Today, 148 years on, the benefits of the state’s unique farm gate animal health and pest management system are still being enjoyed. No other state in the nation has a local ratepayer-funded veterinary health and pest management system built on local knowledge, local service delivery and local commitment. Such activities elsewhere in Australia are vested with state governments and these are invariably under-funded and more centralised, say the critics.

Localism, professionalism and the capacity to act decisively to a sudden outbreak of emergency animal disease are attributes that set NSW apart from its neighbours. An independent IMC review of the then network in 2008, found the system to be under mounting pressure. There was a well overdue need for restructuring. The recommendations of the IMC review were publicly embraced by the then government and opposition and were enacted into state law. In 2012, change continues to be driven by emerging realities including new international bio-security realities, demographic shifts, new technologies and the need for more highly trained players. The authority’s land and livestock owner rating system, which did not form part of the 2008 IMC review, appears to remain anomalous and it remains the source of ongoing disquiet among ratepayers.

A new one-man review is being conducted at this time by economist Terry Ryan, an independent consultant commissioned by NSW Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson. Terry Ryan has described the basic LHPA system as ‘insurance policy for industry’ designed to ensure it can afford to manage future disease outbreaks and to maintain access to domestic and export markets for NSW produce.

NSW Livestock Health and Pest Management Authority rates are a tax. Where there’s a tax, there’ll always a whinger or ten. That’s the fact of the matter. Despite the pockets of discontent, the focused ‘localism’ and professionalism of this unique decentralised NSW bio-security institution remains its greatest strength.

Mike Cahill

On one hand, agriculture is tasked with feeding a growing world population from a finite production base. Against this, the production of food, fibre and biofuel has never been under more intense public scrutiny. Manufacturers recognise that technology alone is not going to win customers over, while processors and retailers are increasingly focused on the ‘greenness’ of their supplier chains.

The entire industry no longer has to be just responsible – it has to be transparent. This poses enormous challenges for all stakeholders – exactly whose problem is it to promote and safeguard the image of food and fibre production?

Whatever the answer, the U.S. experience suggests that an integrated approach is almost certainly going to be the solution. Integrated marketing communications is a process that coordinates all brand messages into a single, seamless and consistent program for maximum effect. This approach is particularly relevant in business-to-business marketing, which deals with fewer and larger buying units that are, in turn, part of complex, multi-channel value chains.

Ultimately, the goal of integrated marketing communications is not to create ‘awareness’ per se but to create profitable relationships with key stakeholders all along this chain. How? By engaging them in a shared dialogue.

Today, there’s an incredible array of stakeholders that influence and even dictate the purchasing decision, including advisors, agents, resellers, distributors, industry associations, government agencies, processors and retailers. Each of these has a different relationship with the brand and different expectations. Where producers value product performance and return on investment, other stakeholders place higher value on security of supply, brand integrity, food safety and environmental sustainability.

Of the 23 marketing communications agencies servicing U.S. agribusiness, the five largest account for almost two-thirds of reported billings (Agrimarketing 05/11). Of note, all five specialise in agribusiness and four provide a full suite of communication disciplines. Analysis of their billings shows there has been a 300 per cent increase in expenditure on digital marketing and a 20 per cent increase in media relations during the past five years.

Advertising now accounts for about 50 per cent of total spend by agribusiness, followed by media relations (20 per cent), direct marketing (10 per cent) and digital (10 per cent).

Jim Lindsay

Currently, 39 per cent of global land area is used for food production. By 2030 this is expected to increase to 40 per cent. By then, the world’s population is expected to grow by about 15 per cent to 8 billion. To supply the US-government recommended 2000 calories to everyone on the planet each day, it’s estimated that about 2.7 ha of space – land and water – per person are needed. After allowing for the needs of other species and to maintain the resilience of ecosystems, there is only about one hectare per person available. We need 2.7 earths to feed everyone if that figure is accurate. At home, Australians use nearly 7 ha each to produce what we consume. If everyone on earth was an Aussie, the world would need seven planets to produce the Everest of pies and rivers of beer that humanity would be consuming every day.Think tanks around the globe agree that there is enough food in production to feed all 6.9 billion earthlings. Unfortunately, most of this food is produced in the first world and in emerging nations such as China and India.

Before you say that we should just be shipping a lot more food to the third world where it is most needed, but can’t currently produce it due to a range of social and environmental factors, you have to remember that in a country like the United States almost 40 per cent of the food produced for domestic consumption is wasted, thrown away.The waste figure would be similar here too. Then we should also take into account for the massive tonnage of food crops now being grown in the USA for the federally-mandated biofuels industry.

Part of the answer lies in advances in food biotechnology but it’s clear that we won’t be able to feed the world without also changing the ingrained habits of our lifetimes. You could say it’s food for thought.

Peter Leybourne

Really? Truth is ‘it takes’ and it gives back in one big global and seemingly eternal cycle.

Last October, Canadian geneticist and environmental activist Dr David Suzuki was interviewed on ABC Radio National. Here’s part of what he said: “Like … I think one of the craziest things in Australia is that you are one of the exporters of rice. When you export rice, you are basically taking a very limited resource called water and you are shipping that water to other countries. Now to me that’s crazy…”

We all have a right to expect more of Doctor Suzuki. He’s a scientist. The world is literally his stage thanks to his profile in nature based science documentaries and in the news media. Wherever he goes, well-intentioned journalists flock to sit at his feet.

But, David Suzuki is a born showman and, like all of us, he’s more than capable of talking utter nonsense. A little porkie-pie to save the planet perhaps? Let’s revisit for a moment the wonderful hydrological science of the water cycle about which many of us would have been taught at school. The water cycle is critical to all life on earth. The water cycle doesn’t recognise trade or national boundaries. Environmental water, which is subject to its own immutable natural laws, can’t be ‘exported’.

Environmental water, as a liquid or a gas, passes between land, rivers and waterways to oceans and from land and oceans to the atmosphere. It does this by life-giving processes called evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, run-off and also via brilliant underground flows and storage chambers. The water cycle is exactly that … a cycle in which all life is sustained and nothing, but nothing, is lost…

Australia’s SunRice is one of the largest rice food producers, processors and marketers in the world and it says it typically feeds up to 40 million people per day in more than 60 countries with high quality Australian produce. This year Australia’s rice producers are celebrating harvesting, processing and marketing around 830,000 tonnes of brilliantly sustainable food in 2011 and, with the planets aligning, the harvest of 2012 will be even greater …

More power to our rice producers. All power to the magical water cycle, particularly in north west NSW and southern Queensland right now where our farms could really do with a drink.

By Mike Cahill