STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
(Senate-Monday, 20 October 2008)

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY PORTFOLIO - Grains Research and Development Corporation 

Senator «MILNE» -I am very interested in your view on the issue of sequestering carbon in soils. I note that in a recent publication that you sent out you included an article which actively discouraged farmers from thinking that they could sequester carbon in soil. I am interested in the basis for that. It goes so widely through the farming community and is contrary to the experience of a number of farmers who are doing it.

Mr Perrett-We believe there is potential for sequestration of carbon in soils. Certainly carbon in soils is very important in the cropping cycle. I did chase very hard when it was raised with us that GRDC was campaigning against carbon through articles, and that can be attributed to a fellow who was doing some consultancy work, which was tied to the GRDC, and that was probably taken out of context in the way in which he spoke. He spoke with his personal opinions at the time. I am referring to Alan Umbers, if that is the article you are referring to. It is certainly not the view of GRDC that carbon sequestration is not an option. We realise there is great value in carbon in the soil. Building organic matter in the soil makes it healthier and makes it much more viable and better for crops.

Senator «MILNE» -That is good to hear, because that is not the impression that was given. What I was referring to was issue 76 of GRDC's Ground Cover magazine, the September-October 2008 edition. It was the article on the hidden costs of carbon sequestration, which was signed by four people from the plant industries branch of CSIRO. I am interested to hear you say that building soil carbon is a good idea, but the concern that I have is that it has now gone to 36,000 grain growers and various government departments. It went out in the same edition as a bumper sticker for high-analysis fertilisers. What are people supposed to think when they get that?

Mr Reading-To further follow up on the carbon story, the main issue was saying that it is very important from a soil structure and soil biology point of view-disease, et cetera-to build soil carbon, which is very important. The issue was what value that could be in terms of a carbon trading/emissions trading scheme. The key focus was for the growers to concentrate on building soil carbon for the agronomic biology reasons, which would be the main driver for them to do it. Ground Cover does have a limited amount of advertisements, but not related to that.

Carbon is part of our whole strategy in terms of climate change and sustainability, but the issue is where to build up carbon levels. It comes from a number of ways, including crop residues, ploughing in, good soil practice, et cetera. The main drivers should be healthy, productive soils, rather than being able to build up something that there may be significant credits being planned for later on. That was the primary focus of it.

Senator «MILNE» -However, in the article it states that it will cost grain growers an estimated $200 per tonne of humus sequestered. The suggestion there is that they will have to add nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur and have to get that in large quantities and pay considerable amounts for it, which seems to suggest absolutely no understanding of the microbial bridge that is provided that can unlock that from the humus for the use in plants and has been doing so for generations before synthetic fertilisers came along. I would like to know what GRDC is going to do about correcting what now is an impression across rural and regional Australia that improving soil carbon is going to cost them money in terms of increasing the cost of a whole lot of fertilisers?

Mr Reading-We will go back and look at that article. Again, in the discussions that we have had with the people involved in writing it, the general thrust of it was in terms of building soil carbon for the reasons of building organic matter and other things such as that. That is long term. It is not a quick thing. It takes time to build organic matter percentages in the soil, and we have got to keep concentrating on it. That is a combination of good farming practices, including fertilisers, crop rotations and minimum tillage. We strongly support the whole impact in terms of soil carbon, building it up for the organic matter and things for the biological systems.

Senator «MILNE»-I will be very interested to see how that perception is corrected, because at the moment there appears to be a complete disincentive for farmers to proceed along these lines. It is suggesting that it is going to cost them if they go down a route that will provide them with better yields and more resilience in the longer term, as you have now agreed. That is quite unfortunate. This committee has seen what can happen with productivity and better margins; people can reduce their input costs. That is quite contrary to what this article has suggested and as has been promoted by GRDC. I would like you-and I will certainly be asking you at the next estimates-in whatever disclaimer or materials you put out in the next edition to correct what is now widely distributed throughout rural and regional Australia.