Kentucky Fried Chicken in 1969.
Similarly, pork consumption has been bolstered by re-marketing. Once considered a red meat, pork was reinvented as “the other white meat” through a marketing campaign categorising pork as lighter and healthier, alongside chicken (and due to changes in breeding, pork meat really has lightened in colour over recent decades). While not as steep an increase as chicken, pork consumption in Australia has nearly tripled since the 1980s.
However, a major driver of these changes has been price, linked to massive changes in production.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.34.41%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.34.41%20PM.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6401.0Mar%202017?OpenDocument" target="_blank">ABS CPI TABLE 9. CPI: Group, Sub-group and Expenditure Class, Index Numbers by Capital City</a>
After adjusting for inflation, chicken per kilo costs less than a third of its price than it did in the early 1970s, while real prices for other meats have been comparatively static. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation, which represents chicken producers, reports that over the five years to 2014–15, chicken meat was on average 50% cheaper than pork, 59% cheaper than lamb and 65% cheaper than beef.
Since the 1960s, most Australian chicken and pork production has become rapidly industrialised and automated in large intensive indoors operations. Piggeries and broiler farms have typically become specialised, intensified, high technology factory farm complexes. Intensification of chicken production has increased efficiency, in turn steadily decreasing the retail price of chicken. Around 70% of chicken meat is supplied by two privately owned processing companies, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation says.
Chicken farms in Australia have increased markedly in size and intensity. Our research on planning disputes shows farms of the 1970s housed around 10,000 chickens. Now, while nearly 600 million broiler chickens were slaughtered in Australia in 2014-15, there were only around 750 broiler farms, a decline from the 1990s. The average chicken farm now has nearly 120,000 chickens at any one time and some run into millions. The number of pork farms has also dropped, consolidating into larger operations.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.36.11%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/06/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-16%20at%201.36.11%20PM.png" alt="">
Global meat consumption continues to rise rapidly as more countries – notably China – increase their consumption of meat and dairy products. Australia imports very little meat due to strict quarantine, but is a major exporter of beef, sheep and goats.
Sheep and cattle farms are more extensive, more common, and produce fewer animals than pork or chicken farms. There were over 66,000 cattle farms and around 39,000 sheep farms in Australia in 2015-16. Cattle farm numbers and the overall cattle herd declined slightly, although this belies the formation of two extremes: at one end large and export-focussed grazing, while other areas have seen a proliferation of sub-commercial, small-scale, scattered “hobby” grazing. The national sheep flock also declined, and is transitioning away from wool production to meat and dual-purpose breeds.
These transitions in production and consumption of meat result in some rural and semi-rural landscapes shifting to expansive, remotely-managed holdings in areas with declining population. Closer to cities, hobby farmers and amenity migrants sit in often uneasy proximity to industrial scale production.
As other countries take up Australia’s traditional fondness for meat, global as well as domestic forces continue to change the nature of farming and Australian rural landscapes. That, in turn, also affects the price and type of meat Australians consume.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-taylor-97922" target="_blank">Elizabeth Taylor </a>is Vice Chancellor's Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-butt-229215" target="_blank">Andrew Butt </a>is <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-butt-229215" target="_blank"></a>Senior Lecturer in Community Planning and Development, La Trobe University.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Three charts on Australia's declining taste for beef and growing appetite for chicken

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69146/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Our food systems are under increasing pressure from growing populations, diminishing resources and climate change.
But, in a new report, we argue that city foodbowls – the agricultural land surrounding our cities – could supply more secure and sustainable food. 
The final report of our Foodprint Melbourne project outlines a vision for “resilient city foodbowls” that can harness city waste to produce food, reduce dependence on distant sources of food and act as a buffer against increasing volatility in global food supplies. 
But to do so we need to start planning now. Food is a basic human need – along with water, housing and transport – but it hasn’t been high on the planning agenda for Australia’s cities.
<h2>Growing food, and jobs</h2>
Australia’s city foodbowls are an important part of the nation’s food supply, particularly for fresh vegetables. 
Melbourne’s foodbowl produces almost half of the vegetables grown in Victoria, and has the capacity to meet around 82 percent of the city’s vegetable needs. 
Nationally, around 47 percent of highly perishable vegetables (such as lettuce, tomatoes and mushrooms) are produced in the foodbowls of the major state capitals, as well as eggs, chicken and perishable fruits such as berries. 
New analysis by Deloitte Access Economics has shown that Melbourne’s foodbowl contributes A$2.45 billion each year to the regional economy and around 21,000 fulltime-equivalent jobs. The largest contributors (to the economy and to jobs) in Melbourne’s foodbowl are the fruit and vegetable industries. 
Other research estimates that agriculture in Sydney’s foodbowl contributes around A$1 billion to the regional economy. The flow-on effects through the regional economy are estimated to be considerably higher. 
<h2>City foodbowls at risk</h2>
City foodbowls are increasingly at risk. Our project has previously highlighted risks from urban sprawl, climate change, water scarcity and high levels of food waste. 
Melbourne’s foodbowl currently supplies 41% of the city’s total food needs. But growing population and less land means this could fall to 18% by 2050. 
Australia’s other city foodbowls face similar pressures. For example, between 2000 and 2005, Brisbane’s land available for vegetable crops reduced by 28%, and Sydney may lose 90% of its vegetable-growing landby 2031 if its current growth rate continues.
These losses can be minimised by setting strong limits on urban sprawl, using existing residential areas (infill) and encouraging higher-density living. 
However, accommodating a future Melbourne population of 7 million (even at much higher density) will still likely mean we lose some farmland. The Deloitte modelling estimated this will lead to a loss of agricultural output from Melbourne’s foodbowl of between A$32 million and A$111 million each year. 
<h2>Protecting our food supply</h2>
Australia’s city foodbowls could play a vital role in a more sustainable and resilient food supply. If we look after our foodbowls, these areas will strengthen cities against the disruptions in food supplies that are likely to become more common thanks to climate change. 
The New Urban Agenda adopted in October 2016 at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, or Habitat III, emphasises the need for cities to “strengthen food system planning”. It recognises that dependence on distant sources of food and other resources can create sustainability challenges and vulnerabilities to supply disruptions.
Resilient city food systems will need to draw on food from multiple sources – global, national and local – to be able to withstand and recover from supply disruptions due to chronic stresses, such as drought, and acute shocks, such as storms and floods. 
Our final report presents a vision of a resilient city foodbowl for Melbourne. 
In this future vision, highly perishable foods continue to grow close to the city. City waste streams are harnessed to counter decreasing supplies of water and conventional fertilisers, and increased investment in delivery of recycled water creates “drought-proof” areas of food production close to city water treatment plants. 
<a href="/images/2016/11/24/image-20161122-14968-19xg9lo.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/24/image-20161122-14968-19xg9lo.jpg" alt="">
<h4>Eco-Innovation Lab, Author provided</h4>
If Australia’s cities are to retain their foodbowls as they grow, food will need to become a central focus of city planning. This is likely to require new policy approaches focused on “food system planning” that addresses land use and other issues, such as water availability.
We also need to strengthen local and regional food systems by finding innovative ways to link city fringe farmers and urban consumers – such as food hubs. This will create more diverse and resilient supply chains.
Rachel Carey is research fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-carey-94761" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jennifer Sheridan is researcher in sustainable food systems, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-sheridan-179405" target="_blank">here</a>.
Kirsten Larsen is manager, Food Systems Research and Partnerships, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kirsten-larsen-104756" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

The key to future food supply is sitting on our cities’ doorsteps

<html><body>
A dairy farm in Drouin has sold for $2.1 million.
Comprising 91 hectares, the property is divided into 41 two hectare paddocks, with a central laneway and water to all from a spring fed dam.
It currently milks up to 180 cows and features a hay shed and machinery shed.
The main homestead is a <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-lifestyle-vic-drouin+south-7651047" target="_blank">fully renovated three bedroom home</a> with a brand new kitchen and ensuite.
It was sold by Harcourts agent John Rowe after having initial $2.3 million hopes when first listed in 2014.
 
</body></html>

Drouin dairy farm sells for $2.1 million

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67912/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Aquaculture is in the spotlight again, with an ABC investigation raising concerns over the sustainability of the expansion of Tasmania’s salmon-farming industry.
Controversies over fish farming are newsworthy and emotive, particularly when company profits and communities are at stake. Unfortunately, independent scientific evidence is often used selectively or even ignored in these debates. 
Science is an essential tool for managers and regulators when planning industry expansion, and Australia’s aquaculture industry does have a strong research base. 
Fish farming can be sustainable, but only if it takes proper account of scientific research – and only if that research moves fast enough to give an up-to-date picture of the risks.
<h2>Demand for sustainable aquaculture</h2>
The ever-growing demand for seafood, combined with the limited opportunity to increase catch from wild fisheries, means we need more aquaculture. Farming already produces roughly 50% of the global seafood supply, and farmed fish production now exceeds that of farmed beef. 
Intensive aquaculture is relatively new, with supply rising tenfold since the mid-1980s. It is thus unique among food production sectors in that its initial expansion has taken place in an era of unprecedented scrutiny from government, environmentalists and the community. 
This scrutiny is warranted, given that many fish farms are in coastal waters considered as a multi-use, common resource. In Australia, the industry is subject to high environmental standards and constantly evolving management.
Intensive aquaculture has several inherent advantages over other forms of agriculture (besides the intrinsic health benefits of seafood). These include efficient food conversion (it takes just 1.3kg or less of feed to produce 1kg of salmon, compared with 1.8kg for chicken and 2.6kg for pork); relatively limited use of fresh water; and the absence of fertilisers. 
However, there are also significant sustainability challenges, including limiting marine feed ingredients; waste management; the use of drugs, colourants and other chemicals; impacts on wild marine species; management of fish health and welfare; site selection; and societal attitudes. 
The aquaculture research community is acutely aware of these challenges. At a World Aquaculture conference in Adelaide in 2014, the program was dominated by issues related to sustainable development.
<h2>Planning for the future</h2>
In the forseeable future, world aquaculture production is projected to grow at least at its current and long term rate of 6.5% a year. Australia’s industry, while representing less than 0.1% of world production, is growing even faster: more than 7% a year over the past decade. 
Given cost constraints, this future expansion will be mostly inland or in coastal marine environments. Scientific input will be crucial if this expansion is to be managed in a sustainable way.
For example, coastal aquaculture operations are exposed to conditions that create good years and bad years. Understanding the spatial and temporal variation in these conditions is critical. It is not in the industry’s interest to risk growing fish in marginal conditions. 
Conditions are also becoming more challenging as a result of climate change – the oceans off Australia’s southeast are among the fastest warming on the planet.
Enlightened aquaculture businesses are trying to anticipate these conditions by working with scientists including CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to understand future environmental risks on a range of timescales. 
Seven-day ocean forecasts and medium-term outlooks covering several months will help the industry make decisions about cage locations, stocking density, diet, disease management, and when to harvest.
<a href="/images/2016/11/07/image-20161031-27102-1uht7n5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/07/image-20161031-27102-1uht7n5.jpg" alt="">
Monthly forecast of ocean temperatures for the east coast of Tasmania for the coming months Author provided
<h4> </h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
Meanwhile, longer-term planning, on time scales of years and decades, will be informed by climate models. For example, the industry can aim to breed fish to cope with changing conditions such as warmer water. 
Of course, forecasts are never 100% accurate, meaning that aquaculture businesses still need to account for risk and uncertainty. 
<h2>Planning for now</h2>
Science is clearly crucial for effective future planning. But it is also important to ensure that current management is the best it can be, and that current risks are managed. 
In the case of finfish aquaculture, the potential for localised impacts on the seabed around sea cages is well known, and monitoring and management strategies well established. 
The potential for adverse effects on the water in and around cages is also important, and water column monitoring is increasingly a management requirement. 
Broader ecosystem interactions – such as changes in fauna and flora on reefs around cages – are progressively being recognised as an issue for many aquaculture regulators and managers. 
As scientists’ understanding of these risks increases, regulators and managers can implement strategies to protect a broader suite of environmental assets and values. 
However, there is no “one size fits all” management approach for this rapidly growing industry, and strategies need to be considered in the local context (ecological, social and economic). Science can provide a better understanding of a particular scenario, but it is up to managers to use this information wisely – and to exercise caution where risks are not well understood. 
<h2>Fast responses</h2>
Management may aspire to be “best practice”, but it is important to recognise that this does not mean that it will be static or finite. Management should respond to changes in the environment (both natural and social) and should adjust as the science and understanding develops.
It is important to acknowledge the different but complementary roles that science and management play in aquaculture planning. Scientists seek to understand the situation (such as the current or future environmental conditions) and share that understanding impartially and objectively. Regulators and managers need to make decisions with a much broader mandate, and as such need to consider factors beyond the science alone. Good planning needs to recognise the value of both.
Aquaculture development and policy needs to be able to trust the science, which in turn, must be delivered in a timely manner, to ensure long-term sustainability of this industry.
Graham Mair is director of Marine Sciences and Professor of Aquaculture, Flinders University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/graham-mair-209191" target="_blank">here</a>.
Alistair Hobday is senior principal research scientist - Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alistair-hobday-12414" target="_blank">here</a>.
Catriona Macleod is associate professor, University of Tasmania and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/catriona-macleod-104361" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Sustainable aquaculture is possible, with the right science

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The year 2016 is crucial for both food and cities. In October, UN member states will convene for the Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador, to discuss guidelines for sustainable urban development for the next 20 years.
In relation to food, 2016 has seen increased interest in bringing food to centre stage of many non-traditional domains. For example: this is the International Year of the Pulses; food waste is getting more attention, such as the announcement of the first global standard to measure food loss and waste; and food and agriculture lie at the very heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
At the 2016 Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:
"Ensuring that everyone in expanding urban areas has access to nutritious food is critical to achieving the goal of zero hunger set out in the 2030 [SDG] Agenda."
Sustainable diets are gaining traction, and many governments are demonstrating high-level commitment.
<h2>Will the new urban agenda put food on the table?</h2>
On the road to Quito, the zero draft of the New Urban Agenda bears only oblique references to food systems.
Food (security) has been “sprinkled” over physical and social infrastructure, natural resources and ecosystems, sustainable consumption, resilience, urban planning, land and mobility. It is conspicuously missing from urban basic services and altogether from heritage and culture.
This omission has occurred despite common knowledge of food’s profound impacts. It shapes rural landscapes, provides spaces for buying, selling and eating food in cities, and is integral to everyday individual and collective identities.
If the New Urban Agenda carries a promise for change, sustainable and equitable food systems in cities will perhaps only be a side dish at Quito.
<h2>Cities' role in food systems is growing</h2>
The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact is testament to the increasing realisation of the need for urban planners to make food systems central in city planning. More than half of humanity lives in urban areas.
According to the UN, nearly 70% of the global population will live in cities by 2050, making urbanisation one of the 21st century’s most transformative trends.
Of the 124 signatories to the Milan Pact, Melbourne is the only Australian signatory. Although the pact’s framework for action is voluntary, it provides strategic opt ions to those cities aiming to achieve more sustainable food systems.
Melbourne is also part of the 100 Resilient Cities project, which sees food shortages as a potential threat to urban resilience.
Increasing recognition of the multiple dimensions of food in cities is driving the urban food debate. It encompasses nutrition, ethics and social justice, and sustainability.
In Canada, the US, South America, the UK and a few cases in Australia (notably Melbourne), municipal governments are increasingly seeking ways to promote synergistic relationships between food consumers and producers. But this process remains sporadic and non-systemic.
<h2>Australian cities are complacent about food</h2>
Australians are predominantly urban dwellers. More than 80% of the population lives in the 20 largest cities.
As well as the horde of other issues for urban food systems, Australia has one of the most concentrated food retail sectors in the world dominated by the supermarket duopoly, significant health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and a serious and growing issue of food waste.
All of the SDGs have targets that are directly or indirectly related to the daily work of regional and local governments, the closest administrative units to communities. In 2015, there were 571 local governing bodies across Australia. This is the level of government best placed to link the global goals with local communities.
It is at the municipal level that the socioeconomic and environmental problems associated with food systems first become evident. In Queensland, for example, the 2011 floods showed the potential impact of disaster on urban food systems.
Despite a renewed national focus on citiesin Australia, food systems remain a secondary consideration. Neither the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) nor the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has food for the cities in their strategic plans. Researchers such as Paul Burton and Meg Montagueallude to the “complacent attitude” to urban food systems in Australia.
The City of Melbourne is notable in promoting integrated local government planning on key factors that influence food systems – transport, housing, economic development and land use. Several local governments have trialled micro-level initiatives to improve health and reduce inequities, or reduce ecological footprints. Most cities are lagging, though, when it comes to food systems.
<h2>Battle will be won or lost in cities</h2>
Food systems are perhaps not as visible as other areas of urban development. They are, however, an essential element that involves many aspects of cities. These include:
<ul>
<li>
transport and infrastructure (connecting consumers, retailers and producers);
</li>
<li>
housing (access to affordable nutritious food);
</li>
<li>
recreation;
</li>
<li>
economy (food sector businesses and employment); and
</li>
<li>
culture and identity.
</li>
</ul>
Food is a new policy arena for city governments, but cannot be separated from housing, water and sanitation, energy, employment and all the other rights related to a life of dignity that local governments promote. Urban food systems are poorly understood, though. Often there is no clear jurisdiction or mandate by which city planners can manage these systems.
The challenge is to broaden the scope of policy debates beyond food supply chains and urban agriculture, to include strategic plans and reforms to tackle food systems.
This could help to identify strategic leverage points that can affect the way food business is done in cities and have significant impacts on diet-related diseases, large urban carbon footprints, food waste, social injustice and the negative impacts of supermarket power.
Indeed, the battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities.
Grace Muriuki is program manager, Food Systems Program, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grace-muriuki-253591" target="_blank">here</a>.
Geoffrey Lawrence is emeritus professor of Sociology, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoffrey-lawrence-2886" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Urban food systems may be just a ‘side dish’ at Habitat III

<html><body><div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The Lempriere Group is in due diligence to buy Agrium's Landmark agency and trading business.
The deal is estimated to be worth about $1.2 billion, Fairfax Media suggest.
Agrium bought Landmark as part of its acquisition of AWB in 2010 in a $1.2 billion deal. 
Landmark has more than 105,000 clients, representing more than 75 percent of all farms as Australia's largest distributor of merchandise and fertiliser as well as being a major wool and livestock trader. 
The company's revenue to December 2015 was $2.3 billion ranking it among the top three biggest agricultural companies in Australia behind Graincorp and Nufarm.
Ruralco has also been mentioned as a possible contender for part of the Landmark business. 
The fifth-generation Australian business Lempriere Group is partners with the Chinese textile giant Shandong RuYi in 2012, following the joint purchase of Cubbie Station, near Dirranbandi, Queensland.
</div>
</div></body></html>

Lempriere Group look at Agrium Landmark acquistion

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/62785/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Productivity Commission’s latest draft report on the regulation of agriculture highlights the need to get the balance right, as to when the government should and shouldn’t intervene in this industry, and then how to intervene.
The report is part of a nine-month public inquiry into the regulatory burden on farm businesses. It covers a wide range of issues from land and water use to labour and foreign investment.
Agriculture is fairly unique in that market competition is pervasive. Competitive markets provide the incentives and rewards for businesses to find cost-effective production methods, develop new products valued by buyers, and to adopt technology. At the same time, agriculture has to compete against alternative uses of limited national natural resources, labour and capital, and the sector has to pay market rates for these inputs.
Markets work well only with well-defined property rights, ranging from weights and measures for the products produced, through to the rights and responsibilities of owners in the use of land, water, labour, transport infrastructure, and other key inputs. Here, the Productivity Commission’s report questions current regulations on some property rights. For example, they restrict decisions on the potential use of land for agriculture versus for the environment, urban use and mining, and they restrict the opportunities for non-resident investment in agriculture much more than investment in mining and manufacturing.
The commission proposes that regulations should balance the opportunity costs of alternative uses of land, or restrictions on the use of land. For example, the value of land regulated for use for agriculture should be compared with the value to society if instead the land was restricted to the provision of the environment, mining or urban growth.
It also proposes the government intervene to correct market failures. This could include for example the effects of the exercise of market power, external costs and lack of information necessary for buyers and sellers to make informed decisions.
Examples of external costs include run-off of chemicals to rivers and the ocean, irrigation in some areas increasing salinity downstream, and biosecurity. Often Australian food markets do not provide buyers with required information about the production systems used, for example organic or GMO, about food safety and nutrition.
As the Productivity Commission notes, regulation is not the only form of government intervention and often it is not the best way to correct a market failure. For example, the creation of government environmental water managers with water property rights similar to those used by irrigators for the Murray-Darling Basin seems to be a more effective way to restore a balance of water use between irrigation and the environment, than previous restrictions on water available for irrigation.
Sometimes government failure, either from lack of information or the dominance of political considerations, can result in regulations with larger social costs than those for the market failure. Essentially this is reflected in the report’s argument that some regulations are counter productive, such as the banning of GMO and regulation the sugar industry again.
Where regulation is a proposed solution to the market failure, a next step is to design the regulation. The objective is to balance the benefits and costs to society, and not just for agriculture, of the restrictions imposed on the products produced and the production methods used.
In many cases these social benefit cost assessments will be very challenging and with legitimate debates on key costs and benefits. Regulations on animal welfare illustrate. There are challenges in providing robust measures of animal welfare and even in obtaining estimates of the different values and attitudes people place on different levels of animal welfare.
Forthcoming information about the side effects of new chemicals and production methods, as well as the evolution of society preferences, likely will justify adapting and changing regulations over time as new information becomes available.
A particular area of excessive regulation cost affecting Australian agriculture identified by the Productivity Commission concerns over-lapping, and sometimes conflicting, regulations across the three levels of government.
Greater inter-government cooperation over the design and conduct of regulations is what the Productivity Commission draft report proposes and the government would do well to listen.
John Freebairn is professor, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-freebairn-90" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Government needs to get balance right in regulating agriculture

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
GUEST OBSERVER
Having been a lawyer looking after farmers and graziers for almost 40 years, I have focused on the future of family farms all my professional life – indeed, my practice and those of the other lawyers in our Agribusiness team depends upon it.
The issues facing agriculture in Australia are well known – droughts, floods, fire, depressed prices, labour shortages, too much debt, government interference (tree clearing and live export bans to name but two), declining terms of trade, the high Australian dollar, the average age of our primary producers etc etc.
As a general observation, while undoubtedly the average age of our primary producers is high, the next generation are well placed to capitalise on the world's increasing need for protein and Asia's growing prosperity – they are technologically savvy and have access to resources, training etc (that their forebears could only look upon with envy) to ensure that the farms of the future will be sustainable both financially and environmentally.
I was asked a few years ago what I thought was the biggest issue facing primary producers and my considered response was "lack of communication". Farmers and graziers are, by their very nature, stoics – they have to be to cope with the myriad of challenges thrown at them. They know how to "tighten their belts" in bad times and battle through.
Producers though, in my experience, largely do not communicate about issues worrying them – droughts, debts, relationship issues, mental illness etc. These issues and the lack of communication particularly come to the forefront when we are addressing succession planning for family partnerships. My view, until recently, was that such partnerships have limited lives as the next generation takes up the "family farm".
My view though has changed and I was intrigued to read an article in Beef Central some time ago about two Mallee grain growers and their venture into "collaborative farming".
These two farmers started with a blank canvas and designed the ideal farm for their area. They worked with no preconceptions or restrictions and focused only on what mix of land, plant and labour would be required to create the most efficient and profitable farming business for their area.
They have combined their assets and skill base with a corporate focus that has enabled them to achieve a high level of scale, efficiency, profitability and flexibility that simply would not have been possible if they had remained as individual farming units.
Irrespective of what industry or profession you are in, it is an ever competitive and challenging business environment out there, and we all (lawyers included) have to look at ways to drive efficiencies, reduce costs and to ensure the business models are sustainable.
At Thynne + Macartney, for example, many of our lawyers now work remotely, reducing our need for high cost premises and allowing us to consolidate on a smaller floor plate. We also recognise the different strengths of our people and although we are still a legal partnership, we have moved to a corporate management model.
Having been raised in Mitchell on a property consisting of any number of 160 acre blocks carved up after World War 1 for soldier settlements, and in a wool growing era where adjoining properties all had their own woolsheds and supporting infrastructure, I can see opportunities for our farmers and graziers in "collaborative farming".
The basic idea is that you look to others in your or related industries and put yourselves into businesses where you add the most value and be more profitable. A breeder operation, for example, can form a business partnership with the operators of a backgrounding block (and in turn, the operators of a fattening block / feedlot) where resources (whether it be land, manpower, plant, livestock or whatever) can be applied to best advantage to make the combined operation more flexible and profitable than the individual operations could ever hope to be.
As has been said before, "it's not rocket science".
One of the Mallee farmers, John Gladigau, is said to have identified seven core principles for "collaborative farming":
Be strategic – Start off with a blank piece of paper and design your future.
Differentiate between agribusiness and real estate – Most farmers and graziers run two enterprises: a real estate business and an operations business – both have to get a return. Arguably some of our large operators in the beef industry are grappling with this issue.
Use resources efficiently (machinery, labour and infrastructure).
Create cells and replicate them, ie a scalable unit as the most efficient mix of land, machinery, infrastructure etc.
Create an environment of "win-win"– Win-win relationships need to be built between all of the stakeholders throughout the businesses.
Engage specialist services – The days of being a master of all trades (if they ever existed) are well and truly over. Recognise your limitations. There are areas where you need to bring in others because of their different skill set.
An independent voice is needed – Recognise that personalities, especially in a collaborative business where families are brought together, can destroy the business. The one essential element is to have an independent voice. Look at the corporate world where it is common to have an independent chair / directors on the board.
How then do we establish a "collaborative farm"? The key issue here is that "there is no model, there are no rules". You need to create a business that works for you and your partners. Having said that, the basic template is to set up a new company, put the various properties together, lease the properties and plant and sell your livestock to that new entity. There are legitimate steps that can be taken to minimise transactional costs, ie stamp duty, livestock transaction levies and income tax on any such restructure.
In summary, I am convinced more than ever that "the family farm has a future". The crucial issue here though is that the form of the family farm in future may well be more complex. It is of course a complex environment in which we all live and operate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Bill Loughnan is partner,  Thynne &amp; Macartney and can be contacted <a href="https://www.thymac.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
<div> </div>
</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