Sarah and Robert have a mixed sheep and cropping enterprise located in the South West wheatbelt. They have made significant efforts to balance sustainability and profitability. They are successful farmers and have won Primary Producer awards. Their environmental priorities are related to maintaining soil health and protection and enhancement of biodiversity. They use a no-till system and minimal sprays. The couple operate the farm themselves with one employee who assists with labour. Sarah also works off-farm. She has also held office in the local landcare group and dedicates significant time to this. They have undertaken the BestFarms EMS program which has assisted them to manage information relating to environmental management on farm.
They specialize in growing soft wheat which is used to make biscuits. Millers want low protein for biscuits and pastry. Protein needs to be between eight and ten percent so it is grown on the poorer soils which produce lower protein wheat. They produce higher protein noodle wheat which attracts a premium for protein on the richer fertile soils.
They have planted extensive biodiversity corridors with over 200,000 native seedlings established. The farm is fenced on the contour and uses a system of contour banks to harvest and control surface water and seepage, ensuring that there is adequate stock water even during drought. Along with a number of farmers in the district they are involved in the emerging oil mallee industry. The oil mallee industry in South West WA involved using endemic mallee species to produce oil. Infrastructure including oil production and bioenergy generation has been established focusing on a 50 km radius of that infrastructure which includes Sarah and Roberts’s farm. Waterways are protected and paddocks have been set up to support rotational grazing and efficient movement of stock through a network of laneways. They carefully monitor and manage soil erosion. Sarah was also concerned about vehicle use and emissions from farming.
They use chemicals as little as possible and use a pre-emergent herbicide at seeding and post emergent sprays as required. Sarah would prefer to use less chemicals and has some concerns about the future of chemical use in agriculture particularly in relation to chemical resistance.
They constantly adapt their system to avoid this resistance. Sarah commented that they would like more information on integrated pest management. She says that while information about pests that should be annihilated is easy to get, she finds it just as interesting to find out which bugs are beneficial. She commented that “It’s only just recently that we’ve studied the value of biodiversity – what can it do for us – this is all new stuff”. She purchases organic food for the family where possible and is frustrated at the lack of availability of this in rural areas. She said that she considered having organic food brought down from Perth. She added that she always buys eggs that are free range and looks to purchase food that she believes is better for the environment or the animal.
Before the grain leaves the property, they put it through a cleaner. They aim to deliver the best quality grain because that will give the best dollar for it. It is mostly delivered to the WA Grains Bulk Handler and they also keep some on farm for seed and feed (sheep). The grain is fumigated in the silos to keep it from safe from weevils.
Sarah and Robert are active in the local landcare group and say that the strong landcare network has enabled them to share and learn from others regarding sustainable farming practices. In addition to this, their main sources of land management information are from chemical suppliers, their soil testing advisor and importantly, the Grains Bulk Handler that they sell their product to. They also keep a careful watch on the WA Wheat Board and other purchasers of grain. It is these bodies that determine what is to be planted and how much of it. They say that this information is provided through media and different meetings that go on throughout the year.
They believe that their operation is becoming more sustainable, particularly as a result of the no-till method. They are confident that soil is not being eroded by wind and they are making positive contributions to carbon sequestration. She said that they are constantly learning to do more to create a sustainable farm. She adds that whilst it has been a lot of work, it’s been rewarding and satisfying.
They undertake a quality assurance program on farm and aim to deliver the best quality grain because that will give the best return.
In terms of contributing to community sustainability, they feel that their profitable operation allows them to spend locally and contribute financially to the community. Sarah is aware of the
shrinkage of rural communities and aware they have, in some way, contributed to this trend because they have purchased more land and a family has moved off. She suggests that one way that they could contribute more to is to intensify, creating more local employment.
Sarah comments that she would like to have a good understanding of the whole system, of ‘how nature and us could be doing the same thing, to be actually working with nature instead of against it’. While she says that obviously they need to farm profitably, they haven’t got big visions of creating wealth. She says that they do not want to pour all their profitability into some grand house on the coast for example. A lot of their profitability goes right back into the farm including machinery which all helps make their life easier. They value the benefits of living on the farm, their enjoyment, the education of the kids and the resource they are building. She comments that ‘it’s not too much of a mining operation’.
They are happy with the environmental and animal welfare values of their products. However Sarah says that because of her preference for organic food, she may prefer to purchase organic grain than their own grain. On the other hand she says that they are doing a reasonable amount to protect the environment and this may be worthwhile in consumer purchasing decisions.
Sarah said that their product is closer to ‘environmentally friendly’ than that produced by most grain growers. She suggests ‘I think our product would stand as a middle way product in that respect’. Sarah said she could see the benefits of having their product environmentally certified and believes that farmers should be rewarded because that would encourage them. She adds that this would also ‘link to consumers and could make consumers a little bit more interested and more responsible towards contributing back to environmental management initiatives’. She said that if a consumer was to buy their product on this basis, then they would have more incentive to do what they do. ‘It would bring some recognition which ultimately would be financial recognition of what we do and that gives us the ability to do more’.
Two representatives from the Grain Bulk Handler that purchase Sarah and Robert’s grain were interviewed. The company is run by a board of directors with 10 growers elected from within the grains districts plus commercial directors. On a philosophical level they agree with best practice environmental management but as the representatives commented, it comes down to business decisions and benefit-cost. They do however rely on their reputation as a reliable supplier of ‘clean and green’ grain (company website).
The grain handling operations have ISO 14001 series certification at some of their storage facilities, particularly where grain is to be exported. The bulk handler is supportive of the concept of environmental management and recognizes issues related to atmospheric monitoring (dust) and social issues. During the first interviews in 2005 they could not see potential for EMS certified grain markets and at that stage they were not getting requests from customers for EMS certified or sustainably produced grain. By 2006, the ethic of the company was shifting towards more pro-active action on demand for environmentally sustainable grain. The representative commented that there were increasing trends of demand for environmentally friendly produce that would influence the company. Overseas markets were mentioned as potential pressures towards environmental assurance of grains. An example was given where there where high levels of chemical residues in the atmosphere as a result of fumigating cells in grain storage in Esperance. This led to environmental and health inquiries.
The company’s QA (food safety) focus was seen as a potential precursor for environmental assurance on farms. Customer demand was the driver for incorporating QA into farm operations. It was commented that even though grains are a low risk for food safety, (and this can work against incorporating QA in the supply chain), grains can go to quality discerning markets.
Even so, they commented that QA is only now starting to have strong flows through supply chains. The company offers a quality assurance training program based on the Safe Quality Food program (SQF) to farmers that provides a framework to help growers better manage their on-farm food safety risks. They also offer a direct financial incentive for implementation of QA on farms, introduced in 2004. Farmers who are implementing the company QA program receive an additional 50 cents per tonne.
This premium is a risk management approach by the company and is cost effective because contaminated loads cost them significantly (termed a risk reduction payment). This is because every time a contaminated load occurs, it costs the bulk handler. For example it costs a minimum of $150,000 to find a contaminant on a ship. The average cost of contaminants to the bulk handler is $5 million per annum. This makes differentiation of QA grain cost effective. Their aim was to have 50% of grain farms quality assured by 2006 but in December 2006, this figure had amounted to only 20%. Even though the training is cash positive for farmers, only 175 out of 7000 training spots offered were taken up in 2006.
In terms of environmental assurance of grain, the company representative suggested the risk mitigation used for the case for differentiating QA grain does not apply. They added that within a supply chain there might be hotspots where there’s interest or action related to environmental assurance but this interest is variable. It was commented that while there was scope to add EMS to the SQF 1000 series QA program, they were not pursuing this at the time. They commented that it was difficult enough to get farmers to uptake QA, never mind EMS.
However recently there has been a massive uptake in QA training due a penalty for not having QA that was introduced in 2007. Under the new system, all grain from farms that are not part of the QA program will be tested for contamination with the cost of that passed onto the grower. This has proved a strong incentive to create uptake of the program.
In summary, the company is aware that environmental management on grain growing farms could be improved with issues such as rising water tables, biodiversity loss and chemical contamination of groundwater potentially causing problems. They support the development of an environmental system or plan on farm, but they are not in a position to demand this. Their primary focus is on supplying clean grain that meets the increasingly demanding pesticide residue requirements. As the primary grain handler for the state, they are penalised when unacceptable pesticide levels are discovered in any grain shipment, even if it does not come through the bulk handler.
They suggested that they are happy to lend their QA system as a framework and by 2007 they were undertaking EMS audits for grain growers where requested. However they suggested that they will not be the driver for sustainable environmental management on farm and this will have to come from somewhere else. Overseas markets including quality assurance demands from the UK and Canada and China’s Green Food Certification were mentioned as potential pressures towards environmental assurance of grains. Given that the bulk handler does not apply chemical post harvest, they should be applicable for the China Green Food Certification.
Despite their reluctance to be a key driver of environmental assurance of grain, the company did agree in 2007 to differentiate a stack of grain from the Mingenew-Irwin area north of Perth where there is a critical mass of EMS certified grain growers. They are also moving towards segregation on a site basis, mainly to better enable segregation of QA grain but this may also have implications for EMS certified grain.
Figure 14 shows the potential transfer of values in this supply chain, indicating the potential for transfer of environmental values if the manufacturer continues its preliminary program of EMS certified grain certification.
Figure 14: Transfer of environmental and other sustainability values in conventional grains case study
Product statistics
Retail price = 100% conventional
Product miles = low – high: minimum 280km (WA) to 3706km (interstate) or 8,000 km (China)