Introduction
4.1
Innovation is not new to Australian farmers. As a participant in the National Farmers’ Federation’s Talking 2030 process stated ‘innovation has always underpinned our competitive advantage. We need to ensure our industry’s culture and structures can keep up with an accelerating pace of change.’
4.2
The speed with which agriculture is changing is creating the opportunity for transformative productivity growth. The scale of the opportunity is outlined in research undertaken by the Australian Farm Institute (AFI) which estimated that the ‘full adoption of digital agriculture could yield an additional $20.3 billion to the gross value of the Australia agricultural industry.’
4.3
This chapter will outline the structure of the Australian agricultural research and innovation system and consider how well it is performing. New technologies and farming methods can only create value if they are adopted and implemented, and so this chapter will also explore whether producers are adopting technologies and any barriers to greater uptake of innovation. Lastly, this chapter looks at options for reducing losses due to food waste.
Review of the Evidence
Australia’s Research and Innovation System
4.4
Australia spends approximately $1.4 billion per year on agricultural research and development (R&D), about 40 per cent of which is funded by the Australian Government. The remaining 60 per cent is split between state governments, producers through a levy paid on commodity sales, and agribusiness.
4.5
To achieve the goal of $100 billion by 2030, the University of Western Australia (UWA) advocated for a step-change in investment in agricultural research and development in Australia, stating:
... Australia needs large-scale, multi‑disciplinary investment in industry-aligned research and innovation; investment that is well beyond anything previously done in Australia ... large leaps in productivity require coordinated investment delivered through mission-like programs focused on improving productivity and achieving resilience in agricultural communities.
The Role of R&D Corporations
4.6
The Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations (CRRDC) described how the Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) were formed through a:
... partnership between production industries and the Australian Government to jointly contribute to industry-focused research, development, technology transfer and adoption, and in some cases market access, market development, promotion and additional industry service.
4.7
The RDCs are funded jointly from the Australian Government, industry, and via royalties collected as a result of previous research outputs. Industry contributions are raised through a levy payment based on commodity sales and collected by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The Australian Government match funding raised by industry and used for R&D purposes (but not funding used for marketing). In 2017-18 industry funding raised $497 million, with an additional $316 million being provided by government.
4.8
The CRRDC added that:
... almost all rural research, development and extension (RD&E) produces a mix of ‘public goods’ and ‘industry goods’ that are inseparable, and occur in proportions that are difficult to estimate. The existence of public goods in the outcomes of rural RD&E is one of the justifications for government investment in the research with impacts felt across production, community, environment, and the wider economy.
4.9
The Australian Government has set four priority areas as the focus for rural R&D spending. In 2017-18, the proportion of RDC spending attributed to each of these priorities was:
Advanced technology (32 per cent)
Extension and adoption (27 per cent)
Biosecurity (20 per cent)
Soil, water and natural resources (13 per cent)
4.10
There are fifteen RDCs, five of which are statutory, Australian Government entities and ten of which are industry owned. The five statutory RDCs are:
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Grains Research and Development Corporation
AgriFutures Australia (trading as the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation).
4.11
Wine Australia is enabled by the Wine Australia Act 2013 (Cth), while the four other statutory RDCs are enabled by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 (Cth).
4.12
The industry owned RDCs are each formed through their own piece on enabling legislation. The ten industry owned RDCs are:
Australian Egg Corporation Limited
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited
Australian Meat Processor Corporation
Australian Wool Innovation Limited
Forest and Wood Products Australia
Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited
Meat and Livestock Australia
Sugar Research Australia Limited.
4.13
The Australian Government is currently undertaking a review on modernising the RDC system. In 2019, the review published a discussion paper and sought submissions on the RDC system. The discussion paper stated that a modern RDC system should:
Deliver value for money for levy payers and the taxpayers who fund the RDC system
Drive collaboration and participation across the agricultural innovation system, with a focus on better cooperation and improved adoption of R&D
Target long-term cross-sectoral and transformative R&D
Improve levy-payer representation and advocacy.
4.14
In October 2020, as part of the Delivering Ag2030 plan, the Australian Government announced the creation of a National Agricultural Innovation Agenda (NAIA). The NAIA will aim to:
strengthen ecosystem leadership, cohesion and culture through clear strategic direction and increased collaboration
improve the balance of funding and investment to deliver both incremental and transformational innovation, and growing private sector and international investment
embed world-class innovation practices through greater transparency and entrepreneurship
strengthen our regions to achieve greater uptake of innovation
create the next generation innovation platform by improving the foundations of agricultural innovation, including data and regulatory settings.
4.15
As part of the NAIA, the Government will deliver a National Agricultural Innovation Policy Statement in the first half of 2021. By July 2021, the Government is also planning to release a Digital Foundations for Agriculture Strategy which aims to ‘set the foundations for widespread uptake of digital technologies across our agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors.’
Performance of RDCs
4.16
A number of industry groups expressed their support for Australia’s RDC based research and innovation model. For example, the West Australian Farmers Federation (WA Farmers) expressed its support for the current RDC system stating that the Australian Government support for ‘the RDCs and the [Cooperative Research Centres], is a critical industry advantage, we would like to see it grow, if anything.’
4.17
The Pastoralist and Graziers Association of Western Australia (PGA) stated, however, that it would like more direction about where RDC levy funds are spent and stated that matched government funding comes with ‘caveats of fitting the government’s modus of the day.’
4.18
The PGA added that its preferred model of operations for RDCs was that of Australian Wool Innovation (AWI). The PGA stated that AWI is an industry owned company and that it:
... conducts a poll of all people who pay the wool levy/tax every three years. This includes the ability to vote for a zero per cent levy, which in effect would mean the end of AWI as a company ... The PGA believes that the ability of levy payers to have that vote sharpens the concentration of the people who control AWI and who are meant to deliver the services that growers pay for through their wool levies.
4.19
Grain Producers Australia advocated for a similar model for the Grains Research and Development Corporation stating that it should become an industry-owned company with a board made up of majority industry representatives.
4.20
Summerfruits Australia noted that with the creation of Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation) the sector had moved to an industry‑owned RDC model. Summerfruits Australia questioned, however, how many horticultural producers were members and why if a grower is already a levy payer they should need to become a member? Summerfruits Australia also stated a rationale for creating Hort Innovation was making horticultural R&D more efficient but that the corporate cost recovery had risen from 11 per cent under the previous RDC model to 18 per cent under Hort Innovation.
4.21
The PGA was critical of the use of levy funding on marketing campaigns by the AWI and other RDCs. The PGA stated that, despite the value of R&D, 60 per cent of the AWI’s levy funds were spent on generic wool marketing. The PGA added ‘this generic marketing concept sucks up a lot of the levy funds and we’re never entirely sure whether it works or not.’
Collaborative and Cross-Sectoral R&D
RDC Collaboration
4.22
The CRRDC and the Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC) suggested that there was a need for greater collaboration to undertake research into issues that affect more than one industry such as climate risk, soil fertility, water availability, and biosecurity.
4.23
Similarly, Australian Eggs suggested that as RDCs focussed on specific industries there was a gap in the RDC system for research with potential for broad cross-sector outcomes.
4.24
AWI stated that RDCs have shown a ‘clear willingness’ to work together on cross-sectoral research. This willingness was demonstrated by the CRDC, which reported that currently 35 per cent of its investments were in cross-sectoral projects and the CRRDC and Australian Eggs, which both reported that the RDCs are considering investing in a fund or entity to ‘focus almost exclusively on transformative cross-sector or even cross-economy innovation and remove the need for case-by-case, project-by-project negotiation on collaboration.’
4.25
The University of Sydney (USyd) expressed strong support for the RDC system as well as other government-industry innovation partnerships. As a means of funding greater cross-sectoral generic research the USyd suggested that the RDC system could apportion 20 per cent of its budget for a competitive scheme to fund basic science that could benefit all commodities. USyd suggested that this would be beneficial in assisting the translation of ‘research from other disciplines to agriculture; particularly in genetics, synthetic biology, information science, and environmental science.’
Collaboration with Business
4.26
Seafarms Group, which is the proponent of a proposed major prawn farm development, provided an example of how publicly funded research undertaken in collaboration with the private sector can drive business growth. The Australian Research Council (ARC) funded a partnership between Seafarms Group, James Cook University, The University of Sydney, the CSIRO, and the Australian Genome Research Facility to establish the ARC Research Hub for Advanced Prawn Breeding. Seafarms Group added that this program:
... developed some extremely useful technologies for genotyping prawns, and the next step is to take that, operationalise it and develop a genuine genomically-led breeding program ... one of the exciting things about this industry is that there are massive opportunities for research and development to really drive productivity up and drive costs down.
4.27
James Cook University reported that, in addition to working with Seafarms Group, it has undertaken aquacultural research partnerships with Mainstream Barramundi and Pacific Bio. The Mainstream Barramundi research developed genetically improved barramundi juveniles which now provide the basis of a global export industry. The partnership with Pacific Bio developed a process where microalgae remediated nutrient wastewater and resulted in the first North Queensland prawn farm approval in 15 years.
4.28
Growers Group Alliance highlighted the benefits of researchers closely collaborating with farmers from the early R&D planning stage right through the research process, stating:
... grower and farming systems groups can assess adoptability in close company with researchers and developers. In other words, farmers should participate directly in research and knowledge exchange.
4.29
James Cook University (JCU) agreed with the importance of strong engagement with farmers during the research process. JCU stated that it works with farmers from the beginning of the research process through to the end and that this approach:
... gives ownership to farmers and helps to break those barriers to trust through understanding how the technology works. Also, it helps to build the researchers’ understanding of what farmers’ needs and wants are and helps to keep that focus ... participatory research with farmers gives you an end result that is more useful. However, the process to reach that end result is slower, because you have to interact, and it is more expensive to do participatory research. So I would encourage the RDCs to rethink the funding model in terms of how they wish to promote participation with industry.
Other R&D Funding Sources
4.30
CSIRO commented that some researchers have linked Australia’s declining agricultural productivity growth with declining investment in R&D, while ‘others have argued that it is due to a small percentage contribution by the private sectors, at least compared to other OECD countries.’
4.31
The CRRDC commented on the overall public investment in RD&E, stating that it had:
...barely kept pace with inflation, and the balance has shifted between public sources. In particular, the investment by states and territory governments has declined while the university sector has increased.
4.32
The Australian Society of Plant Scientists (ASPS) called for greater funding for foundational, basic research into the plant sciences. The ASPS highlighted that the main funding source for foundational, university based research is the Australian Research Council (ARC) grants system but that there were decreasing levels of ARC funding directed towards agriculture.
4.33
The ASPS stated that researchers were instead looking to the RDCs for funding but this funding was designed for short-term applied research rather than longer-term foundational research. The ASPS added that long‑term programs are ‘integral to productivity gains in Australia; they tend to involve genetic screens and mapping of traits, which is usually a 10‑year project.’
Importance of long-term investment
4.34
UWA noted the long timeframe between investments in R&D and the improvements in productivity they can produce. UWA stated that ‘in typical agriculture, from research to adaptation or adoption by the farmer, it can take about 20 years. But we have seen significant reduction in investments in research and development in particular in Australia over the years, and that will have a huge impact on further innovation.’
4.35
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) agreed that there was a significant time-lag between undertaking research and experiencing the benefits and suggested that a decline in research funding in the 1980s had resulted in reduced productivity growth in the 2000s. The TFGA suggested therefore that ‘continuous investment into agricultural research and development is needed for future gains and productivity.’
Potential of Digital Agriculture
4.36
The AFI reported that while all agricultural sectors could expect to benefit from the adoption of digital agriculture certain sectors had the potential to experience particularly strong growth. Industries that were forecast to experience the most benefit included: grains (51 per cent growth); fisheries and aquaculture (44 per cent growth); horticulture (40 per cent growth); and forest and wood products (37 per cent growth).
4.37
The AFI estimated that the main sources of growth would be achieved through:
Automation and labour savings ($7.4 billion)
Genetic gains through improved animal and variety selection ($2.9 billion)
Tailoring of inputs such as fertiliser, seed, and water ($2.3 billion)
Improved market access and biosecurity through pest and disease control ($1 billion).
4.38
In 2017, the Accelerating Precision to Decision Agriculture (Precision to Decision) program completed its investigation into the potential of digital agriculture in Australia. The program was led by the CRDC and undertaken in collaboration with the other 14 RDCs and seven other research entities.
4.39
Summarising the key findings of the Precision to Decision program the CRDC state that the following factors were required to realise the full potential of digital agriculture:
Leadership - a need for dedicated digital agriculture policy, strategy, governance, and collaboration
Trust and legal barriers - improvement of agricultural data regulatory frameworks to address data privacy
Connectivity - a lack of access to mobile phone and internet telecommunications is impeding adoption of digital technologies
Digital literacy - a digital skills gap exists across the sector
Value proposition - a need for greater clarity around the value of new technology and the consistency of service and support
Availability of appropriate data - widespread availability of datasets
Data analytics and decision-support tools - there is a need for tools that provide data based insights to assist with decision making.
Remote Sensing and Automation
4.40
Increasingly sensors are being used to remotely measure and transmit data relevant to plant and animal health. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (DITCRD) stated that drones were being used for sensing activities that were previously undertaken by aircraft or satellites, and that this had significantly reduced costs. The DITCRD added that drones were being used to monitor crop growth, fertiliser application, weed monitoring, water usage, and soil analysis, all of which could result in yield increases.
4.41
Australian Grape and Wine stated that machine harvesting and pruning had had been a major innovation in its industry and that further innovations were likely to be implemented in coming years. AGW stated:
... in the vineyard there will certainly be a bigger use of drones. Drones will be used to monitor and assess vines and assess variability in vines. A lot of remote sensing work is being done from aeroplanes, but the drone technology is really growing. There will be a lot more targeted spraying. We want to reduce spraying as much as you can, and there is a lot of robotic technology that’s being developed with that to help more targeted spraying to prevent spray drift.
4.42
Similarly, the University of Western Australia suggested that digital technologies offered farmers a greatly increased ability to adapt their production to local climate variations, stating:
...synthetic biology advances, together with improved climate forecasting, knowledge of environmental variability across farming landscapes, and autonomous farm vehicles and harvesting systems capable of precision planting, tilling and harvesting, will enable farmers to optimise production at a micro-climate level, affording greater local control in both good years and bad ones.
4.43
The Cooperative Research Centre for High Performance Soils (Soil CRC) reported that the understanding of Australia’s soils was improving through the use of new sensing and measurement technologies. The Soil CRC added, however, that there was significantly more research needed in the area, stating:
…the large diversity of soil types and functions in Australia, combined with the large diversity of farming system and practices overlaid upon these soil types, means that it will be a long and tedious task to develop specific precision management solution for all soil management scenarios.
4.44
Geoscience Australia added that the Australian Government was investing $225 million over four years to improve the accuracy of positioning data in Australia. Currently positioning systems are able to provide data to an accuracy of 5 to 10 metres but with these investments accuracy will be available at a scale of 10 centimetres or 3 to 5 centimetres where mobile phone coverage is available.
4.45
Geoscience Australia stated that precise positioning data was expected to deliver growth in the agriculture sector valued at $2.2 billion over the next 30 years. Some of the advantages that precise positioning data could provide include:
More efficient deployment of inputs including seeds and sprays
Horticulture yield maps and identification of hazard and disease locations
Ability to monitor livestock remotely reducing overgrazing and need for fencing
Reduction in costs of surveying and environmental management in forestry.
Data Collection and Analysis
4.46
The CSIRO outlined how data is playing an increasingly central role in agriculture and suggested this is being driven by:
... advances in weather and climate forecasts, more dynamic and timely information on the state of soils and crops, and linkages with farm management software to improve operational efficiency, safety and transparency. Large volumes of data will be able to be generated by cheap, ubiquitous sensors ... routine tasks will be automated, and data and analytics brought to bear on more complex decisions.
4.47
AWI provided examples of how automated data collection could benefit wool producers, stating:
Automated data collection and analysis systems could give real time information on relationships between rams and ewes; and ewes and lambs enabling decisions on oestrus, mating, feeding, lambing, pedigree and sheep selection. This system could also give information on paddock and pasture use efficiency, water point access, theft, health, and predation for a mob or an individual.
4.48
Geoscience Australia reported that the Australian Government, as well as many of the state and territory governments, were making datasets available to businesses and citizens with minimal restrictions. Geoscience Australia drew attention to the following types of data that were being made available that held significant potential benefits to the agriculture industry:
High resolution elevation data that has many potential benefits including in measuring groundwater recharge and managing flood, erosion, and bushfire risk
Surface water datasets that assist in managing water resources, modelling floods, and informing farmers about feed quality on their land
Geophysical and hydrogeological data which is used in identifying areas suitable for irrigation and those at risk of salinity
The location of agricultural assets, their exposure to hazards, and where infrastructure may assist in mitigating the risk of potential disasters.
4.49
AgriFutures Australia noted that there is currently a lack of standards in regards to agricultural data which is limiting how farmers can use the data they are generating. AgriFutures Australia explained that farmers can have multiple datasets that don’t work with each other, for example data from soil tests not being interoperable with worm tests.
4.50
The Australian Farm Institute (AFI) suggested that poor data collection was acting as a barrier to the development of a mature market of ‘risk management tools such as weather derivatives and multi-peril crop insurance.’ The AFI added that sector wide decision making could be improved if common data collection frameworks were used by industry and government.
4.51
Similarly, Growcom suggested that it was crucial to ensure data was interoperable to avoid the creation of ‘walled gardens’ data environments that existed in other industries. Growcom advocated for the Australian Government to play a role in the ‘development of internationally consistent protocols and standards for agriculture specific data.’ In particular, Growcom called for the government to seek the ‘extension of the Customer Data Right to our sector as a matter of priority, an initial first step should be an industry-agreed definition and scope of what exactly constitutes “consumer data” in the agriculture sector.’
Species Diversification and Genetic Modification
4.52
The University of Adelaide suggested that fully capitalising potential productivity gains would require combining digital technologies with innovations in crop and animal science, particularly ‘genomic breeding, gene editing and the judicious use of genetic modification (GM).’
Species Diversification and Breeding
4.53
Since 1996, Australia has used an ‘end point royalty system’ to distribute royalties to the developers of new crop species on the basis of tonnage produced by growers. The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) reported that this system has two effects:
...it increased royalty payments and subsequent capital available for variety development and even more importantly, it shared the risk of return between the breeder and the grower (if a grower encounters a difficult production year their contribution of royalties to use a variety decreases with the decreased production).
4.54
GRDC reported that it held shares in two wheat and barley breeding entities, with a 39 per cent stake in Australian Grain Technologies, and a 38 per cent stake in InterGrain. The University of Western Australia (UWA) suggested that this ownership could result in a form of ‘double-dipping’ as the GRDC receives levy funds from growers as well as royalty payments. UWA added, however, that diverse funding sources were necessary as the levy alone does not provide sufficient investment back into research.
4.55
GRDC reported that due to the end points royalty system investment in wheat breeding had increased from $11 million per year in 2000 (all from public sources) ‘to more than $60 million per annum today all coming from the private sector.’
4.56
UWA, however, expressed doubts that investment from plant breeding could replace government support for research in the short term, stating:
...without taxpayer money going to the industry, for it to stand alone and to provide funding for research and development it is not going to happen in the near future. Yes, we need to look at more and more private people coming in, but if the government pulls out then we’ll be in big trouble.
4.57
The ASPS stated that there are few native species cropped in Australia, with the majority of species originating in Europe and North America and having been bred under optimal environmental conditions. Therefore, in Australian conditions these species require high levels of fertiliser use and are ‘susceptible to extreme climatic events, the increasing erratic weather, and pests, diseases, drought and soil degradation associated with climate change.’
4.58
The ASPS suggested that there was a need to diversify plant species being grown in Australia. The ASPS highlighted Quinoa as an example of a crop with different varieties ‘each with their own preferred environment, altitude, day length, water requirement, and salinity or acidity tolerance.’
4.59
Similarly, Gene Ethics and Friends of the Earth (GE & FoE) called for greater use of ‘thousands of traditional varieties of major food crops which are naturally adapted to stresses such as drought, heat, harsh weather conditions, flooding, salinity, poor soil, and pests and diseases.’
4.60
The ASPS suggested that in order to find crops that could thrive in Australia ‘more pre-breeding research is required’ and there was a need to make the process of importing materials for research purposes more efficient.
4.61
Hort Innovation provided an example of successful of species diversification with the National Strawberry Varietal Improvement Program. The program developed 12 new varieties of strawberries that have captured a ‘large share of the market’ and delivered a benefit-cost ratio of 3.5 to one.
Genetic Modification
4.62
Croplife Australia advocated for greater use of GM crops in Australia and expounded on their benefits, stating that ‘GM crops have reduced pesticide use by 37 per cent, while increasing crop yields by 22 per cent and increasing farmer profits by 68 per cent.’ The ASPS provided canola as examples of a crop that has benefitted from GM, stating:
...GM crop farmers in Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland have gained $1.37 billion in additional income and produced 226 000 tonnes more canola than would otherwise have been produced if conventional seeds had been used.
4.63
A differing perspective on the use of GM was provided by GE & FoE, which stated that ‘overall conventionally bred non-GM varieties remain more effective and are less costly to develop’. GE & FoE added that ‘yields for corn and canola in Western Europe, where GM varieties are not grown, have increased at a similar rate to, or higher rate than in North America where production is dominated by GM varieties.’
4.64
UWA suggested that the potential benefits of GM varied between crops. In the case of corn GM had brought significant benefits through increased herbicide and insect resistance, but conversely, wheat is a more complex grain and so gains are likely to be smaller. UWA added that while GM may not always increase yield it may bring quality benefits, for example by altering grains to reduce starch levels or increase the levels of certain proteins. Overall, UWA stated that GM should not be dismissed but neither should we be ‘putting all the eggs in the GM technology basket.’
4.65
A number of organisations highlighted the potential for GM crops to help farmers adapt to climate change. The University of Adelaide stated that greater use of GM could create a ‘new wave of crops that are more tolerant to Australian conditions and climate volatility.’ Croplife Australia agreed stating GM crops could provide ‘crucial tool for farmers to combat drought, soil acidity and/or salinity, as well as emergent diseases.’
4.66
Similarly, the University of Western Australia stated that ‘we will soon have an opportunity to create climate-resilient “smart crops” - crops capable of growing during periods of drought and extreme temperatures, and able to tolerate adverse soils.’ UWA also suggested that this would potentially allow an expansion of productive agricultural land.
4.67
In contrast, GE & FoE did not accept that GM would help develop climate resilient crops. GM & FoE stated that tolerance to drought, flooding, and disease usually requires ‘complex multi-gene traits [that] cannot easily be engineered using GM techniques.’ In comparison, GE & FoE suggested that conventional breeding, complemented by marker‑assisted selection techniques, had been successful in developing crops with resilience to drought and disease.
4.68
Croplife Australia suggested that ‘GM crops are rigorously regulated in Australia’ but despite this Tasmania (and until recently South Australia) maintained a moratorium on the use of GM. Croplife Australia suggested that as overseas producers were using GM, Australian growers needed access to these technologies to remain competitive. Croplife Australia called for the Australian Government to:
... recognise that all GM crops approved by Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator for commercial purposes are as safe for human health and the environment as their conventional (non-GM) counterparts.
4.69
In January 2020, the South Australian (SA) Government lifted the moratorium on GM use in its state. The SA Government stated that the moratorium had ‘discouraged both public and private investment in research and development in the state.’ The SA Government added that lifting the moratorium will assist the state’s farmers in adapting to climate change and ‘increase farm profitability and resilience.’
4.70
The Tasmanian Agricultural Productivity Group (TAPG) described the moratorium on GM in Tasmania as being both a strength and weakness for the state. TAPG suggested that it held back development for some businesses such as poppy producers but being the sole state with a moratorium had benefits for the marketing of Brand Tasmania.
Other Technologies
4.71
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) reported that research into the use of radioisotopes and isotopic technologies is being undertaken in a number of agricultural settings. Examples of this research include:
Monitoring the uptake of nutrients in wheat to support more efficient fertiliser use and help overcome zinc deficiencies in Australian soils
Improving plant resistance to fungal and microbial infections
Determining uptake of nutrients to optimise feel ingredients and quantities in aquaculture.
4.72
AWI suggested that consumer focused technologies could help increase consumer demand and reported that it had used technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality to market Australian wool.
Adoption of Innovation
4.73
The CSIRO highlighted that while Australia, relative to other nations, ranks highly for ‘expenditure on R&D, and on the volume and quality of research outputs, it ranks poorly for the rate of translation from research inputs to outcomes for end users.’ The CSIRO stated that ‘much of the activity in the innovation system is not driving productivity improvements’ and suggested this was due to a deficiencies in innovation policies as well as a lack of interaction between ‘farmers, agribusinesses, support services, markets, and consumers’.
4.74
CSU noted that ‘Australian start-ups are more likely to fail in comparison to those in other countries as Australian farmers have not traditionally taken up technology readily.’ CSU highlighted research by Meat and Livestock Australia which had found that if the middle 60 per cent of farmers in southern Australia matched the production processes of the top 20 per cent of farmers this would generate $2.8 billion per year.
4.75
Charles Sturt University (CSU) added that research has found that ‘farmers take up technology at far greater rates when the new technology has been demonstrated to them and shown to work. Field research and showcasing new technology is key in encouraging farmers to adopt it.’
4.76
AgThentic stated this may not always occur, as startups often lack the industry networks to connect with agricultural producers. Instead, new agricultural technologies (agtech) are ‘pushed in to the industry by new entrepreneurs who do not understand the complexities of farming, rather than pulled into agriculture by producers who see value to be gained from adopting agtech solutions.’ In addition, AgThentic suggested that agtech products being offered to producers are often at an early stage of development or with limited functionality.
4.77
The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries suggested intellectual property (IP) rights could be a barrier to greater adoption of new innovations, stating that:
Funding partners require a share of IP and commercialisation from the results of the funding provided. This can stifle innovation, as small businesses/innovators are reluctant to let go of their IP and commercialisation rights.
Promoting Innovation Adoption
4.78
AgThentic recommended that governments fund programs that identify ‘key industry challenge areas requiring technologies, and matching of specific technologies and research projects to these challenges.’ Additionally, AgThentic suggested government could support greater adoption of agtech through rebates, demonstration projects, a centralised database of agtech information, and the development of a registered agtech consultant’s association.
4.79
An example of a potential government incentive was provided by WA Farmers which advocated for changes to accelerate the depreciation of new equipment for taxation purposes. WA Farmers stated:
Speed up the depreciation schedules, because the difference between what a new spray rig, with all the technological fruit on it, can do versus something that is 10 years old is quantum. If everyone is running the latest gear, what will we get in terms of productivity improvements? It’s going to be five per cent across the board, $5 billion overnight probably, if not more.
4.80
AgThentic called for greater government promotion of agtech innovation and suggest that this should include greater collaboration with New Zealand. AgThentic suggested that Agritech NZ, an agtech coordination body in New Zealand, offered a model that could provide insights for Australia. Additionally, as both countries are relatively small agtech investment markets there would be potential scale benefits from collaboration. As an example, AgThentic highlighted the recently established Australia New Zealand Agritech Council as an important initiative working towards this goal.
4.81
USyd stated that it believed that ‘Australia should develop agricultural innovation centres which are multidisciplinary but focused on agriculture.’ Examples of these types of centres were provided by the Australian National University and CSU, which stated its agtech incubation program ‘helps people refine their ideas, understand what they need to achieve to make their product viable, and coach them on how to secure the investment to make the idea a commercial reality.’
4.82
TFGA stated that producers need to be informed of research developments that are relevant to them and this was most effective achieved through ‘effective extension services that go to producers and explain the changes and how it can benefit them.’
4.83
As an example of how research developments can be disseminated, AWI reported that it used state based producer networks as a vehicle for the dispersal of new ideas and technologies. AWI stated that these networks are ‘fundamental to the spread of new ideas’ and ‘provide opportunities for producers to get involved in practical programs that focus on making positive changes to on-farm production and management practices.’
4.84
Growers Group Alliance (GGA), an association of 43 grower groups in Western Australia, also advocated for the use of producer networks in disseminating research outcomes and assessing the adoptability of technologies. GGA stated, however, that while grower groups have a ‘solid understanding of on-farm dynamics’ they are generally volunteer run and so members are often time poor. GGA suggested that government support would assist grower groups to continue to ‘provide a capable and supportive environment in which field testing, adaptation, and experience can be shared between farmers and researchers.’
4.85
A further channel for spreading research outcomes was suggested by USyd, which stated that previous state government research extension programs had been replaced by commercial consultants and suggested government should provide incentives to ensure these consultants stay updated with the most recent technologies.
Reducing Food Waste
4.86
The National Farmers Federation (NFF) reported that up to 25 per cent of vegetables produced do not leave the farm. In total, food waste has been estimated to cost the Australian economy approximately $20 billion per year. As part of its 2030 Roadmap, the NFF has set a target of halving food waste by 2030.
4.87
The South Australian Government reported that it is a major investor in the $133 million Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), based in Adelaide, which is ‘working to reduce food waste throughout the supply chain, transform unavoidable waste into innovative high-value co-products, and engage with industry and consumers to deliver behavioural change.’
4.88
TFGA highlighted the importance of reducing food waste in reaching the $100 billion by 2030 goal. TFGA reported that in 2016-17 ‘Australia produced 7.3 million tonnes of food waste across the supply chain’ 31 per cent of which was from primary production. TFGA noted that food waste was especially a problem for the fruit and vegetable industries and that this was ‘due to variety of factors including produce damage, cosmetic standards, and market pressures.’
4.89
As a means of limiting these factors, Protected Cropping Australia drew attention to the advantages of the controlled environmental systems used in protected cropping could ensure ‘consistency in both quantity and quality of outputs, which in turn means less food waste.’
4.90
Hort Innovation reported that a project it was undertaking in partnership with CSIRO was using broccoli that may have been wasted to develop a powder that is fortifying everyday foods including coffee. Similarly, waste water from aquaculture is being treated by algae creating by-products that can be used in nutraceuticals, supplements, biofuels, and plastics.
4.91
During the production of the vegetable powder mentioned above a waste pulp flow will be created. Worm Hit, an organic fertiliser company, is working with Growcom to transport this pulp from Queensland to Victoria to feed to the worms which produce its fertiliser. Worm Hit reported that plants treated with its fertiliser required less water and chemical usage was also reduced as the ‘root mass on the [plant fertilised with Worm Hit] actually outcompetes the weeds, therefore you don’t need to spray the weeds.’
4.92
Tasmanian Agricultural Productivity Group (TAPG) reported that microwave assisted thermal sterilisation technology was being used in Tasmania to turn food that may have been wasted into new commercial products. This machine is able to process food, potentially even into meals, and sterilise them in a way that once reheated will appear like a freshly cooked meal. TAPG suggested that the potential of the technology was particularly significant for use in defence, hospitals, nursing homes, and disaster zones.
4.93
The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) highlighted that packaging has an important role in minimising food waste but is also creates an additional waste stream. The AFPA stated that effort must be made to ensure packaging is ‘recyclable and compostable, with the ultimate aim being the establishment of a circular economy.’ The AFPA recommended that a ‘national, coordinated policy on packaging, food waste and recycling’ be implemented.
Committee Comment
4.94
Digital technology is central to the future of Australian agriculture. It has been estimated that digital agriculture could add $20 billion to the value of the sector. A boost of this size would, by itself, cover the projected shortfall required to reach the $100 billion by 2030 target.
4.95
The Committee was pleased to hear that the Australian Research and Development Corporation (RDC) system is broadly supported by industry groups. The RDC model, with its close links to industry, is designed to invest in research carefully targeted to the needs of Australia’s agriculture providers. Producers fund RDCs through their levy payments and so many inquiry participants urged RDCs to continue to deliver value for money by focussing on developing practical technologies and techniques that can drive productivity growth.
4.96
The RDC system is more than 30 years old and so it is appropriate that the Australian Government has undertaken a review aiming to modernise the system. Building on this review the Government has recently announced the creation of the National Agricultural Innovation Agenda. The Committee welcomes this focus on agricultural innovation and looks forward to the development of the Agenda through the release of the National Agricultural Innovation Policy Statement and the Digital Foundations for Agriculture Strategy which in the first-half of 2021.
4.97
The Committee notes that while there was broad support for the RDC system, the most commonly raised area for improvement was in supporting research that could provide benefits across multiple industries. Developing a resourcing mechanism for cross-sectoral research that still ensures value for single-commodity producers is a key priority for the Innovation Agenda.
4.98
While the focus of the RDC system is rightly on applied research projects, it is the basic research undertaken today that will form the foundations of tomorrow’s applied research. The Committee was, therefore, pleased to speak with representatives of multiple universities deeply committed to developing their agricultural research capabilities. At the same time, reports of declining investment in agricultural research both by state and territory governments and through the Australian Research Council grant system is concerning. The Committee urges governments in all jurisdictions to continue to fund both basic and applied research to ensure there is a functioning innovation pipeline that can continue to drive productivity increases and long‑term economic growth.
4.99
The Committee was also pleased to hear that many researchers are embedding the ideas of farmers into the design and delivery of their research projects. Involving farmers in research from the planning stages not only ensures that projects are closely aligned with producer needs but can also help with disseminating ideas and ultimately increase the adoption of research outcomes.
4.100
Remote sensing technologies can now monitor localised weather conditions; pest and disease prevalence; plant, animal, and soil health; and much more. The data created by these monitors is improving the quality of information that producers use to make their business decisions. Paired with automated machinery this data is providing the basis of the high-precision agriculture which can decrease loss and increase the quality and value of produce.
4.101
Despite the obvious benefits of these technologies, their growing use is resulting in the creation of vast data-sets and there is currently little regulation regarding the management of this data. There are questions about the ownership and use of data generated by farmers, but perhaps more critically there is also a need for data standardisation.
4.102
The potential benefits of sensor technologies are severely limited if they are unable to work with other technologies or management software. Data that is ‘locked’ to certain brands, or reliant on unique formats that are at risk of becoming obsolete, restricts producers from being able to freely use information on the functioning of their own business. There is a clear need for data to be exportable and inter-operable between systems and this will require some degree of standardisation. There is a role for Government to work with industry, and if necessary research organisations, to develop such a system.
4.103
While adapting crop varieties to Australian conditions has always been a part of Australian agriculture, contemporary technology allows faster and better targeted development of beneficial crop traits. In a changing climate there will be increasing value in technologies that can improve resilience, including both gene editing and improved conventional breeding techniques. Predominantly inquiry participants believed that genetic modification (GM) techniques had the potential to deliver important benefits to the agriculture sector.
4.104
With the exception of Tasmania, Australian producers now have the opportunity to benefit from GM technologies. In Tasmania, it is difficult to assess whether the continued GM moratorium is on balance beneficial. While there are some businesses that would certainly benefit from access to GM, the moratorium also benefits other businesses due to how it complements Tasmanian branding and marketing strategies.
4.105
Ultimately technological developments and innovative farming techniques can only drive growth if they are adopted by producers. The Committee heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders suggesting that there was an opportunity for Australia to improve the speed with which new technologies and techniques are adopted.
4.106
With a relatively modest investment the Australian Government could potentially improve uptake of innovation through increased support for groups such as RDCs, peak industry bodies, and local producer networks, which focus on research extension activities. It is clearly not the role of government to promote particular products or subsidise the marketing of an individual business, therefore it is important that any support available is only for the provision of independent advice to producers.
4.107
The Committee notes that the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Hon David Littleproud MP, recently announced an $86 million program to develop Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs across Australia. Included in this program is $11 million in resourcing for ‘Drought Resilience Innovation Grants to support drought resilience initiatives for farmers, community groups, industry, and researchers.’
4.108
This announcement was made after the Committee completed collecting evidence and so the Committee looks forward to hearing more about this program. While there is no doubt of the value of promoting adoption of innovations that support drought resilience, the Committee believes that it could also be beneficial to support the promotion of innovation adoption more widely.
4.109
It has been estimated that as many as a quarter of all vegetables produced never leave the farm. This represents a significant investment and a potentially valuable resource that is currently going to waste. Reducing food waste can occur through improving consistency in production, targeting inefficiencies in supply chains, or processing any unavoidable waste into new products.
4.110
The Committee was pleased to hear about a number of innovative solutions to the problem of food waste in the fruit and vegetable sectors, an example being the Worm Hit organic fertiliser company that the Committee visited in Mildura. The Committee hopes to see continued development of new products and techniques in this space and strongly supports the National Farmers Federation’s goal to halve agricultural food waste by 2030.
Recommendations
4.111
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with representatives of the agricultural industry, including the agricultural technology industry, to develop a framework for the use of agricultural data in Australia. This framework should:
be based on the principle that producers should have continuing ability to access and use data generated by their business
include a nationally consistent set of common data standards to enable data‑sets to be used across a variety of software and technologies.
4.112
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment implement an Innovation Adoption and Extension program to promote the adoption of digital technologies by Australian farmers. The program could involve activities such as targeted events, small-scale grants, or the provision of information online. The program should also support and build upon the work currently being undertaken by industry groups and producer networks to disseminate information on beneficial innovations.