Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework.
Final Report – February 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
METHODOLOGY ...... 4
ECONOMIC OUTPUT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE REGION...... 6
FINDINGS, THEMES AND ISSUES EMERGING FROM THE PROJECT. ...10
The Survey ...... 10
The Focus Groups...... 18
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES...... 31
Rural: Urban Interface ...... 31
The Escalating Cost of Land in the Region ...... 39
Sustainability and Land Management...... 42
Water...... 43
Roads and Transport ...... 46
Costs versus Returns Price Squeeze...... 47
The Profile / Perception of Farming ...... 49
Business Administration and Legislative Issues ...... 51
Planning Issues Relevant to Agriculture ...... 52
REPORTS OF ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS...... 55
LIST OF PRIORITY ACTIONS ...... 60
COMMENTS FROM THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...... 62 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are a large number of people without whose input this project would not have been completed. The Project Officer, Barrie Pickersgill, would like to thank the following organisations and people who have been so willing to give their time, experience and knowledge during the course of the project.
The program was funded under the Regional Assistance Program by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Thanks to Michael Cummins and Renee Crossley from the Melbourne office for their assistance.
Steering Committee Chairman - Halvard Dalheim, Manager Strategic Development, City of Casey Des Wynne, Manager Economic Development, Cardinia Shire Ian Anderson, President, Cardinia Branch VFF Richard Percy, Executive Officer, South East Development David Young, Dairy Representative, Cardinia Branch VFF Miranda Cox, Equine Project Manager, South East Development Chas Harding, Hardings Orchards, Pakenham Kim McFarland, Strategic Development, City of Casey Lyn Link, Beef Farmer & Women on Farms Representative Joanna Redmond, Business Development Officer, Cardinia Shire Luis Gazzola, Chairman, South East Vegetable Growers Arthur Giaccotto, Australian Asparagus Council Jason Keating, Regional Marketing Officer, Dept of Primary Industry Colin McQuillan, Licensing Supervisor, Southern Rural Water Frank Crameri, Southern Rural Water Jenni Ireland, Manager Applied Science & Horticulture, Chisholm Institute Tom Schreurs, South East Vegetable Growers
Other Contributors Peter Schreurs, Devon Meadows Ian Ada, Sustainable Agribusiness Officer, Shire of Yarra Ranges Max Coster, Department of Primary Industry Geoff Kirton, Economic Development Project Officer, Shire of South Gippsland Ibrahim Malas, Sales and Marketing General Manager, Lemnos Foods Penny Taramides, Export Adviser, Tradestart Anne Langworthy, Director, Centre for Regional Development, Swinburn University of Technology Marie Harding, Hardings Orchards, Pakenham Joanne Butterworth-Gray, Drouin West Fruit and Berry Farm Jenny Pullar, President, Cardinia Ranges Vignerons Association John Osmelak, CEO, Flowers Victoria Theo Van Roy, Dairy and Poultry Farmer, Pakenham Kevin Crehan, Poultry Farmer, Longwarry Campbell Chapman, Dairy Farmer, Caldermeade John Clarke, President, VFF Chicken Meat Group Barry Jones, Manager Regulatory Services, Cardinia Shire Allan and Glenda Williams, Allanglen Lodge, Cranbourne Dr Danielle Auldist, Executive Officer, GippsDairy Sophie O’Neil, Cardinia Food and Wine Development
Sincere thanks to those farmers who donated their valuable time to attend the Focus Group sessions and whose input proved invaluable. Thanks to the enthusiastic group of farmers and other stakeholders who attended the ‘Focus on Farming’ Agribusiness Workshop which added enormous value to the work previously done during the course of the project.
Many thanks to the members of the City of Casey Strategic Development and City Development teams, with special thanks to Halvard Dalheim, Kim McFarland, Jocelyn Blair, Angela Smyth, Trevor Wakefield, Anna Kijowska, Leanne Terrington and Lorna Benoiton along with Joanna Redmond, Cardinia Development Project Officer for their invaluable assistance, input, advice and support.
To Allison Jones, previously with the City of Casey and Carla Boord previously with Cardinia Shire, thank you for your support early in the project and for your ongoing interest.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This audit of agriculture in Casey and Cardinia was brought about by the recognition within the two municipalities that there was a lack of knowledge in the region about the farming sector. A successful funding application was made to the Commonwealth Governments Department of Transport and Regional Services and additional funding was provided by the City of Casey as the lead proponent with additional funds from Cardinia Shire. An Agribusiness Officer was appointed in January 2003 to conduct the audit.
The process used to collect the data required was as follows:
• A steering committee was established to provide direction and local community input to the project. • Desktop research was conducted into other similar research projects and studies. • Statistical financial data was sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and supplemented by industry data where this was available. • A survey was undertaken of all landholdings outside the urban area. The response rate was 22.1% which can be considered to provide statistically valid data. • An SPSS statistical software package was used to assist in the analysis of the returned questionnaires. • Respondents to the survey were given the opportunity to indicate whether or not they would like their names to be included in a register of people who are interested in forming some type of agribusiness organisation for the region. Over 130 farmers indicated that they would like to be registered. • Focus groups were conducted with the major industry sectors in the region. • A one day regional agribusiness workshop, Focus on Farming, was held to discuss and refine the issues raised throughout the remainder of the project. • A number of one-on-one interviews were conducted with individuals across the agribusiness sector including farmers, executive officers of agribusiness organisations, authors of other relevant reports and appropriate officers of other Local Authorities.
The Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations as recorded by the ABS is $109,568,683 for Casey and $173,091,457 for Cardinia giving an annual value of $282,660,140 for the region (refer to comments regarding these values under ‘Economic Output of the Region’ later in this report).
The survey indicated that 42% of the land holdings outside the urban area in Casey were income earning and the same figure for Cardinia was 73%. The largest percentage of farms in the region are beef properties. These comprise 55.6% of the farms in the two municipalities followed by dairy farms at 12.6%. Dairy farms tend to be the largest farms by size in the region with an average size over 110 hectares followed by vegetable farms averaging almost 60 hectares. Beef properties average just over 50 hectares.
69% of the regions farmers estimate that all or most of their farm inputs are sourced from within the region indicating that there is a significant economic flow on effect from the farm sector.
Business confidence tends towards the positive for both the short term twelve month period and for the longer five year outlook. This result does however need to be interpreted with the understanding that the region is hopefully coming out of a long period of drought.
The region employs a large workforce and the survey captured 1503 full time and permanent part time employees. This number includes property owners and their employed family members. It is not clear whether there is respondent bias in the employee numbers in the survey but the data suggests that there is a large permanent and part time employment base in the agricultural sector in the region. The region also employs a large seasonal workforce with the asparagus industry being the largest seasonal employer and orchard fruit and the vegetable industry also contributing seasonal jobs.
Around 10% of the regions farmers engage in some form of value adding and 7.6% export overseas directly from the farm. Of the businesses which do not currently export, 16.1% have an interest in becoming involved in exporting products.
Water is an important topic to the regions farmers and the availability of ongoing supplies of quality water is the main concern. The provision of re cycled water from the Eastern Irrigation Scheme, due to be operational by summer 2004, will aid in maintaining many of the regions aquifers and therefore water quality.
Key advantages of the region are seen to be the proximity of Melbourne, the climate, quality of the soils, ready access to labour, the Victorian Livestock Exchange at Pakenham, the Cranbourne horse complex, good farm supply stores, being close to major infrastructure and areas of great natural beauty.
The eight major challenges for primary producers in the region were identified throughout the audit process as the price of land, the ‘right to farm’, availability of water, sustainability and land management, roads and transport, costs versus returns price squeeze, the profile/perception of farming and business administration and legislative issues. These eight challenges are discussed in detail later in the report.
The report outlines a number of actions that need to be undertaken to begin the process of addressing the issues raised during the project. There is also a list prioritising these projects later in the report. Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
INTRODUCTION
Background
In 2002, the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire submitted a joint proposal to the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) to fund a project to investigate the farming sector within the region covered by the two municipalities. The primary objectives as written in the project submission were as follows:
”Provide information pertaining to the regional agricultural production capabilities. This will enable both Casey and Cardinia to better respond to State and Federal Government, the education sector and industry requests for information, particularly in respect to export opportunities.
To identify and develop an understanding of the challenges faced by primary producers in a region subjected to conflicting pressures from non-agricultural land uses and develop strategies to manage these issues; through extensive industry consultation via surveys, sectoral workshops, key stakeholder interviews and a regional Search Conference.
Ensure the agricultural sector is resourced appropriately, by developing communication and networking frameworks amongst all stakeholders. This will facilitate co-ordinated regional responses to development issues and opportunities, for example export and supply chain development, delivery of training workshops, information provision and dissemination (such as the implications of the Metropolitan Strategy, upon its release in September). To retain and sustain current employment levels and develop future employment opportunities in the sector and therefore related sectors such as food processing and machinery manufacturing through effectively communicating and raising awareness of land use planning controls and their implications and future infrastructure. As well as improving networks with regional skills and employment initiatives targeting the industry and the future joint development of industry strategies which may include; development of succession plans and identifying new production innovations, emerging crops and export opportunities.
To create a prioritised list of future projects for both municipalities to undertake to ensure business and employment growth through the identification of barriers to development and farm productivity, based on the business development needs identified through the industry audit and Search Conference, thus ensuring sustainable and ongoing outcomes for the regional agricultural industry. These may include market research into demand and supply factors, succession planning, waste water re-use and infrastructure constraints. The information collected will enable the development and delivery of well-targeted programs by education and private sectors and supported by local government, to meet the needs of producers”.
Approval and funding was received in late 2002 and an Agribusiness Officer appointed in mid January 2003 on a twelve month contract.
The implementation of this project was timely considering the enormous changes that have taken place in the south-eastern metropolitan growth corridor in recent years. It seems that the pace of development in the region is ever increasing with ongoing and strong demand for land to develop both housing and industrial estates along with the infrastructure needed to support this rapid expansion.
1 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The City of Casey
The City, covering an area of 395 square kilometres, has a population of more than 209,000 which means that the city is now demographically larger than Geelong. The population is expected to eventually reach 320,000. As an indication of the rapid growth of the City, 46% of Melbourne's total growth in the 5 years to 1996 occurred in Casey. On average, around 65 families move into Casey each week. This is equivalent to about 10,000 new residents each year.
The City of Casey includes part of Melbourne's south-eastern growth corridor and has five distinct geographic regions:
The foothills are mainly used for lifestyle living with activities including grazing, horse agistment and regional open space. The population in this rural/residential zone is centred on the community villages of Harkaway and Narre Warren North.
The main residential and commercial sector is around the Princes Highway and the South Gippsland Highway corridors. There are two regional shopping centres, at Narre Warren- Fountain Gate and Cranbourne, as well as sub-regional centres at Endeavour Hills, Hampton Park, Casey Central and Berwick Village.
The urban growth area covers the areas surrounding Cranbourne. This is part of Melbourne's vibrant south-eastern growth corridor, characterised by strong building activity and rapid population growth.
The farming areas around Clyde, Five Ways, Devon Meadows, Pearcedale and Tooradin are mainly used for growing vegetables, flower growing, poultry farming, plant nurseries and grazing beef cattle.
The environs of Western Port, on the southern border, are home to the picturesque coastal hamlets of Tooradin, Cannons Creek, Warneet and Blind Bight, contain extensive coastal reserves and form a link between the popular tourist destinations of Mornington Peninsula and Phillip Island via the Baxter – Tooradin Road and the South Gippsland Highway.
One of Casey's best-known activities is horse training and racing. Cranbourne is one of the largest training centres in Australia, with around 6000 Cranbourne-trained horses starting in meetings around Australia annually. The Cranbourne Racing Complex is host to three racing codes, turf, harness and greyhounds. Each has its own track and training facilities.
Running parallel with Casey's population growth has been an expansion of the City's retail services, ranging from small convenience stores to the regional shopping centres of Cranbourne Town Centre and Fountain Gate at Narre Warren CBD.
Cardinia Shire
The Shire of Cardinia is located on the interface of metropolitan Melbourne, approximately 55 kilometres from the Central Business District and 45 minutes of freeway travel from the City of Melbourne, its ports and freight terminals.
It is a large municipality of 1280 square kilometres with a unique natural environment ranging from fern filled mountain ash gullies in the northern hills, to drier woodlands in the foothills to the saltmarsh and mangrove fringed Western Port. It has a population of 47,000 residing in 30 small
2 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
and medium sized rural townships of which Pakenham is the largest. Pakenham is also the main centre for retail and industrial services having increased its’ retailing services dramatically in the last five years. The Shire population is expected to reach 55,000 by 2006.
The shire includes the southern foothills of the Dandenong Ranges and the townships of Emerald, Cockatoo and Gembrook. Also included are the rapidly growing towns which are part of the south-eastern growth corridor of Beaconsfield, Officer and Pakenham, and townships further east along the Princes Highway from Nar Nar Goon to Bunyip. The southern part of the Shire is rich agricultural land centred around the townships of Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang.
Farming activities are diverse and include the dairy industry, wineries, poultry farms, orchards, beef, soft fruits, potatoes, flowers, nurseries and a large asparagus industry. The Koo Wee Rup swamp area grows 70% of Australia’s asparagus.
Location map of Casey/Cardinia
Melbourne
Port Phillip Cardinia Bay Casey
Western Port Bay
3 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
METHODOLOGY
The funding submission submitted to DOTARS laid out a program of events thought necessary to complete the project and achieve the required outcomes. The majority of the methodology listed in the submission has been followed. There were some minor exceptions where it became obvious as the project progressed that there was a better alternative or that the proposed action was superfluous to the required outcome of the project.
The proposed survey mechanism was one such example. It was originally proposed to conduct two surveys, i.e. a scoping survey followed by an industry audit. It was decided however in the process of survey design that a better result could be achieved by sending out just one industry census to all landholdings outside the urban boundary. Lessening respondent burden was an important consideration in this decision
With the aid of the rates data bases from the two Councils the following methodology was implemented to collect the information necessary to produce the final report;
• A steering committee was established to provide direction and local community input to the project. A list of those people who generously donated their time to serve on the steering committee is shown under Acknowledgements in this report. Their time and intellectual input to the project have been greatly appreciated.
• Desktop research was conducted into other similar research projects and studies. This resulted in the Agribusiness Officer conducting various discussions predominantly with similar officers of adjoining Councils and officers within the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) who had worked on similar issues or projects.
• A survey of all landholdings outside the urban area. The rates data bases were edited down to 1451 for Casey and 2433 for Cardinia leaving a reduced total of 3884 surveys from the original 4695 shown on the rates listings. The reduction was predominantly due to editing out all duplicate holdings, i.e. those landowners who have more than one rateable property listed under the same name and also where the mailing address was the same for different properties. Also edited out were parcels of land which had already been designated and approved for housing or industrial use. This editing process and rationale was explained in the questionnaire and these landowners are asked to combine all their properties and activities onto the one form. This process was aimed at reducing respondent burden as well as a cost saving and efficiency measure. A copy of the survey questionnaire is attached in the Appendices.
• An SPSS statistical software package was used to assist in the analysis of the returned questionnaires. All of the comments recorded by respondents in the qualitative sections of the questionnaire were entered into an Excel spreadsheet which also includes details of the farm type, land size and municipality of each respondent. To protect confidentiality, names or addresses of respondents were not asked for and have not therefore been recorded.
• Respondents to the survey were given the opportunity to indicate whether or not they would like their names to be included in a register of people who are interested in forming some type of agribusiness organisation for the region. Over 130 farmers indicated that they would like to be registered and a contact data base has therefore been established.
4 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• Focus groups were conducted with the major industry sectors in the region to both add value to and act as a test for the qualitative data and information already collected in the survey.
• A one day regional agribusiness workshop, Focus on Farming, was held to discuss and refine the issues outlined throughout the remainder of the project. (Flier advertising the workshop and the notes produced following the workshop are attached in the Appendices). Over 70 people registered for the workshop. The outcomes of the workshop were collated and mailed to all of the people on the agricultural data base, irrespective of whether they attended the workshop or not.
• In addition to the above processes a number of one-on-one interviews were conducted with individuals across the agribusiness sector. These included individual farmers, Executive Officers of various industry representative bodies, leaders of agribusiness groups within the region, Victorian DPI officers and officers of other municipal Councils outside the region and various input suppliers to the farming sector. Those people with whom the Agribusiness Officer discussed various parts of the program are included in the list of Other Contributors in the Acknowledgements section of this report. Their input has been greatly appreciated.
5 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
ECONOMIC OUTPUT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE REGION
It was hoped that the survey conducted as part of the project would provide at least some reliable data relating to the level of economic activity generated by agriculture in the region. However, the reluctance of primary producers to report their annual outputs resulted in no reliable statistical data being obtained. It is also unfortunate that there are no reliable locally produced dollar figures available for many of the major industries in the region.
This report therefore relies on Australian Bureau of Statistics data supplemented by data collected from various industry sources where possible. It is interesting to note that many industries do not have economic or production data broken down into either statistical or geographic regions. The best that most industry associations have is an estimate of production on a State and/or national basis.
The project officer has discussed with many of the larger farming sector associations in the region the need to have not only production statistics but economic activity and employment statistics relating to their industries. Without reliable numbers, no industry can adequately represent itself to government agencies, input suppliers or potential investors and this factor is seen as having a potentially negative impact on the progress of various industries in the region. Some sectors will find it difficult to impress on the wider community and the Australian agribusiness sector the importance and value of their industries in this region. Industry associations are therefore encouraged to address this issue and provide themselves with reliable data which they can use for their own benefit. The gathering of such information could be incorporated into a communication project within the region.
The following table indicates the level of economic activity in both of the municipalities as reported by the ABS for the Financial Year ending June 2001.
Table 1. Gross Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced. Source ABS. 2000-01
Product Casey Cardinia Total Pasture Hay & Pasture Seed 781,998 6,036,926 6,818,924 Cereals for Grain 424,284 361,660 785,944 Cultivated Turf 8,357,585 2,806,147 11,163,732 Nurseries 3,942,220 2,920,920 6,863,140 Cut Flowers 3,865,512 6,671,078 10,536,590 Potatoes 1,196,744 18,566,161 19,762,905 Asparagus 2,915,448 29,427,242 32,342,690 Vegetables 46,266,854 24,656,160 70,923,014 Orchard Fruit (peaches, apricots, plums, etc) 3,657,451 6,708,859 10,366,310 Apples & Pears (incl. Nashi) 6,416,158 6,416,158 Berries & Small Fruits 2,937,349 2,937,349 Milk 3,449,091 33,840,347 37,289,438 Livestock Slaughtering (excluding poultry) 3,617,558 20,091,653 23,709,211 Poultry Meat 26,055,433 33,958,096 60,013,529 Eggs for human consumption 6,146,430 1,171,648 7,318,078
NB. It needs to be noted that analysis of the ABS data highlighted an anomaly in the recorded outputs for Apples and Pears in the Statistical Local Area (SLA) of Berwick in the City of Casey. There is a recorded annual output over $2 million and a farm area over 100 hectares. There is no such grower within that SLA. The most likely explanation is that an orchard within the Shire of Yarra Ranges has been included in error in the Casey statistics. The ABS is unable to confirm that this is the case. This value of Apples and Pears has not however been shown in the above table and needs to be deducted from the Casey statistics shown later in this report.
6 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Interpretation of Statistical Data
The figures in the above table are reproduced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports entitled ‘Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced by SLA, 2000-01’ for Casey and for Cardinia. These reports are reproduced in full in the Appendices of this report and show the Total Value of Agriculture for Casey as $109,568,683 and Cardinia as $173,091,457.
The calculation of the dollar values in these reports is as stated by the ABS as follows; “The ABS defines Gross Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced (VACP) as the value placed on recorded production at the wholesale prices realised in the market place. The Gross VACP is the value of a commodity at the point(s) of sale”.
Whilst this data gives a good insight into the value of primary products coming out of the region it does not give the true dollar value of returns to the farmer. To arrive at that figure, the ABS state that “Local (or farm gate) VACP is the value placed on recorded production at the point of production (the farm). It is derived by subtracting prescribed marketing costs from gross VACP. These marketing costs are defined as the costs incurred by the farmer in moving agricultural production from the farm to markets. They include freight, cost of containers, commission, insurance, storage, handling and other charges necessarily incurred by the producer in delivering commodities to the market place”.
As an example, the value of the Chicken Meat industry in the region can be estimated based on the number of birds produced and the contract price paid per bird to contract growers. Victoria produces approximately 108 million birds per year and the Casey/Cardinia region accounts for 25% of this figure. The region therefore grows 27 million birds/year. Multiply this output by the average price per bird paid to Victorian growers for the last 12 months of 50 cents per bird and a ‘Farm Gate’ value of $13,500,000 is derived. This figure contrasts markedly to the $60,013,529 shown in the above table. This anomaly is due to the fact that the ABS uses data from their survey of chicken meat processors and therefore uses the average price per bird of $3.12 supplied by the processing industry. In this example it should be noted that the majority of chicken meat is produced by contracted farmer growers but the farmers do not own the birds. They are owned and fed by the processors so the marketing costs of chicken meat are not the responsibility of the farmer.
Converse to this example is the dairy industry. The ABS figure of $37,289,438 shown in the above table is very similar to the GippsDairy estimate of the farm gate value of milk produced for the region of $33.6 million. This is because the ABS have used the average milk price per litre paid to the primary producer supplied to them by the Australian Dairy Corporation for the Financial Year ending 30 June 2001, multiplied that figure by the Victorian average output per cow and the number of cows in the region and deduct no other costs from that figure.
It is apparent therefore that the ABS data needs to be interpreted with the individual industry and product in mind. The degree of costs incurred by the primary producer beyond the farm gate and the point at which the ABS collect the base data on any particular product will affect the recorded dollar figure.
ABS Cut Off Value
The ABS data also needs to be interpreted with the knowledge that the 2000-2001 data used a cut off point of $5000. Primary production businesses which showed a Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced (VACP) below $5000 were not included in the recorded data.
7 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Some of the recorded dollar values for various industry sectors will be correct, i.e. it is very unlikely that there would be any dairy or chicken meat farms with a recorded VACP below $5000. There would however be operations in many of the other industry sectors eg. vegetables, berries and small fruits, cut flowers, that would have recorded a VACP below $5000. The main category however that would be in this under $5000 group would be the beef sector recorded in the above table under ‘Livestock Slaughtering”.
This means that the total ABS figures in the majority of the farming sectors for the region for both the farm numbers and financial outputs are in effect an underestimation.
Top 12 Outputs
Table 2 below shows the top twelve agricultural outputs for both Casey and Cardinia. Individual vegetable and market garden crops have been broken down within categories to give an indication of the main economic drivers within the region. These figures are on the same basis as Table 1, i.e. they are the ABS Gross Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced. The figures provide an interesting pen picture of the differences in farming within the two municipalities but also provide an insight into the agricultural strengths of the region as a whole.
Table 2.
Ranking of the Top 12 Industry Sectors for Casey and Cardinia - ABS stats 2000-2001
CASEY CARDINIA Industry Sector $ Value Industry Sector $ value
1 Chicken Meat 26,055,433 1 Chicken Meat 33,958,096 2 Celery 14,378,355 2 Milk 33,840,347 3 Cultivated Turf 8,357,585 3 Asparagus 29,427,242 4 Parsnips 6,517,590 4 Beef (cattle 19,861,051 & calves slaughtered) 5 Nurseries 3,942,220 5 Potatoes 18,566,161 6 Cut Flowers 3,865,512 6 Cut Flowers 6,671,078 7 Beef (cattle 3,522,857 7 Apples 6,265,392 & calves slaughtered) 8 Lettuce 3,493,716 8 Pasture cut for 5,772,504 hay (other than Lucern) 9 Milk 3,449,091 9 Small & Berry & Tropical Fruit 2,937,349 (strawberries, kiwi fruit blueberries, raspberries, etc) 10 Leeks 3,441,477 10 Nurseries 2,920,920 11 Asparagus 2,915,448 11 Cultivated Turf 2,806,147 12 Brussel Sprouts 1,287,166 12 Egg Industry 1,171,648
8 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Additional Statistical Data.
Additional ABS 2000-2001 statistics for Casey and Cardinia can be found in the Appendices of this report. The data included in the Appendices is;
Number of Establishments by Area of Holding and Industry Number of Establishments by EVAO and Industry Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced by SLA Agricultural Census: Agricultural Commodities, SLA Estimates, Year Ending 30 June 2001 (this gives area of crops and recorded outputs).
9 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
FINDINGS, THEMES AND ISSUES EMERGING FROM THE PROJECT.
The survey conducted as part of this project captured the majority of the themes and issues relating to farming in the region. With the information gained from the focus groups and from the Regional Agribusiness Workshop being added into the mix, there has emerged a comprehensive picture of farming in the two municipalities.
References to the PowerPoint Presentation
Throughout this report there are references to the PowerPoint presentation used for the Focus on Farming Regional Agribusiness Workshop on 15 October 2003 and to individual slides within that presentation. The slides provide a summary of some of the topics discussed. The complete PowerPoint presentation is attached within the notes produced from the Workshop in the Appendices and references to individual slides are shown as SLIDE 4, SLIDE 5, etc.
The Survey
The Project Plan provided for a Scoping Survey followed by a comprehensive Industry Audit Survey. The objective of the scoping survey was to enable the differentiation between primary producers and hobby farms. In discussing this methodology with the agribusiness community in the region and in researching agricultural surveys from other regions, (eg. Farming Real Estate, Yarra Ranges) it became apparent that this approach was potentially not the best way to proceed. The main reasons for this were:
• The farming community expressed real concern with the concept of receiving two separate surveys within a short space of time, even though they both would be aimed at the same common output of benefiting the agribusiness community in the region and the first one would only be a short two page document. The repeated comment was that farmers already have too much paper work to do. One survey would be greeted with sufficient indifference to ensure a low return rate and if this first survey was then followed closely by a second one, the return rate for the second survey would be lower than for the first survey.
• The scoping survey design process was completed but it became apparent during this process that the questions asked in this short survey would have to be re-phrased, repeated or expanded upon in the main survey. There was inevitably going to be some duplication of questions in doing two separate surveys. Respondent burden and its potential outcomes (as referred to above) became an obvious issue.
In an attempt to reduce respondent burden, keep project costs to a minimum and reduce project labour hours, the rates listings from both Casey and Cardinia were extensively researched, particularly in relation to size of holding. Casey had a total listing of 1751 holdings outside the urban area and Cardinia had 2898. This equalled 4649 holdings for the region. If all land parcels below 20 hectares were excluded from the lists, Casey would have 1244 and Cardinia 1436 holdings above the 20 hectare size. This would leave 2680 holdings greater than 20 hectares to survey.
10 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
There were however a couple of practical problems with this approach.
Firstly, the rates listings for both municipalities did not indicate land use or farm type for the vast majority of the listings. When this approach of excluding holdings below 20ha was suggested at the first Steering Committee meeting, members of the committee explained that a large number of small but intensively farmed holdings would be excluded from the survey by this approach. These holdings included wineries, flower growers, vegetable and herb growers, poultry farms, rubus growers, orchardists, etc. and their contribution to the region would be lost from the survey results.
Secondly, deleting holdings less than 20ha would exclude over 42% of all holdings in the region. One of the comments that came out of the “Farming Real Estate” survey in the Yarra Valley in the year 2000 was that they had not captured the agricultural activity from “hobby farms”. There is no specific size or agricultural activity level to categorise a hobby farm but it is generally accepted that the overall economic contribution, including downstream economic activity generated by such properties, is far greater than most industry observers would believe. This survey aimed to capture that activity.
The survey questionnaire was therefore designed as a once only survey incorporating the objectives of both the originally planned scoping survey and the main industry audit. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the Appendices.
Editing reduced the survey numbers to 1451 for Casey and 2433 for Cardinia leaving a reduced total of 3884 surveys (see SLIDE 4). The reduction was predominantly due to editing out all duplicate holdings, i.e. those landowners who had more than one rateable property listed under the same name and where the mailing address was also the same for different properties. Land classified as “Development Land” and therefore due for subdivision or commercial development was also deleted from the listings.
The response rate to the survey was reasonable at 22.1% and although it would have been preferable to receive a far greater number of completed questionnaires, the responses received set the basis for the main findings of the whole audit and have provided a statistically reliable sample. The subsequent work with Focus Groups and the Regional Agribusiness Workshop confirmed the findings from and added value to the survey.
Comments on the Results of the Survey
Table 3 (SLIDE 5).
Respondents by Municipality By Casey Number % extrapolation Income earning 138 42.2 612 No income 189 57.8 839 327 100 1451 Cardinia Income earning 387 73 1776 No income 143 27 656 530 100 2432
11 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The total percentage responses from each municipality were virtually identical. The responses were split into income earning and non income earning. The Casey returns indicated that 42.2% of land holdings outside the urban area were income earning and the Cardinia percentage on the same basis was 73%. It needs to be noted that the decision as to whether a property was “income earning” or not was left to the discretion of the survey respondent in answering question 1 of the survey. The recorded figures of income versus non income properties are plausible considering the current land use and subdivision structure of the region.
Whilst there is the potential for response bias in the extrapolation of these figures into a total number of farm income earning properties in the region, the calculation does give an indication of the structure of rural land holdings in numbers (not area) across the two municipalities.
SLIDE 6 and SLIDE 7 give more detail of the breakdown in the sizes of holdings. The domination in numerical terms of farms under 25 ha indicates the impact of the demand over recent years for small easily managed properties, close to Melbourne and generally purchased for lifestyle reasons rather than solely for commercial agricultural pursuits.
Casey has a larger proportion of land holdings fewer than 5 ha as against Cardinia and this is understandable considering the large number of small sub divisions in Casey in the areas of Devon Meadows, Pearcedale and Cranbourne South. Cardinia has the larger number of land holdings in all other size categories under 25 ha.
The indication of the large number of farms under 25 ha does not detract from the economic importance of these properties to the region. It needs to be remembered that all the recorded holdings being discussed in this paper are ones which the property owners themselves regard as providing at least some contribution to their income. Many of these smaller properties are indeed very profitable businesses and provide their owners with all of their income. These include chicken meat growers, egg farmers, specialist vegetable growers, cut flower growers, native flower growers, horse trainers, vineyards, orchardists, soft fruit growers, plant nurseries, various value adding activities, etc. In addition there are many farmers who have diversified into operating more than one farming activity on the same property (see SLIDE 9) and many of these diversified businesses are on landholdings under 25 ha. This diversity of primary production activity has to be regarded as one of the strengths of the region and many of these varied activities have the potential to be further developed in the future.
The average size of holdings by activity is shown in SLIDE 10. The average land size of vegetable farms is influenced by the fact that the category includes potato and asparagus farmers as well as responses from some of the largest of the vegetable growers in Casey.
Respondents Major Commercial Agricultural Activities
The dominance of the number of beef farming properties in the region is demonstrated by SLIDE 8. Of the total number of survey questionnaires analysed, the main activity of beef farming represents 55.6%. Whilst there is potential for some response bias and this data needs to be read with that fact in mind, the percentage responses by major activity are shown in the table below.
12 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Table 4.
Activity Number % Comments Beef 292 55.6 Inc. all beef farms eg. stud, breeding, stores, vealers, etc Dairy 66 12.6 Horses 37 7.0 Inc. all types, eg. studs, racing, riding schools, pleasure horses, etc. Vegetables 29 5.5 Chicken Meat 15 2.8 Asparagus 14 2.7 Potatoes 13 2.5 Nurseries 13 2.5 Sheep 10 1.9 Cut Flowers 8 1.5 Orchard Fruit 5 1.0 Inc. apples, pears, nashi, citrus, stonefruit, etc. Wineries 3 0.6 Turf Farms 3 0.6 Poultry Eggs 2 0.4 Other 15 2.8 See note 2 below 525 100.0
Notes for the above table. 1. Percentages are all rounded off to one decimal place 2. The ‘Other’ category includes alpacas, goats, lavender, berries, chestnuts, deer, apiarists, llama, olives, mohair, hay, commercial timber and native food production.
Respondents Secondary Commercial Agricultural Activities are as varied as their major activities and the ‘Other’ category shown in SLIDE 9 includes most of the activities listed in note 2 of Table 4 above.
Key Inputs for farmers in the region are shown at SLIDE 11 and in general this data does not present any surprises. The ‘Feed’ category represents the cost of bought in livestock feed to farms in the region plus the cost of contractors to harvest fodder if appropriate. The intensive livestock industries, eg. poultry layer farms, have a reasonably predictable demand for bought in feed, varying predominantly only due to weather conditions, i.e. temperature. However, the grazing industries in the region (predominantly beef and dairy farming), rely on both conserved fodder and grain concentrate feeds to maintain herd health and production outputs in the periods where pasture feed is in short supply.
The key inputs data shows feed coming in as a close second to fertiliser as the major farm input. The survey was conducted in July and August 2003 and this time was at the end of almost seven years of dry weather. The level of feed, both fodder and concentrates, bought onto the farm in the survey period, i.e. July 2002 to July 2003 would therefore be greater than would otherwise have been the case if weather patterns and rainfall had been nearer to normal. It is not however possible to predict where the level of feed inputs would have been under normal conditions.
Under the ‘Other’ category were a range of inputs including bank finance, interest on borrowed money, drainage, depreciation, advertising and promotion, artificial insemination and competition entry fees.
13 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
It is however interesting to note that the majority of farm inputs are sourced locally (SLIDE 12). Respondents indicated that 69% of inputs were either all or mostly sourced from within the region. This has enormous ongoing economic benefits for the region and its continuation needs to be encouraged.
The Time Spent on Farming Activities by survey respondents (SLIDE 13) shows that a large number of the regions farmers do not work full time on their properties and this correlates well to the number of small holdings in the region.
Employment is covered in SLIDES 14 to 17. It was unfortunate that it was not clear from the number of survey responses received whether or not the data gathered was representative of the total survey population. The vegetable growing industry employs the largest number of people per farm and these large numbers may have produced some response bias. The data which was collected is however in the PowerPoint presentation for reference. The single largest farm employer captured by the survey is a vegetable grower with a total of 104 full time, part time and casual employees.
The whole of the data used to produce SLIDE 14 is Number of Number of presented to the right. The numbers in the slide were employees Respondents abbreviated to aid presentation. These employment numbers 04 represent full time, regular part time and casual employees. 1 218 These numbers indicate that the agricultural industries in 2 108 the region are responsible for employing large numbers of 351 people. The numbers are gathered from the 467 respondents 433 who answered the employment question in the survey. These respondents account for 1503 employees in total but 59 represent only 19.5% of the estimated 2388 income earning 69 properties in the region. It is not clear whether or not there 76 is response bias in these numbers. 85 The region also employs a large number of seasonal 93 workers. The majority of these people work during the 11 asparagus harvesting season from August through to December and the graph at SLIDE 16 highlights the peak 11 3 in casual employment at this time. Other casuals are also 15 1 employed in the fruit and orchard industries and the peak in 17 1 the graph in the autumn period represents the apple and pears industry. The vegetable industry also employs lower 18 2 numbers of seasonal employees at various times of the year. 20 1 25 1 The vast majority of the casual employment in the 26 1 asparagus industry is provided by employees of Asian decent and most of these people are first generation 29 1 Australians. This point is only mentioned because the vast 30 1 majority of these people employed to harvest asparagus 32 1 have to be transported daily into the asparagus farms from the south eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The wages paid to 52 1 this large seasonal employment pool are therefore mostly 85 1 exported into other urban economies of Melbourne rather 104 1 than being injected into the local regional economy. It is
14 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
also almost impossible to attract seasonal employees from areas closer to the asparagus farms.
Employment agencies have now been established to source seasonal and casual employees for the asparagus and other seasonal harvesting industries.
Training Requirements
The questionnaire asked the owner/operator/manager of the individual businesses surveyed whether there were any business or agricultural skills which they would like to improve through further training or education. The largest response to this question was ‘none’ followed by the need for training in ‘livestock/farm management’ (SLIDE 18). There was a definite trend in these responses with full time commercial farmers tending to provide the ‘none’ response with the none full time farmers on smaller blocks of land requesting livestock and farm management training.
There is therefore an opportunity to establish training courses aimed at the non commercial part time farm operator in basic farm management practices, livestock husbandry and crop husbandry. Such courses would need a small amount of further research before being implemented but should include a strong element of sustainability in their content. There are some existing courses currently being delivered through various channels which may be suitable for the target market.
Business Confidence
There was a slight bias towards a positive business attitude over the short term 12 month period (SLIDE 19) with an even stronger positive attitude demonstrated in the five year forecast (SLIDE 20). For those respondents anticipating their businesses to ‘increase a little’ or ‘increase a lot’ over both time frames, production and income were forecast to increase by virtually the same amount where as forecast employment increase was at a lower level.
The impacts of the drought do however need to be taken into account when assessing these responses. During the time that many people were completing the survey questionnaires in July and August 2003, some good rains had been received across the region which gave people a reason to be more optimistic about the breaking of the drought.
This optimism however, did not extend to all of the survey respondents. There were many comments written over the top of question 28 of the questionnaire where the phrase ‘assuming that the drought is now easing’ was used to solicit a response on how long it would take for farms to recover from the drought. Some people were convinced that the drought was not ‘easing’ and made this opinion clear in this section.
There was however a split opinion as to whether or not the drought had any influence on the responses to the business confidence issue. Whilst the region has not been as badly affected by the recent (current?) drought as many other areas of Australia there certainly has been a marked reduction in annual rainfall over the last seven or so years and there have been some flow on effects to local farmers, particularly with the increase in costs of many farm inputs. Despite this fact, 43.8% of respondents indicated that their responses to the business confidence question were not influenced by the drought and 52.2% said that there responses were influenced by the drought (SLIDE 26).
15 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Type of Business Plan (SLIDE 21)
The inclusion of this question in the survey was regarded by some commentators as provocative but it was included with the intention of raising awareness of the whole issue of business planning, strategic planning and succession planning. The response to the question was not a surprise and it mirrors the lack of business planning (in its widest context) in other small business sectors in Australia outside agribusiness.
The responses to the question indicate that 36.8% of people who earn all or some of their income from the land do not have any plan for their businesses. A further 44.2% have a plan but it is not written down. A further 2.8% of businesses only have a one year plan.
Those businesses in the region that do not have a written plan for the future of their businesses are encouraged to take the time to prepare a business plan which should also incorporate a succession plan if this is appropriate.
Value Adding was included in the questionnaire to gauge the level of activity in this area throughout the region and capture some of the processes used (SLIDE 22). It is considered one of the areas where further work can be done beyond the conclusion of this project.
Whilst 89.5% of respondents are not involved in any form of value adding, the range of activities in this area is quite diverse. Vegetable, asparagus, potato growers and orchardists grade and pack produce for both the domestic and export markets, asparagus is processed and packaged into dips, lavender is value added into a wide range of products, wineries are bottling their own wines, orchardists are producing fruit drinks, a beef farmer is selling beef freezer packs, commercial timber is being cut and dried, soft fruits are being made into jams, cut flowers are being treated to maximise their shelf life, nurseries are propagating and potting their own grown plants, a newly established olive grower has plans to bottle oil and preserve olives by pickling and one local businesses is purchasing local boutique wines and marketing them Australia wide. There are still numerous opportunities for the regions primary producers to explore to value add. There is also the opportunity to create synergies between this agricultural project and the recently instigated Cardinia Food and Wine Network and this should be another of the projects to extend beyond the initial scope of this project.
Quality Assurance (SLIDE 23) is playing an ever increasingly important part in the whole human food chain and has extended in some forms back along the food chain to the primary producer level. It has been driven by consumer demand for clean, safe and healthy food products. Primary producers have an important role to play in this regard both for foods supplied to the domestic market and for the export market. It is interesting to note that 66% of respondents do not have any involvement with on farm quality assurance at this point in time.
Dairy farmers comprise a large proportion of the 25% who have a documented system in place because Murray Goulburn and Bonlac both have compulsory QA processes which have to be followed by their suppliers. Many of the regions vegetable growers and asparagus growers also have documented systems in place which are externally certified and therefore audited on a regular basis.
The growth in the demand for On Farm Quality Assurance will continue and it is predicted that all primary producers will eventually be involved to some degree or other in a QA program.
16 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
It was of interest to note that 9.2% of respondents considered that they were practicing Organic Farming yet they were not accredited or certified as organic (SLIDE 24). Whilst there were only a small 0.8% of respondents accredited as organic, 18.4% expressed an interest in becoming organic. There is a national and world wide under supply of organic produce to meet current consumer demand. In the December 2003 issue of ‘Food Partnerships in Asia’, a newsletter published by the Agribusiness Group of the Victorian Department of Primary Industries, there is the following comment;
“World exports of organic foods are currently worth about $40 billion and demand is growing at 20 to 30 per cent a year. Australia accounts for just $50 million of world exports of organic foods but its organic production and marketing systems are rapidly developing”.
The article goes on to say;
“Many consumers in Asia, Europe, the US and Australia are interested in buying organic livestock products. However, limited organic supply and processing capabilities have meant that Victoria has been unable to satisfy demand even in domestic markets”.
The opportunities are obvious and there is no reason why this region should not be able to capitalise on these opportunities and develop a strong organics industry across all farming sectors.
Exporting (SLIDE 25). It is encouraging that 7.6% of respondents currently export overseas direct from the farm. The asparagus and vegetable industries are the main exporters but in addition flowers, dairy heifer replacements, beef livestock, horses and some nursery products are also exported from the region. The majority of these businesses are also considering increasing their export activities.
It is also encouraging to see that 16.1% of those people who are not currently exporting have some interest in becoming exporters.
The locality of the region with the good main roads infrastructure and access to Tullamarine Airport and the Melbourne docks is a major advantage for the region, allowing easy access to export transport.
Water
Water is one of the key issues for agriculture and the future of many of the farming sectors in the region. Their ability to increase production in future years is dependant on adequate supplies of water being available. By far the largest response to the open question of water issues in the survey was that of ‘availability’ of water (SLIDE 28). The fact that there has been a six to seven year drought across most of Victoria has highlighted the availability of water issue so it was no surprise that this topic received this level of response. The topic of water is discussed later in this report.
In SLIDE 27, Sources of Water, under the ‘Other’ category are included filtering and re-use systems, re-use of vegetable washing water, storage in turkey-nest dam filled from creek, roof catchment water and water purchased in tankers. The large representation of ‘Town Supply’ water reflects the proximity of many of the regions farms to the urban area and their access to mains water.
17 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The ‘Other’ category in SLIDE 28 includes farm dam legislation, water rights issues, surface water flooding, restrictions on usage and pollution of surface water from septic tank run off.
Slides 29, 30, and 31 highlight the Key Advantages of the region as expressed by survey respondents and members of focus groups. SLIDES 32 to 40 indicate the challenges faced by farmers in the region and SLIDE 41 is a summary of those challenges.
The Focus Groups
The reports of the focus group meetings held during the project are recorded here in full.
Attendees for the focus groups were drawn primarily from survey respondents who indicated that they had some interest in further discussing agribusiness issues in the region. The input of all those people who attended the focus groups is greatly appreciated and the discussions which the focus groups generated has added value to the overall project.
It is important to understand that the comments in all of the focus group reports which follow are those of the farmers in those groups. In conducting these groups, the Agribusiness Officer was assisted by Angela Smyth, Business Development Officer, City of Casey and the issues raised by the group members have been recorded and transcribed as accurately as possible.
All the focus groups followed the same format. They were given a brief overview of the Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and told that this was an informal process to get feedback and analysis of their industry in the region. It was explained that the survey of the agricultural sector had raised a number of issues and the aim of the focus group was to provide a background to and further develop the issues that were raised. The focus groups were not given a list of these issues but allowed to raise their own topics under the general headings which were provided for them. In this way, the focus groups validated the issues coming out of the survey.
Asparagus Growers Focus Group
Strengths/positives of farming asparagus in the region
• Soil types in the region are the best in the world and unique to the region. Eighteen inches of friable top soil over peat with clay subsoil. The deep clay retains moisture and irrigation is not therefore needed. The deep saturated clay means that the asparagus roots stay moist and have access to water thus avoiding stress to the plant.
• Excellent climate. Cooler at night with very few frosts and warmer days. Ideal for growing asparagus. Growing areas further inland get more frosts and often they are more severe.
• Product quality. The quality of the soil provides the best tasting asparagus. Some Japanese customers have commented on the excellent taste that the region produces.
• Proximity to a large labour force from the urban area. The industry is very labour intensive.
• Proximity to the airport, Footscray market and the major highways to Sydney and Brisbane.
• Lifestyle. Asparagus growing demands six months intensive work followed by six months of little cropping activity. Mixed vegetable cropping tends to be year round work.
18 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• No heavy industry in the region causing pollution. Buyers, particularly in export markets, often want to know if there is any heavy manufacturing industry close to the growing area.
• The land is flat and therefore easier to work.
Weaknesses of farming asparagus in the region
• The main connector roads, currently gravel, need sealing. There is not a huge distance that needs sealing but trucks picking up boxed asparagus from the major growers have to use gravel roads. (NB. The issue of which are the priority roads needing sealing for this industry needs further investigation).
• Some local bridges have a 20 tonnes limit. There is a freight and labour cost imposed on growers due to these limits because smaller loads of product have to be taken to a central collection point prior to loading onto the larger over 20 tonne trucks.
• The City of Casey appears not to want to seal any roads on the eastern side of their municipality, ie adjacent to Cardinia Shire.
• The rough surface conditions of the gravel road have caused lost loads from trucks, for example by tipping when hitting a poorly graded corner.
• The economic loss due to poor road surfaces is hard to quantify but it does contribute to degrading of the product in transit. Asparagus is packed with the heads together in the middle of the box and a rough road can ruin the product due to the heads becoming entangled. The asparagus is then downgraded and has to be used for soup with a consequential loss of income to the farmer. The product needs to be in perfect condition to be exported to Japan.
• The world market for asparagus appears to be saturated. Exports to Japan are decreasing as the Japanese are finding new suppliers from Indonesia and Thailand as well as growing more of their own asparagus. The industry needs to find new markets, both export and domestic.
• Severe weather is not generally a problem apart from hail which can damage the crop.
Other comments
• Shopkeepers need to present the product better. The region produces the best quality product but it is often not presented well and can sit on the shelf and dry up.
• Growers are cautious about approaching the supermarkets that have too much power in the marketing chain. Supermarkets have a huge influence on the market. The growers have no influence over price with the supermarket shelf price being at least double the farm gate price. The supermarkets demand their own packaging and labelling denying the individual growers and packers of branding opportunities. Due predominantly to the power of the supermarkets, profit margins for asparagus growers are small and half what they were a few years ago.
• Various Australian asparagus growing regions have different climates and therefore can harvest collectively for a longer period of time than the local industry can do on its own. Asparagus is now on the shelves for 12 months of the year whereas it was previously only
19 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
available in the spring. Australia can produce asparagus from July to April. It is imported from North America when it is out of season locally.
• The asparagus industry in the region did carry out a stemophelia research project even though it had previously been researched in other parts of the world.
Export issues
• The level of international tourism into Australia impacts on the export of asparagus. When the numbers of flights are cut back it is difficult to get export airfreight space on the reduced number of flights.
• If freight space has been booked on flights it has to be paid for. Because asparagus can grow sporadically it is sometimes difficult to fill the allocated space.
• Japan has strict quarantine protocols and there is a big cost involved in fumigation. As an alternative to fumigation there is a hot water hygiene process that has potential but this needs money invested into research. The hot water process is used in New Zealand and some quarantine authorities will accept this in place of fumigation. The hot water equipment is available from New Zealand but it is very expensive and had not been tried in Australia. It has been suggested that the Victorian DPI could do the scientific work and that this could be a funded project paid for by the asparagus levy.
The Organic Market
• Organic asparagus exporting is becoming difficult. Japan is the only viable market.
• The AAC (Australian Asparagus Council) have investigated a possible market in the UK but it is difficult to compete with South African organic asparagus growers.
• The demand for organic asparagus is only 2% to 3% of the domestic market but the additional costs involved in its production can be recouped from the market place.
Future of the Asparagus Industry
• Labour costs were $6 per crate six to seven years ago. Current labour cost is $11 per crate. All other input costs eg. fertiliser, power and fuel, R and M, rates and taxes, etc are more expensive. The farm gate price of asparagus has not increased and profit margins are therefore decreasing.
• Processors would like to increase the domestic market per capita consumption and the price per kg. but have to compete with import suppliers from Peru and Canada.
• There is the opportunity to increase the market for canning asparagus in Australia. SPC did operate a canning plant locally but no longer do so. Other canned brands such as John West are imported. Campbells make some asparagus soup and soup blends from their Shepparton canning factory. The only other canning factory is in Cowra, NSW. The Australian Asparagus Council and Cardinia Shire have looked into the idea of a processing plant in Pakenham but it did not materialise. Asparagus is only harvested for 3 months of the year and a canning factory would therefore need other products to utilise the plant and equipment for the rest of the year.
20 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• Mechanical harvesting was tried in Mildura approximately six years ago but it wasn’t successful. Selecting the correct shoots to cut, cutting at the right length and the slowness of the machine were the main problems that could not be overcome. Some research into mechanical harvesting has been undertaken at the University of Wollongong.
• Insufficient money is going into research generally.
• A survey is needed into how much asparagus is consumed per capita in Australia, as the industry has no current data on this topic. The most recent study carried out 8 years ago indicated a consumption of 200gms per capita. The domestic market is growing but there is room for more growth. It is estimated that a domestic consumption of 400gms per capita would account for the total product grown in Australia.
• Promotion in the region is low key eg. recipes, newspapers. Current promotion and advertising spending is around $30,000 per annum and it is considered to be successful.
• The AAC have a voluntary levy plus an acreage levy and they decide how this is spent. They are looking at changing the levy from an acreage to a per kilo basis. The Mildura asparagus industry has a similar per kilo levy structure.
• The AAC would like to link up with the Mildura based industry but this idea faces some opposition from within both camps. It would however provide a larger pool of levy money into the Victorian industry and therefore would enable more research to be done.
Beef Focus Group
Strengths/Positive for Beef Farming in the Region
• The vast majority of the Casey/Cardinia region is good country for carrying beef cattle (compared with for example some areas in East Gippsland where the land is in a bad situation in terms of salinity). Soils in the region are generally excellent and can grow grass for most of the year with the area receiving what is generally a reliable annual rainfall. One of the group qualified the suitability of the area for beef cattle by saying that in order to get the best out of cattle they had to be calved at the right times of the year to maximise the use of peak pasture growth periods. This applied to having good green feed for both the recently calved cow and also to put a good finish on the calves. The principal was that cows and calves prosper if you keep to the rules that are best suited to the region.
• Land is easy to farm being soft country with few extremes of climate or weather. Even if there are bad or extreme conditions they only tend to last for 3-4 months.
• The area offers a great lifestyle. One participant suggested that beef farming is 80% lifestyle and 20% business. Another gave a personal example of the fulfilment a farmer achieves from experiencing the life of newly born calves and their subsequent growth. The area is close to the sea and coastal villages. It is safe for children and for bringing up a family.
• The close proximity to Melbourne is a real plus for the area. The main road infrastructure is excellent and with the recent completion of the Hallam Bypass, most regional residents can now get to Tullamarine airport in less than an hour (outside peak traffic periods).
21 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• There is an excellent network of suppliers close by. Personal household requirements and the majority of farm supplies are available in the local vicinity, for example in Berwick, Pakenham or Cranbourne.
• Because people who also work off the farm, often in professional positions, operate many of the beef farm enterprises in the region, there is a higher general level of education and training among beef farmers. This leads to a greater demand from this industry sector for increased knowledge of farming systems and animal husbandry as well as a greater input into local and industry issues. For example they know how to talk to councils and government agencies, how to prepare submissions, etc.
• The comment was made that Casey and Cardinia are located on the right side of Melbourne for avoiding driving to and from work in the city or eastern suburbs with sunlight in your eyes in the morning or the afternoon. This was considered to be an important issue in the decision making process when looking for a rural block of land for those who currently live in the city.
• The Shire of Cardinia exercises some control over motorbikes in rural areas. If they are too noisy and a complaint is received they will intervene.
Weaknesses of farming beef in the region.
• It is becoming increasingly difficult to make a living out of a small property. Many beef farms in the region are hobby or lifestyle farms. Many of the people operating these farms do not have a family background in agriculture, which leads them into difficulties because they do not understand even the basic principals of farming. Even on a small hobby farm, the owners need to know what they are doing. They need to take advice from experienced farmers.
• It is becoming more and more difficult to buy a reasonably sized farm in the area due to the cost. In addition to the capital cost of the land there is a real threat that council rates on farms will eventually make farming in this region prohibitive. Even allowing for economies of scale on larger farms, council rates increase in line with the value of the property and this factor is eroding the right to farm.
• The group suggested that the solution was to implement a system whereby rates do not increase if the property is only used for farming. They expressed the opinion that council should leave rates as they are if the use of the land does not change.
• With the recent introduction of the State Government Urban Growth Boundary the value of land inside the line will increase and value of land outside the line will decrease.
• The beef farmers are caught in a cost: price squeeze. The price received for cattle sales stays the same but costs are continually increasing. For example, vealers are the same price per kilogram that they were fifteen years ago. The cost of land, fodder, harvesting, concentrate feed, fertiliser, rates, drainage charges, insurance, etc. have all increased. Beef farmers are price takers and the major supermarkets set the prices. There is a huge disparity between the price per kilo received by the farmer and the retail price of beef in the supermarket, which is not explained by the dressing out percentage.
• Theft from farms in the region is increasing, for example farm bikes stolen from locked sheds. Youth programs such as work for the dole were criticised because they allow people to see what items of value there are on farms.
22 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• Dumping of rubbish along roadsides is becoming an epidemic. Some types of rubbish will kill cattle, for example plastic bags which cattle will swallow. They will block the digestive tract. One of the participants farming close to the urban fringe has lost numerous animals due to the ingestion of plastic shopping bags. It was suggested that the two councils need to implement a regular program to remove all types of dumped material from roadsides and roadside reserves.
• Dog attacks on cattle are frequent. The worst case scenario is that cattle, particularly calves, are killed. Other dog related incidents panic cattle and can cause injuries. Suburban residents who do not control their pets do not realise what their dogs can get up to at night or how far they can travel in one night and still return home prior to dawn.
• There is a serious problem with the speed that some vehicles travel on gravel roads. Group members were able to cite many cases of dangerous driving due to speed alone. There is a need to put speed limits on gravel roads. It was suggested that farmers lobby Vic Roads through Councillors and Members of Parliament to support the implementation of an automatic default of 80kph on unmade roads.
• Stolen cars are another issue. They are often left burnt out on the edge of farmland. Joy riders in stolen cars use farm paddocks to perform “doughnuts”, often crashing into and ruining fences. One of the group participants has had wire perimeter fences cut in order that stolen cars can be driven through to be driven wildly around the paddock.
• There is a need for more stock removers in the region to cart away dead stock. There is only one such business based in Tooradin and during busy times of the year he tends to concentrate on fresh dairy cows rather than the beef industry.
• Poultry farms can cause terrible smells. The consensus of the group was that broiler farms take up valuable land and they do not want any more in the region. The need for an adequate buffer zone was emphasised.
• If a land tax is put on farmland in the region beef farmers will have to leave as the returns from the industry will not support any further tax burden.
Other comments:
• It was suggested that all beef farmers attend Meat Standards of Australia information days as they provide an excellent forum for farmers to learn more about their industry.
• Farmers need to plan for the future of their business and learn as much as they can through further training. Increased skills, knowledge and information will allow for better management of the variables that are within their control.
• The group did not believe that the two councils understand farming or farmers issues. Only one Casey Councillor and two Cardinia Councillors are from the land. The Councils need to be aware of the impacts their policies can have on the rural sector and more realistic in setting a “farm rate” as opposed to a suburban rating system imposed on commercial farm properties.
• There is a need to raise awareness that farms have huge financial turnovers and support other downstream businesses. This provides a significant input to the local economy, for example associated businesses such as veterinary surgeons, fencing suppliers, farm hardware supplies, animal feed businesses, stock and station agents, livestock markets, fertiliser agents, etc.
23 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Farmers don’t get the small business rate for water.
• There is a fox problem in many parts of the region. Bunyip State Park run a biannual program to get rid of foxes and this works very well but it needs to be properly organised. This type of control program could be extended to other parts of the region.
• There is a Tree Grants Program run by Cardinia Shire. Costs for tree planting are shared on a 50/50 basis with the landowner.
• Farmers are moving out of the industry because of the poor returns to the primary producer. Demand will eventually outstrip supply and there will be an increase in profitability.
The group thanked the Regional Assistance Program and the two Councils for providing the opportunity to get together and hold this discussion.
Vegetable Growers Focus Group
Strengths/positives of growing vegetables in the region
• Excellent quality of soil that can be cropped all year round.
• Climate – good for growing. Rainfall has historically been reliable. The last seven years has however been extremely dry weather leading into the recent drought. Climate change may be an issue in this context.
• Casey and Cardinia have different climates and soil types that determine the vegetables that can be grown. In Casey most soils can be cropped all year round whereas some Cardinia soils can be heavy and only cropped in the summer.
• Close proximity to distribution networks, wholesale markets, retailers, Tullamarine airport.
• Good access to skilled employees. Labour (predominantly mature workers of Asian decent) is transported from suburban areas to work in the region. Local employees of European decent do not want fieldwork in this industry.
• Vegetable growing is more intensified than citrus or apple growing with the ability to produce multiple crops per annum. The industry can therefore provide its workforce with employment year round and can maintain employees.
Weaknesses of farming vegetables in the region.
• Lack of water. This has particularly been a problem over the last few years and the majority of farms already recycle water out of necessity. The lack of water restricts farm expansion. Land may be available for expansion but vegetables can not be farmed if the land does not have adequate access to water. The vegetable growing areas are often at the lower end of water catchments and the amount of available water in times of low rainfall can depend on usages higher up in the catchment areas.
• Whilst many farms have increased in size in recent years, water allocations have not, resulting in less water per hectare to irrigate crops. This factor restricts the productivity capacity of the
24 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
land. Water usage is measured historically. Owners of an existing dam or water entitlement can only use that amount of water.
• The use of grey or recycled water has the capacity to generate expansion within the industry. This is why the proposed irrigation pipeline from the Melbourne Water Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum Downs is so important to the industry. The group asked for help from the City of Casey in lobbying for this pipeline to be constructed.
• The high cost of land in the region also restricts farm expansion i.e., it may be ideally located or even adjoining existing farms but the cost of the land can be a deterrent to expansion if the grower can not make a realistic return from the capital invested.
• Any newly acquired land has to be suitable for vegetable growing. There is a limited amount of land suitable for specific vegetables within the Casey/Cardinia region.
• To remain viable, vegetable farms like many other farms, are getting larger. Broad acre production requires larger machinery to cope with the land size and to keep down unit costs. Restrictions to farm expansion reduce the opportunity to lower unit costs.
• As a result of the large urban expansion in the region, roads are becoming busier. Urban dwellers do not appreciate how slow and difficult it can be to move heavy farm plant and equipment and do not make allowances for this factor in their driving attitudes. It is therefore difficult and often very dangerous moving heavy machinery from farm to farm.
• Weight limits on roads can result in having to take a much longer route. Some farmers in the region with more than one parcel of land have to travel an additional seven kilometres each way between their own farms.
• The residents of Clyde township do not want heavy machinery or trucks on the local roads. The feeling of the focus group is that the City of Casey Council tends to support the township residents and not the farmers. It is however the farmers who are running businesses and employing people in the area.
• Green Wedges and the Urban Growth Boundary do not help any of the vegetable farmers to be competitive. Councils need to be able to make provision for the land to be for something other than for vegetable growing.
• The group expressed the opinion that they need to be able to exit their current farms with sufficient financial assets to enable them to re-establish further away from the urban sprawl. The logic of this opinion is that they need to be operating larger, more efficient businesses and the lack of suitable additional land close to existing operations restricts the growth of their current operations. In addition, the current urban area is now too close to their land and is causing too many problems for their farming activities to survive. They are therefore strongly opposed to the Urban Growth Boundary that effectively stops them achieving this objective because the price that they will now receive for their land will not be adequate to buy new land and install the required infrastructure. They cited the current situation in the Keysborough area as providing a good example of how Green Wedges do not work. Growers there are restricted onto inadequate parcels of land and have no where to expand. They are unable to increase the size of their businesses and are therefore becoming unviable. The feeling is that the Victorian Minister for Planning is not listening.
25 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• The group believed that the current issues of conflict relating to the Rural/Urban interface result from a lack of forward planning. Housing and commercial agriculture do not “mix”, farming creates smells and noise. As an example they suggested a buffer zone between commercial agriculture and urban housing provided by small farmlets for those who want a rural lifestyle. The development of golf courses or linear parklands would be other options. These farmers believe that planners at both the State and Local Council level are not looking at the Rural/Urban interface from both sides, only from the aspect of urban development. They strongly believe that it would be better to have linear parks, golf courses or fewer neighbours on bigger blocks. Planners need to consider that land that is used for vegetable growing today may not have the same usage in thirty years time. It has been suggested by various government agencies that any buffer zone should be the farmer’s responsibility. Farm incomes are already under pressure without farmers having to carry a non productive capital asset.
• With the increasing urbanisation of the region, vandalism is on the increase. There have been recent examples of farm tractors being stolen and damaged, being driven across paddocks and damaging irrigation systems, etc. Trespass onto agricultural property is now common throughout the region.
• These vegetable farmers believe that one of the main problems they have is that government at all levels is not listening to them. They believe that bureaucracy and political agendas divert attention from the real issues in their industry.
Other comments:
• Growers are using commercial transportation more and more rather that their own because in the long run it proves cheaper. Freight companies however complain about the condition of some of the unsealed roads in the region.
• Whilst export markets themselves have proved to be reliable, there is a significant and proven risk in the logistics of exporting vegetables. The September 11th disaster in New York and the Asian SARS outbreak have caused real issues in the industry due to the reduction in flights and therefore airfreight capacity in being able to get products overseas. When this happens, product scheduled for export has to be sold into the local market. The impact therefore extends beyond the exporter onto the whole of the industry through oversupply of product and the subsequent depression of prices in the local market.
• The growers recognise that the urban sprawl is good for land values and many of them look to the prospect of becoming urban, i.e. selling out their properties for housing/industrial/retail developments.
Future of the Vegetable Growing Industry
• Farm sizes need to increase in order that farms can remain viable. Sophisticated farm machinery can cost up to $250,000 each and as the cost of these machines increases, the land size needed to support such capital costs must also increase in order that the capital inputs are adequately utilised. Some vegetable farms in the region are now over 200 hectares in size. The owners of these farms would like to increase up to 400 plus hectares. There is no capacity or opportunity however to achieve this farm size in the current vegetable growing region either due to land availability or the high price of land. These farmers therefore need to move. Succession planning would be easier if they could plan well ahead and had support from the
26 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
council. If the farmers know that their land will become residential within a certain period then they could find an alternative parcel of 400 hectares to buy and slowly set up and make the transition.
• The Vegetation Act and other conservation issues are increasingly impacting on commercial farming. One participant quoted a case on the western side of Port Phillip Bay where a vegetable grower was not allowed to plough his land which was growing self seeded protected native vegetation because it had not been cultivated for ten years. In order to protect outlying pasture land from native grasses conservation orders, some landowners now deliberately cultivate every ten years whether or not the land needs cultivating. Commercial farmers now feel helpless when conservation issues arise on their properties. Legislation seems to inevitably favour the conservation sector of the community leaving those earning a living from the land to carry the financial burden of conservation.
• Because the vegetable farming sector is feeling disenfranchised and alienated, particularly in the rural: urban interface regions, one of the focus group members raised the potential for the majority of Australia’s vegetables to be imported from China and other SE Asian countries.
• The group recognised that there is a perception problem of both vegetable farming and agriculture in general. There is an urgent need to publicise the positive issues of farming and raise the farmer’s image as carers of the land and providers of clean healthy foods for Australia and the world. It is not for example well publicised that vegetable farmers are being pro active in their adoption of the ‘Enviroveg’ program. Any publicity material which may be associated with this issue needs to be a living document that allows for change and flexibility.
• The younger generation of workers do not want to work on farms and suitable employees may become harder to find in future years. The industry may have to change to mechanical harvesting techniques.
Dairy Focus Group
Positive Issues for Dairy Farming in the Region
• A good region to live in with a good range of schools and tertiary institutions for young families. Close proximity to general services such as doctors, hospitals, tax office, CES, etc. because it’s a densely populated area. It is also a uniquely central location being close to Melbourne, Dandenong, Pakenham, Warragul, Leongatha, etc. and this gives good choice of services both for the farm business and for the family.
• The proximity to the urban growth area of the south east suburbs provides more job opportunities for family members who want to work off the farm.
• The area is unique for a dairy farming region being so close to a suburban rail network. The proximity to excellent main road networks including the proposed bypass around Pakenham is also a major advantage of the region.
• The location of the region allows for more options for milk suppliers. There are up to five factories to choose from. Further east or south into Gippsland they do not have this degree of choice.
27 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• The region has a history of being able to supply milk all year round and this stems from the area being so close to metropolitan Melbourne and having been a traditional “milk contract” region. The reputation of the area to be able to supply milk year round is due to the excellent soil types found throughout the region. It has long been regarded as traditional winter milking country.
• The region is well serviced with power and telecommunications infrastructure because of its proximity to the urban growth corridor.
• The increasing land prices in the area are only an advantage if the farmer sells the property.
Negative Issues
• Increasing land prices makes it difficult to expand dairy farming operations because the price of land does not enable an adequate financial return on the capital investment. As a business proposition (rather than a lifestyle proposition) the return is not as good as it used to be due solely to the capital price of the land. From a commercial point of view it is a better business case to sell up and go further south or east.
• Due to the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary there has been a spike in land prices immediately outside the boundary in the last 12 months. In some cases land of 40 acres or less used to be worth $3,000-4,000 per acre. It is now worth $7,000-8,000 per acre. Land prices tend to be stable where the land is zoned agricultural.
• Land prices in general are now also subject to the allocation of water to any particular parcel of land. The value drops if there is no irrigation water available.
• The trend for dairy farming in the region is a decrease in the number of farms, an increase in land size and the number of cows, upgrading of capital infrastructure (eg. in milk harvesting equipment), an increase in efficiency and therefore an increase in production. Whilst this trend of farm restructuring is not unique to this region, it tends to be accelerating faster than in other regions. It is driven by the high cost of the land, an ageing dairy farm demographic and attractive alternative lifestyle choices meaning that an above average number of dairy farmers are leaving the industry in the area. As dairy farms are sold beef farmers are tending to replace them because beef farmers can and often do have another job off the farm. The dairy farms are tending to contract to the eastern and southern extremes of Cardinia Shire (or even further out into Gippsland), away from the immediate impact of the urban growth areas and where land prices tend to be more stable.
• Many dairy farmers who do not wish to move away from their homes convert from dairy farming to beef farming. There are a number of reasons for making this decision, eg. the farmers children do not want to continue in dairying, the workload of the dairy farm becomes too much for an ageing farming couple, land prices do not allow business expansion, etc. These factors have driven the progressive decline of the dairy industry in this region, particularly in the western and northern areas.
• Due to the above factors and particularly the fact that many children do not want to take on a dairy farm, succession planning has become a major issue within the industry and lack of adequate succession planning has led to the breaking up of many good dairy farm businesses.
28 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• Dairy farmers are price takers and can only influence the price they receive by changing dairy factory. There is however generally very little difference in overall prices paid between the main dairy factories.
Urban: Rural Interface
• Proximity to urbanisation is becoming a major issue with complaints being received from neighbours including noise and headlights from driving tractors at night, noises from pumps and other machinery, smell of silage, smell of manure, mowing hay at 6.00am, etc. The farmers feel that their right to farm is threatened.
• People moving in to the urban fringe areas, properties on the outskirts of small rural settlements and into individual smallholdings in rural areas are more than likely not from a farming background and are not accommodating in accepting farming practices. They do not understand that both seasons and weather conditions govern farming and that work must be carried when it can be done, not only between 9am and 5pm. There is a general lack of understanding of agriculture and farming practices throughout the urban population and this lack extends to politicians of all parties at all levels of politics.
• More traffic, more children on the roads, more rubbish and an increase in number of cars stolen and set on fire on the roadside.
• Hobby/lifestyle farmers do not understand the need for constant weed control. This results in increased weed infestation across commercial farmer’s properties which causes contaminated pasture and therefore a decline in productivity and conserved fodder quality.
• Road infrastructure is becoming an issue because the capacity of the roads has not kept up to date with the increase in traffic volume. This applies to both dirt roads and some of the major roads in the region. More people are travelling in and out of the area to go to work in other regions making many roads very busy at commuter peak times.
Other Issues
• Cardinia Shire is considered a “metropolitan” municipality by the Federal Government and therefore not eligible for funding for rural roads. This is a ridiculous ruling because by far the majority of the Shire is rural. The State Government refused a recent application for a cow underpass under a road because Cardinia is classified as an urban shire. The Government did not see the long term viability of dairy farming in the Shire.
• Services to the dairy industry such as discussion groups, programs to increase education, etc. are now all held out of the area due to the decline in the number of dairy farms in the region.
• There are rafts of government regulations imposing restrictions on farmers coming from many different government departments who do not understand farming. Neither does there seem to be any coordination of regulatory procedures between the various State Government departments imposing these regulations. The resultant paper work needed to comply with all the legislation keeps multiplying.
• Government agencies seem to publish Discussion Papers at regular intervals and call for comments or submissions from farmers. These take a long time to read and respond to,
29 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
particularly from those farmers who hold office in organisations such as the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) or the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria (UDV).
Future of the Dairy Industry in the Region
• There are still a significant number of dairy farms in the region but there is acceptance that this number will decrease at a faster rate that the rest of Victoria.
• A continuing tendency for farms to be divided and sold as smaller lots. Dairy farms need modern milking sheds, equipment and infrastructure to make the farm viable. The dairy industry will contract to the eastern and southern areas of the region.
• Melbourne 2030. The eastern part of the Cardinia Shire should not be included in this scheme.
• There is a lack of understanding that there is a substantial farming industry so close to Melbourne that needs services and assistance when required.
• To change from dairying to a different type of farming is a big cultural change. Twenty years ago mixed farming was typical but in order to be competitive farms now need to be specialised. There is more out-sourcing of skills into the industry than before and this trend will continue.
30 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES
Rural: Urban Interface
The best way to assess the impact of this issue within the region was to check with each municipality about the recorded level of complaints received. This proved difficult in Casey but more reliable figures were available from Cardinia. The issues were discussed with the appropriate officers in each municipality.
In reading the discussion below it also needs to be remembered that many complaints about farming practices do not reach the local authority or any other government agency. These complaints are made directly to the farmer by a neighbour and many of them are caused by a lack of understanding of farming and current farm management practices. There is no way of quantifying the frequency of such complaints but many farmers operating on the urban fringe or even well away from intensive housing but with non farming neighbours, have related instances of such complaints throughout the course of this project.
City of Casey
The customer call centre at Narre Warren receives approximately 1200 calls from rate payers each week. Of these calls around 900 could be classified as complaints or calls requesting action or assistance from the Council by rate payers. Unfortunately there is no classification in the system of logging contacts with the Council that could identify if any of the contacts relate to agriculture or farming. The City Community Safety Officers are also unable to assist in this issue as they do not keep statistics in a form that they could identify as farm related. All they can offer is anecdotal information that there are occasional instances of stock wandering on roads, dog attacks on agricultural livestock and occasional complaints from urban dwellers when there may be inappropriate burning off being undertaken on farms adjacent to an urban area. The only way to gain the frequency of such instances is to work through the computer log from the customer call centre and try to determine if complaints were in fact farm related. This process would however be unreliable as the association of many of these recorded complaints to agriculture would be open to interpretation.
Cardinia Shire
Cardinia is obviously a far more rural municipality than Casey and therefore would be expected to have more issues in the rural: urban interface area. Over the last three or four years, Cardinia have developed a more pro active role in managing complaints received relating to farm properties and this has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the level of complaints received.
Chicken Meat Farming.
For many years, this sector has been the main generator of complaints relating to farming in the Shire. These complaints have predominantly been related to odour but have also included noise (mainly from heavy vehicle movements and activities), air born dust and adverse visual impact. However, the instigation of the “Chickencare” program has significantly reduced the level of complaints. This program is based around a Code of Practice for the industry.
31 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
This program is supported by all the sectors which are involved in the chicken meat industry i.e. farmers, pick up crews, input suppliers, freight companies and the processors. It is also of enormous significance that the program is also supported by and to some extent driven by, the local municipalities who have large numbers of broiler farms within their boundaries. This is certainly true of Cardinia where Barry Jones, Manager Regulatory Services, is a member of the committee of Chickencare.
In addition, Cardinia Shire have tightened up on the application of planning permits both for new and existing poultry farms in the last few years. Existing planning permits, which in some cases had not been rigidly enforced in the past, have been followed up and landowners made to comply with the conditions of the permits. Conditions written into planning permits for new farms are also followed up. The fact that Barry Jones works with the Chickencare committee means that he can visit poultry farms and talk with some authority and intimate knowledge of what is expected and not be compromised by any lack of understanding of the issues. As a result the standards of design, construction and hygiene of these farms have improved.
The impact of this Code of Practice and the strict application and policing of planning permits by the Shire can be seen in the following figures of complaints (all categories) against poultry farms in Cardinia. There are 44 poultry farms in the Shire.
Financial Year Number of Complaints
2001 >100 2002 26 2003 15
The recent rationalisation of the chicken meat industry in the past two years has also assisted in the lessening of complaints against farms in this sector. As the industry has matured over the last few years, many of the older and inefficient growing sheds have been abandoned by the industry and more birds are now housed in modern, efficient sheds that have greater control over the environment in which the birds are housed. This has effectively reduced the odour issue within the industry.
In addition to issues on poultry farms as discussed above, there are around five complaints a year caused by farms other than poultry units where poultry manure is being stored prior to it being spread. This can be on dairy farms, market gardens, etc.
Wandering Livestock
From a regulatory compliance viewpoint, this is the issue that currently causes the greatest number of complaints and the greatest demand on the time of Council officers. This is solely due to livestock wandering loose on roads on the Shire, predominantly beef animals. It is not purely a Rural: Urban interface issue as all rural Shires experience this problem to some extent or other but it is recorded here due to the fact that it does impact on urban dwellers on the rural fringe. The problem is caused by old and/or poorly maintained fences allowing stock to escape. Rather than decreasing, this problem is increasing. In the financial year 2002 there were 170 occasions when Shire Officers had to attend to control stock on roads. In the financial year 2003 there were 350 such occasions. The reasons for the increase are not apparent but it may be related to the drought i.e. livestock grazing drought affected pastures pushing at boundary fences to reach roadside green feed. Reduced farm incomes not meeting the needs of replacing or repairing fencing may also have had an impact as may the impact of hobby farmers moving into the region
32 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
and not understanding the need to maintain fences in good condition. There are also many cases of farmers finding that trespassers have left farm gates open allowing livestock to wander. Surprisingly, around ten percent of livestock found wandering on roads are never claimed or the owners found. The Shire sells such animals through the Pakenham Livestock Exchange. The recently introduced Livestock Identification Scheme may help to reduce the incidence of unclaimed animals.
Dairy Industry
In the last four years the Shire has received ten complaints from rate payers relating to dairy cows (or replacement stock) walking to and from the milking shed to grazing paddocks via public roads. It appears that some motorists do not appreciate having to drive through manure left on the road by cows.
Deer
There have been a few occasions in the past four years where council officers have been called out to catch deer that have escaped from deer farms in the Shire. It also needs to be recognised that there is now a substantial population of feral deer in many areas of Gippsland.
Other Farming Sectors
There are no recorded complaints against any other type of farms eg. asparagus, vegetables, olives, potatoes, alpacas, goats, etc. apart from one recent complaint against a vineyard where truck movements at all times of the night and day were disturbing neighbours. The Shire is developing a new permit to be issued to this one property which imposes reasonable restrictions on such movements.
The Right to Farm
This concept has been developed over recent years as a reaction to the increasing numbers of non rural residents leaving the urban and city areas to live in rural surroundings, often with unrealistic expectations of the rural environment into which they are moving.
Farming is an Industry
Within the non farming communities in Australia there is a general lack of recognition that farming, in all its aspects, is an industry. Many industries can have “offensive” aspects to them as an essential part of their operations and agriculture is no exception. Noise (from agricultural machinery, heavy truck movements, irrigation and water pumps, recently weaned cattle and calves), smells from fertilisers and manures, manure on roads when cattle are moved between paddocks, dust created during cultivation, machinery lights during night time operations, spray drift from farm chemicals, etc. are all common aspects of modern agriculture. These operations are carried out at all times of day and night and also at weekends because farming is not a five days a week business that starts at 8.00am and finishes at 5.00pm.
The fact that farming is conducted in rural environments that are often areas of natural beauty and sometimes considered idyllic, tends to divert the non farming mind from some of the realities of the industry. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of urban dwellers worldwide have totally
33 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
lost touch with agriculture and it is easy to understand why conflicts arise when urban and rural are on either side of a fence.
Long held farming practices are being challenged by non farmers and the established agricultural community regard this challenge as a threat to their “right to farm”.
In a recent Dairy Succession Planning Workshop organised by the Victorian Department of Primary Industry and Melbourne University at Leongatha in July 2003, the need to raise the profile of the agricultural sector throughout Australia was recognised. Fewer and fewer people in Australia now have any link to agriculture and those with any linkage at all are estimated to be 1 in 50. In the USA this figure is quoted at 1 in 100. The indications are that as the population of Australia rises, the urban community’s linkages and therefore their understanding of agriculture will decrease.
Whilst urban dwellers, newly arrived in rural areas, have issues with many of the farming practices they become exposed to, the farming community needs to exercise a degree of responsibility in the way they conduct their business. This is understandably difficult to accept where the primary producer has not sold any of their land, wants to continue the existing business in the way that it has been managed over many preceding years but suddenly finds that land sold on the boundary of their property has domestic dwellings occupied by people who have no understanding of agriculture.
There is also a belief amongst many primary producers, expressed on a number of occasions throughout this project, that the wider community expect them to maintain a picturesque rural environment that can be accessed by everyone whilst operating a farming business that is at best marginally profitable and at times losing money.
However, for harmony to prevail in such situations there needs to be understanding from both sides of the fence. Irrespective of the siting of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) these issues will remain. It is important to understand the causes of tension between urban and rural residents which is fundamentally brought about by the demand for residential and industrial development. The following models are reproduced from work undertaken on this issue by the Future Family Farms Project of the Victorian Department of Agriculture led by Max Coster.
The first model shows how farming operations have developed over recent years where there is low or no demand for agricultural land from the housing/industrial sector. It shows the capability of farming to respond to the need to increase efficiency in a competitive environment.
34 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
MODEL 1
Low non-ag demand for land
Low expectation Community benefits for increased prices from Ag
No land speculation Positive environmental Farmers have outcomes Competitive flexibility to Agriculture respond Appropriate community expectations
Intensify Operations Appropriate regulatory Larger - economies standards of scale
New products
The second model demonstrates the adverse impact of the demand for development land adjacent to farming activities.
35 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
MODEL 2 Demand for residential Farmers Agriculture development Leave Expectations of less competitive Speculation high land values 4 2 Impose inappropriate Increase of standards land value Farmers 3 cannot expand Intensify Complaints operations
Development 4
Controlled to Disputes 1 achieve community Residents New residents objective expectations - reduced knowledge not met of Ag / land management
Land holders Less viable Reduced land bear costs agricultural management outcomes ACTION: business 1 Community education 2 Regulatory standards 3 New technology 4 Planning Community Managed Other income or 5 5 Community benefits support benefits Landscape government support?
36 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The immediate action required where the rural: urban interface has not been managed from the outset is an education campaign directed at the urban community, particularly those re-locating to properties close to farm land and an awareness campaign to primary producers about the actions they can take to lessen the potential for conflict.
The Department of Primary Industries and the Municipal Association of Victoria have published a comprehensive range of information sheets under the heading “Living Together in Rural Victoria”. The individual information sheets are entitled:
• What to Expect • Tips for Purchasing Rural land • Good Neighbours • Agricultural Industries and their Impacts • Legitimate Rural Land Management Activities • Managing Weeds and Animal Pests • Roads, Animals and Vehicles • Planning and Subdivision Rules • Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures • Who to Contact About a Range of Issues
These information sheets comprehensively cover all of the issues likely to arise in relation to the urban: rural interface and are therefore very useful to use should problems occur in the Casey/Cardinia region. However, it would be useful to have a local brochure produced to take into account the predominant Casey/Cardinia issues.
Considering the comment above about the decline in the number of people with any link to agriculture, it is suggested that a program be commenced with schools in the region to begin the process of creating an understanding of the urban: rural interface issues. Whilst it may be some years before school children have the opportunity to directly influence this issue themselves, they may well be able to influence their siblings and parents and begin the process of greater understanding. Some of the topics which could be covered in this education process would be:
• The value of agriculture • Why we need farmers • Basic farming practices • Improving the perception of farming • Emphasise the need to - Control dogs - Supervise children - Control dumping of rubbish • Driving carefully on minor roads (livestock on roads, slow moving machinery, etc)
The program should be complemented with visits to both livestock and cropping farms.
In addition there should also be a program of farm walks initiated to cater to adult members of the urban community who would like to learn more about their rural neighbours and farm management practices.
37 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The whole scheme can be modelled on a similar project currently being undertaken by the Centre for Agriculture and Business in the Shire of Yarra Ranges but will need tailoring to meet the needs of different farming systems in the Casey/Cardinia region.
The main objectives of such a program would be to increase the knowledge of new and current urban: rural interface landowners and other urban dwellers of acceptable farming practices and increase the instances of self resolution of conflicts between neighbours. This will reduce the incidence of complaints to Councils and other agencies.
It is recommended that this topic becomes one of the projects to be undertaken at the conclusion of the DOTARS funded project.
Looking to the Future
Farmers in the region have expressed various views throughout this project on how future housing developments in the region can be managed and planned to improve the rural: urban interface issues. In the main these ideas revolve around the provision of buffer zones between agriculture and urban development. Various buffer zone concepts have been suggested such as golf courses, linear parklands, commercial timber operations (i.e. grow trees) and large subdivisions for hobby farms. It has been suggested that with the implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary these options are now more feasible to implement along that boundary. It also needs to be recognised that a roadway, whether it be a main road or a rural road, does not provide an adequate buffer between urban housing and farming activities.
Whilst the above ideas are attractive, there are some difficulties in the implementation of such proposals. These range from who is to pay for the provision of linear parklands, how many golf courses does an expanding urban population need and how can potential timber operations be attracted to purchase land adjacent to urban development where the land price may be significantly higher than in other more suitable rural areas? Is the wider community prepared to pay to protect the farming industries right to farm?
Whilst there are a range of issues associated with future development proposals in the region there is no doubt that the planning process does need to assess the rural: urban interface and right to farm issues in all future development applications (further discussion of this issue can be found at page 52 of this report under ‘Planning Issues Relevant to Agriculture’). If this is not done it will only act to compound the current situation and continue to influence the current trend where farmers are being driven away from productive land. This results in neglected land on the fringe of urban development, a loss of economic activity to the region and pressure on both local Councils and the State Government to allow further development on that neglected land.
Recommendations
1. Liaise with officers in the Shire of Yarra Ranges to assess the effectiveness of their education program to the urban community. 2. Investigate the potential for an agricultural education campaign to promote greater understanding of agriculture within the urban community. 3. Investigate the need for a training program for primary producers to enable them to be more proactive in reducing complaints from neighbours. This training could include negotiation skills. 4. Prepare an advisory leaflet on rural: urban interface issues specific to the Casey/Cardinia region.
38 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
5. Communicate with the farming community to ensure that they understand the full implications of the State Governments Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
The Escalating Cost of Land in the Region
In the broad context of discussing the impact on the farming sector from the continuing expansion of urban housing, the escalating price of agricultural land has by far the biggest impact. This section outlines the issues involved in this area but this report does not attempt to comprehensively cover the topic. It is a complex and difficult subject beyond the immediate scope of this project. Agricultural industries throughout Australia are now recognising the seriousness of the issue and beginning to look for strategies to overcome the problems.
The issue of the high cost of productive agricultural land is not confined to rural: urban interface regions. It is however compounded in these interface regions and the Casey/Cardinia region is one of the most severely affected areas in Australia. The reasons that the region is in this severely affected high land price category are not hard to understand.
• The rural areas of Casey and Cardinia are amongst the most visually attractive of country areas in Victoria. • Main roads infrastructure is now excellent and constantly being improved (eg. the recently completed Hallam Bypass, the proposed Pakenham and Cranbourne Bypasses). • All of Casey and Cardinia is within relatively easy commuting distance of the Melbourne CBD and all of the inner city suburbs. • Tullamarine Airport can be reached from Cardinia by divided road and freeway and from central Casey by freeway alone. • The region provides easy access to the whole of Gippsland with its wide range of tourist destinations including the Victorian High Country and also to beaches and coastal recreation areas on the Mornington Peninsula and Philip Island. • Casey and Cardinia offer an excellent lifestyle with a wide range of housing options and easy access to all services and facilities. • There is no heavy industry in the region that causes pollution problems. It is a healthy environment. • There is easy access to full time or part time paid employment for people who do not wish to work full time on the land. This applies equally to an individual, one partner of a two person farm household or both partners of a farm operation.
People want to live in the region and this inevitably increases both the demand for land and the price of land.
The impact of the high cost of land is seen in the following ways:
• It has the effect of lowering the Return on Funds Employed (ROFE) of commercial farmers in the region. One of the best managed dairy farms in the region reported a 4% ROFE for the 2003 financial year. Whilst the cost of inputs and the price received for milk also impact on the earnings of such businesses, the reported ROFE is not an unusual return for this farm over the last few years. When the cash market is offering a 5.25% interest rate at call there is little incentive to reinvest in the farm or to expand the operation by increasing the land holding to increase production. The high cost of land therefore has the effect of restricting business growth in the farm sector.
39 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
A comment from the survey adds to this opinion.
“Property too small with no room to expand and too costly to operate. Farmers unable to borrow money to buy next door land because of: 1. Price 2. Unprofitable 3. Drought 4. Outlook dim for world prices
Viable farms and land broken up and sold in small lots.”
• The high cost of land becomes a barrier to new entrants into the commercial farming industries in the region, particularly by younger farmers who do not have the capacity to borrow the large amounts of money required to buy land, equipment and/or livestock. Added to this issue is the demise of some of the specialist rural banks and change of policy of others, eg. Primary Industries Bank of Australia (PIBA), Commonwealth Development Bank (CDB), who previously provided funding especially for entry level farmers. The Rural Finance Corporation are however writing loans to young farmers under forty years of age and offering a 2% discount on base lending rates for a minimum number of years. It is not however a competitive lending environment.
• Restrictive lending policies do not provide suitable products for new entrants eg. low lending: valuation ratios where 50% is common. New Zealand agriculture has adopted some innovative ways of assisting young farmers into commercial units and due to these initiatives the average age of dairy farmers in New Zealand is approximately 20 years less than in Australia (ref. Geoff Kirton in a paper presented to the Dairy Farm Succession Planning Workshop, Leongatha, July 2003).
• Due partly to the cost barriers to young potential farmers, the average age of commercial farmers in Australia is steadily rising. This factor will inevitably influence the structure of agriculture in the region as farmers will look for less physically and mentally demanding farming enterprises. It will for example, have a severe effect on the local dairy farming industry where older aged farmers may opt to transfer to a beef enterprise. The same structural adjustments could also be seen in future years to the orchard and vegetable industries. An additional negative factor in this trend will be a decline in on farm employment in the region and a reduction in the need for the farm services sector, another factor tending to lessen employment opportunities.
• For young people living on the urban fringe, agriculture is gradually becoming a less attractive way of life. They have easy access to a range of alternative employment in the eastern and south east suburbs and Melbourne CBD. These alternatives can offer better earnings potential than farming, provide career promotional opportunities and greater security of earnings without having the responsibility of earning a return from a large capital asset subject to the dynamics of world agricultural commodity prices and the variances of the climate.
• The high rateable value of land is adding to the cost burden of farming in the region. Even for a relatively small part time beef farming operation the cost can become prohibitive as evidenced by the following comment taken directly from one of the Casey and Cardinia Agricultural Audit questionnaire returns from a 26 hectare property.
40 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“Our total rates are $6897.20. Allow $1800 for the two houses on the property and this equates to approximately $125 for each of the mature livestock on the property. The land is therefore too costly for an economic farm operation based on traditional beef production. Our current operation is our lifestyle choice.”
There is a critical issue of farm succession planning developing in many agricultural industries throughout Australia. The issue has the potential to cause a negative impact on both the families and the business. The downstream effects impact on the regional economy and the social fabric of the local community. The issues revolve around the inter-generation transfer of farming assets for family farms, particularly where there are more siblings than the family farm can support. Commercial farms in Casey and Cardinia are predominantly family farms. The issue is compounded where land prices are highest and where the sibling wishing to remain on the family farm and operate the business has to effectively pay out the other siblings.
It is an important issue for Casey and Cardinia because it has the potential to generate a restructuring of the farming mix within the region when family farms are divided and sold to non commercial land holders in smaller blocks. The new land owners will be making lifestyle choices and will predominantly opt for the easier systems of farming, eg. beef, horses, agistment, etc. and will have off farm income. In general terms, lifestyle farmers do not manage the land and farming infrastructure as well as full time commercial farmers. Problems of land degradation, weed infestation and lack of repairs and maintenance to infrastructure (buildings, fences, waterways, water storages, etc) can then develop. This scenario has the potential to permanently and adversely change the agricultural landscape of Casey and Cardinia.
It is also easy to understand how farms close to the urban fringe, where there is greater opportunity for alternative employment, may opt for the simple solution of selling out, breaking up the farm and dividing up the money.
The Victorian Department of Agriculture has recognised this succession issue, particularly in the dairy industry and has instigated a program known as Future Family Farms. The Project Officer attended a workshop in July relating to this issue in South Gippsland. Although the program is targeted initially at dairy farms the issues raised and the majority of the proposed strategies are applicable to all types of farming enterprises. The notes produced from that workshop are attached to this report in the Appendices.
Section 10 of that report outlines options, strategies and the next steps to be taken to try and overcome some of the issues discussed above. Section 8 outlines potential strategies for making connections with new investors into agriculture. What is obvious following that workshop is the need for more creative thinking about farm succession issues and the problems associated with young farmers having access to finance to begin a career in agriculture, especially in areas of higher than normal land values.
One of the problems recognised following the workshop was the question of how the multitude of follow up activities identified during the workshop can be implemented. This is a human resources issue that has not as yet been resolved.
Recommendations
1. Continue to monitor and support the work of the Future Family Farms project being run by the Victorian Department of Primary Industry.
41 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
2. Investigate processes to promote farm business planning and in particular, Succession Planning for farmers throughout the region. 3. Instigate a dialogue with local financial institutions and financial advisors to create an awareness of the situation and work towards innovative solutions.
Sustainability and Land Management
It has been encouraging to note the number of farmers in the region who have commented on the issue of sustainability during conversations with the Project Officer. Many of them are committed to the concept of them being custodians of the land for future generations of farmers and consumers and they manage the land with that responsibility in mind. The main areas of concern within the region relating to sustainability (although the term does mean different things to different people) are the use of farm chemicals, fertiliser use and run off, degradation of soil structures, loss of native vegetation and fauna and the conservation and availability of water. Water is discussed as a separate topic elsewhere in this report.
Some people have suggested that organic farming is the best way to sustain agricultural production in the long term but organic farming does encompass a wide range of views as to what is ‘organic’.
Some farmers have included the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) in their discussions on sustainability. This is a divisive issue across agribusiness nationally and beyond the scope of this report. There are conflicting views throughout the region.
Many farmers are concerned at the apparent continual loss of valuable agricultural land to either housing estates or larger hobby farm sub divisions recognising that land has been permanently taken out of mainstream agriculture. Whilst nothing can be done to reclaim the areas already lost, there is a desire on the part of many farmers to see this trend reduced in future years.
There is also an interest in the region in reclaiming various proportions of different farm properties to grow more trees across the region. Trees provide a significant contribution to control of the water table and provide habitat for native flora and fauna. Many farmers and conservationists believe that a significant proportion of trees across a farm property will actually increase the cropping potential of a farm. Cardinia have a tree grant in operation where the Shire will refund around 50% of the cost of planting farm trees. This scheme could be extended into Casey.
There is an active Landcare group in the region and their activities should be supported and encouraged.
During the period of this project, many farmers in Casey and Cardinia have expressed their concern that “lifestyle” farmers do not have the necessary skills to look after the land properly. Many of them feel that poor land management practices have a negative impact on their own commercial farms particularly in the areas of weed control and pest control. Weeds include thistles, blackberries, bindweed, Patterson’s Curse etc. and animal pests refers mainly to rabbits and foxes.
It was however encouraging to see the responses to the survey question on Training Requirements where many owners of the smaller farm properties indicated that they would like to learn more about farm management. The owners of larger properties generally responded that they did not need such training. There is therefore the opportunity to promote some animal and crop husbandry
42 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
short courses targeted at the small land owner and these courses should include a strong element of sustainability. This should be one of the projects to continue beyond the RAP program.
Recommendations
1. Audit the issues of sustainability in the region. 2. Investigate the delivery of appropriate training courses which include sustainability, to the target audience identified in the survey. 3. Promote the Cardinia Shire Tree Grants Program within the Shire and investigate the potential extension of the program into the City of Casey. 4. It is recommended that the two Councils maintain their support for local Landcare programs. 5. Create links with lead organisations in the organics industries so that potential organic growers have ready access to relevant information.
Water
Because there has been a prolonged drought across the majority of Australia over the last six to seven years, the issue of water, or more specifically the availability of water, is at the forefront of rural peoples thinking at the present time. Added to the drought is the recently created legislation relating to the registration and licensing of farm dams, the topic of water rights and the tradability of those rights. There is also the not insignificant issue of the rapidly expanding urban population in the region creating a huge additional demand for potable water and these factors combine to cause the regions farmers concern for their future water supplies. It should not need to be said but it bears repeating that without adequate water of suitable quality, there will be no agriculture.
The regions farmers are perhaps more fortunate than many of their counterparts in many other areas of Australia in that the Casey/Cardinia region does have a normally reliable annual rainfall. The recent drought has however demonstrated to many of the regions farmers that they are definitely not immune from the potential of recurring droughts.
The region however has the opportunity to take advantage of enormous volumes of re cycled purified water from the Melbourne Water owned Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum Downs. This plant is the main sewage treatment facility to the east of Melbourne and has the potential to supply recycled water to the majority of the higher quality agricultural land in the region, including extending to the eastern boundary of Cardinia Shire south of the Princes’ Highway.
In addition, the ability to use re cycled water on sports fields, golf courses, nurseries, gardens, etc has the potential to save many hundreds of megalitres of Melbourne’s potable water each year.
Some of the treated effluent from this plant is already being used on the Melbourne Water property at Carrum Downs for washing of equipment and grounds maintenance as well as some off site use in businesses such as nurseries, vineyards, golf courses and sports grounds. This use only amounts to approximately 6% of the current plant output of recycled water.
It is also worth noting that there are already a number of smaller recycled sewage schemes supplying water to businesses in the region. These are from Sewage Treatment Plants operated by South East Water which produce Class C treated water. These include the Pakenham, Cranbourne, Koo Wee Rup, Blind Bight and Longwarry sewage treatment plants which supply water to golf courses, turf farms, fodder producers, dairy farms and timber plantations. The volume of treated recycled water from these smaller sewage treatment plants is however very limited. It is the
43 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
enormous volume of recycled water which will be available from the Carrum Downs plant which makes the Eastern Irrigation Scheme such an exciting project.
During the writing of this report (January 2004), the upgrade of treated water from the Eastern Treatment Plant to Class A has not commenced. This is despite a promise by the Victorian Government and Melbourne Water to have the Class A water delivered to vegetable farmers in the region by December 2003. However, the State Government press release announcing that the Class A upgrade had finally been approved was published on 8th January 2004.
Over forty vegetable growers in the region have agreed to purchase Class A re-claimed water from the Eastern Irrigation Scheme (see plan in the Appendices but note that the schemes developers reserve the right to change the pipeline route depending on the demand for water supply into different localities). The water delivered by this scheme, on a per megalitre basis, will cost $170 in the winter period (June to August), $220 in the shoulder periods and $265 in the summer period (December to February). In addition there will be a variable connection fee based on estimated annual usage and an ongoing annual service fee of around $3000 per customer.
Although the cost of Class A water delivered by this scheme is relatively expensive against current sources of farm water, the vegetable growers in the Cranbourne/Clyde/Devon Meadows area have agreed to a 15 year commitment to purchase the water. They have done this as an insurance against any potential for the existing drought to continue, against future drought situations and to enable them to expand their businesses with confidence in the supply of water. Over 50 businesses including some golf courses paid an advance fee of $1000 to Melbourne Water in February 2003 on the understanding that the pipe line would be built and delivering Class A water to them by December 2003, in time for the dry summer season.
Following the vegetable growers signing up for the scheme in February, the start of works for upgrading water to Class A has been repeatedly delayed. The last date that they were given by Melbourne Water for the supply of Class A water from this irrigation scheme was June 2004 and the recent press release states that the “scheme will be operational during next summer”, indicating that the farmers will have the water by November/December 2004.
This is an important issue for the agriculture in the region. If the current drought continues and a dry summer is experienced in either 2004 or 2005 then many of the vegetable growers will have no option but to reduce plantings and conserve water for fewer crops if the irrigation scheme is not operating. This will mean both reduced economic activity by those businesses and a subsequent reduction in the number of ongoing jobs those businesses are able to maintain. It will also result in a reduction in the volume of export products by the industry and the loss of overseas earnings coming into the region. Due to the current drought conditions, some farmers have already laid off employees and stopped exports to Asia as well as reducing products sold interstate.
As an example, one grower in the Clyde area who currently has 28 full time and over 40 part time employees estimates that over the last five years of dry conditions his business has reduced by over $1.0 million per annum in gross turnover. In addition he has reduced employee numbers by around 25 people. He no longer exports to Asia or domestically interstate. This reduction in business activity is due solely to the lack of available water. Class A water from the Eastern Irrigation Scheme will enable this business to gradually rebuild in dollar turnover and employee numbers and further more have the confidence to expand beyond that point because they would have security of water supplies.
44 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
There would be around ten other farms of this size in the region in a similar situation. (The largest farm employer in the region is another vegetable grower who employs 79 full time and 25 casual employees). In addition there are numerous smaller growers, all of whom have the potential to expand their businesses and employment opportunities if they have security of water supply.
Clive Wright, a consultant engineer working for TopAq, the company contracted to build the scheme, has received numerous inquiries from people with an interest in establishing nurseries, turf farms, flower farms and vegetable growing operations in the rural area in the south of the City of Casey and the south west area of Cardinia Shire. Clive does not wish to attach actual numbers to these inquiries but believes that the attraction of a guaranteed water supply will bring many new agricultural businesses into the region.
Nurseries, flower farms and vegetable growing are all high employment businesses and should therefore be given every encouragement to establish in the Casey / Cardinia region. Clive Wright believes that the proposed irrigation scheme will be equally as successful as the Virginia scheme in South Australia which has injected millions of dollars into the local economy. Since the commissioning of this re-cycled water scheme in 1998, potato crops have grown from an annual $60 million industry to $140 million in 2003. Three new vegetable packaging companies have established in the area, there are now six transport businesses in operation when there was originally only one and three irrigation companies have set up business in the area. The beneficial downstream economic impact on the local community has been enormous.
Recommendations
1. Liaise with Frankston and Mornington Peninsula Councils to ensure a ‘Regional’ approach to water issues. 2. Maintain existing contacts with Southern Rural Water, South East Water and Melbourne water to promote the ongoing supplies of adequate water for the regions farmers. 3. In relation to the Eastern Irrigation Scheme:- • Identify the prime farming zones which will accommodate expansion due to the Eastern Irrigation Scheme recycled water and protect them from development or inappropriate uses. • Protect existing farming zones to give security of tenure to potential agricultural investors. • Identify potential extension routes to the currently proposed irrigation supply pipe line. • Identify and communicate with potential new agricultural investors to the region. • Plan for future infrastructure needs brought about by increased farming activity - Potential sites for new businesses, eg. aquaculture, hydroponics - Roads for larger vehicles and increased traffic flows ~ Major non arterial linking roads ~ Review weight limits ~ Assess bridge weight limits . 4. Continue to promote water recycling, conservation and efficiency on farms.
45 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Roads and Transport
There is general consensus across the farming communities in the region that the major and arterial road network is very good and being further improved. There were a few exceptions such as the Clyde to Five Ways road but VicRoads have now allocated funding and this road is due to be upgraded.
The planned route of the proposed Pakenham by pass has received some adverse criticism for the way it has split some farm properties and devalued adjacent land.
Over one hundred respondents to the survey made mention of the condition of unsealed roads and the continually increasing volumes of traffic using some of these roads. Traffic volumes on all roads in the region will continue to increase as the population of the region rises. This is creating concern for many rural residents who fear that the structure of many of the minor roads will not accommodate any further increases in traffic flow without becoming dangerous.
In addition, many people believe that there should be a reduced speed limit on many rural roads and in particular on unsealed roads. Excessive speed on unsealed gravel roads leads to the development of premature corrugation, surface break up and creates pot holes. Numerous comments have been received that all unsealed roads should have an 80 Km/hour speed limit applied. Warrnambool City Council has made representations to the State Government that there should be an automatic default to 80Km/hour on all unsealed roads throughout Victoria. VicRoads are currently assessing this proposal.
The vegetable growing industry is worth over $49 million annually to the City of Casey and the vast majority of this production is in the Cranbourne South, Devon Meadows, Clyde and Five ways areas. The asparagus industry, predominantly in Cardinia is worth over $32 million annually and the potato industry is valued at $18.5 million.
In order to remain price competitive with other regions of Australia and in export markets, these and other agricultural industries based in this southern zone of the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire must have access to efficient road transport infrastructure. This issue also applies to all the other primary products coming out of the region but it is imperative to the ongoing viability of high quality fresh products moving quickly and efficiently into the Melbourne metropolitan area, the Footscray wholesale markets, to the Tullamarine airport for airfreight exports and onto the inter state highway system for delivery into Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. The region has enormous export opportunities and can capitalise on the Victorian “fresh, green, healthy image” of its primary production.
The logical and direct route for this produce to be moved to these markets is via the Five Ways/Berwick Road leading north onto the Monash Freeway thus avoiding Cranbourne township and the growing traffic congestion of the South Gippsland Highway. It is therefore vital that this road can carry B-double vehicles as a minimum. (The potential to move much of this produce with B-triple vehicles has also been raised during the course of this project). The only alternative at this stage is to move these trucks through Cranbourne on the South Gippsland Highway.
Some of the feeder roads across the whole region also need investigating in relation to their importance in moving produce to the main road system. Dalmore Road is an example of an important route for the asparagus crop. Manks Road and North Road are other examples of roads which need investigation. The issue demands a regional approach and this should be one of the projects to follow on from this report.
46 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
The value of the Eastern Irrigation Scheme water infrastructure facilities transporting treated waste water from the Carrum Downs treatment plant into the intensive vegetable growing area is in danger of under utilisation if increased outputs, resulting from increased availability of water, can not be cost effectively and efficiently transported to market outlets.
In addition, if there is inadequate access for large and cost efficient road transport to move this produce, there will be no incentive for farmers in this area to diversify production into new and innovative crops. Nor will there be the attraction for new farmers to move into the area and use the high quality land and reliable water supply for intensive cropping. The initiative will be lost and as a result employment opportunities will be lost.
Downstream value adding opportunities will also be compromised. A revitalised intensive cropping/market garden industry in this area should process and value add its produce within the region. The guaranteed availability of the treated water and therefore the guarantee of continuous supplies of products could provide sufficient critical mass of product to entice processing companies to construct facilities in the area. It is costly to freight bulky non value added farm products long distances to be processed or packaged. It should be done close to the source of primary production with as little loss of product moisture and quality as possible. Inefficient and expensive logistics would however deter processors from setting up business in the region, compounding the loss of employment opportunities.
Recommendations
1. Investigate the possibility of implementing an 80Km/hour speed limit on selected rural roads throughout the region. 2. Map the major access routes for the transport of goods in and out of the intensive farming areas of the region. 3. Map the minor feeder roads which are used to move produce off farms. 4. Assess the suitability of current roads and bridges to meet the needs of modern transport.
Costs versus Returns Price Squeeze
One of the major negative impacts on primary producers across Australia for many years has been the lack of control that primary producers have had on the price that they receive for their products. They are price takers and not price makers. This has a negative impact on their businesses in a number of ways.
Whilst costs of inputs such as fuel, fertiliser, fencing, power, repairs and maintenance, etc. continue to rise, farmers do not generally have the capacity to control prices to off set such increases. There were also many comments from the survey relating to the cost of rates. Whilst many people do not believe that calculating rates on agricultural land values is equitable, the major criticism relating to rates was that Casey does not have a farm rate in operation whereas Cardinia do have a two tier rural property rating system.
There are a few exceptions to the ‘price takers not makers’ rule where innovative farmers have taken an entrepreneurial position and created a highly value added product or products from their operations. The main examples of this are dairy farmers producing cheeses, yoghurts, dairy dips, etc. fruit farmers producing juices, some even extending soft fruit value adding into ice creams and liqueurs, lavender growers producing a wide range of products, beef farmers in close cooperation with butchers producing prepacked meat trays, etc.
47 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
However, the control of marketing channels for Australian primary produce still remains predominantly in the hands of the major supermarket chains. It is not good news for the regions farmers that competition in the food retailing sector appears to be intensifying, thus reducing the margin at the retail level and forcing pressure back down the supply chain to the primary producer. Woolworth’s and Coles will continue to aggressively compete and the strategically sited Aldi stores in capital cities will maintain the margin pressure. The smaller retail food stores such as Foodland and IGA will continue to fight for their market share.
Looking at innovative ways to add value beyond the farm gate in an attempt to differentiate products and increase the dollar return does not and will never appeal to all primary producers. There are however some options by which primary businesses can look to add value and take more control of their business destiny. The whole topic of marketing channels and market power is a large and complex issue which is beyond the scope of this report. However, one of the more obvious options is the creation of industry sector collaboration, alternatively referred to as strategic business alliances, business clusters or other such titles indicating the same form of cooperative strategy.
It is not inconceivable that groups of farmers in the region could collaborate and form a business cluster to generate critical mass of product which can lead to alternative marketing strategies other than simply using existing supply channels to supply the supermarket trade. (This does not mean that the business cluster could not or should not supply to supermarkets if that retail outlet suits the needs of the group and a suitable deal can be negotiated). These types of business arrangements, initiated by groups of farmers, can also expand beyond the primary production sector and involve packaging companies, food processors, distribution businesses, retail outlets, etc. Each business, both at the farm level and in the remainder of the chain, would continue to run as its own independent operation but be financially and philosophically committed to the aims and standards of the group.
Needless to say, there does need to be a set of written guidelines that each business would be obliged to adhere to and there is inevitably some loss of autonomy in belonging to such a group or cluster. Members of the cluster need to be of like mind about the outcomes they are attempting to achieve and in agreement about the business and management processes needed to achieve those goals. However, the benefits that can be returned to each of the businesses involved can be substantial. Apart from the financial gains which are the primary focus of such clusters, participating businesses can share processes, technology and management techniques with the aim of continuous improvement of individuals and therefore of the cluster, for the benefit of all its members.
Successful clusters have the opportunity to further add value to their products through branding and marketing their products to specific target markets.
The most important phase of this type of business arrangement is the set up process. Poorly constructed, badly managed or inadequately researched clusters (including detailed marketing analysis) in the early phases of development are almost certainly doomed to fail.
An alterative form of direct marketing of primary products is gaining popularity in Australia through the formation of Farmers Markets. Cardinia now has a successful farmers market which is held on a monthly basis. There are a number of real benefits for the primary producers who are involved in these markets and for their customers who shop at them. The opportunity for urban dwellers to buy fresh or other produce direct from the grower is a very powerful process and is undoubtedly helping to break down the urban: rural divide. Customers can ask questions about the
48 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
farming process and farmers can receive direct feed back on the quality of the produce they are growing.
The only negative from the producer’s point of view is that at this stage the markets are only held once a month which creates a limitation on the volume of product that can be sold this way. However, the farmers markets are a great initiative from the primary producer’s point of view and need to be supported and encouraged.
The recently commenced Cardinia Food and Wine Network has now extended into the City of Casey and Baw Baw Shire and is being supported by the Business Development departments in each of the three municipalities. At the time of writing this report, discussions are being held about the processes needed to market more of the regions primary produce into the regions restaurants, cafes, food retailers and tourism venues. It is planned to involve the regions primary producers in this process and this initiative could eventually provide significant retail outlet opportunities either direct from the farm or with minimal stages in the supply chain.
Recommendations
1. Research alternative paddock to plate channels which can maximise the return to the primary producer. 2. Continue to search for innovative ways to ‘value add’ to the regions primary production. 3. Canvas the possibility of forming business clusters within the region. 4. Explore the potential to increase overseas exports direct from the farm. 5. Continue to support the growth of Cardinia Farmers Market and explore the potential for other such markets in the region. 6. Continue to liaise with the regional Food and Wine Network and involve interested primary producers in the process. 7. Assess the possibility of introducing an agricultural rating system for the City of Casey.
The Profile / Perception of Farming
There is general recognition amongst farmers in the region that many of the urban population do not have a positive opinion of primary producers. This comment arose many times during conversations throughout the project. The farmer’s perception is that the remainder of the population regard them as rich people because they own large areas of land. Because of this, farmers should not complain about their situation. There is also however a recognition that the fundamental cause of the misunderstanding is the lack of information provided to the urban community about agriculture and rural issues. This lack of understanding manifests itself in the types of complaints farmers receive from their urban neighbours.
There was also discussion at various stages of the project about the farming community’s perception of themselves, which is often negative. Part of this negativity can be attributed to the poor (or negative) financial returns that farmers are often exposed to. As indicated elsewhere in this report, many farmers feel powerless to control their own financial destiny, no matter how efficient their operations are or what level of debt they are carrying. This factor can lead to a feeling of being disenfranchised and of having little social value. Many farmers believe that they receive no support from governments at any level and that the food industry supply chains which they supply take advantage of current agricultural industry structures and their hard work, engineering farm gate prices to the absolute minimum to improve profits and competitive advantage along the supply chain.
49 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Emanating from the above two factors is the belief within farming circles that the profile of the industry needs to be improved both for the benefit of individual farmers and for the perception of farmers in the wider community.
Part of this improvement in the perception of farming should focus around the value of local agricultural industries to the local economy. For the majority of the industries in the region this data is not available and it is recommended that all industry sectors begin to address this issue. As previously stated at page 6, ‘Economic Output of Agriculture in the Region’, this is also an important issue in the ability of farming sectors to be able to represent themselves to all levels of government and other agencies, domestically and overseas.
In the Focus on Farming Regional Agribusiness Workshop there were a number of initiatives suggested to try and correct the misunderstandings that are prevalent amongst the urban population. There was also recognition that the Farmers Markets are an excellent way for farmers to interact with the urban population and reinforce a positive picture of primary industry. These comments were coming from farmers who do attend Farmers Markets to sell their produce. There was also a need expressed for more occasions where farmers from all of the agricultural industry sectors could meet, network and understand each others businesses.
Other initiatives included: • Permanent displays with varying themes (i.e. farm industry sectors) at appropriate sites throughout the region, eg. shopping centres, council offices. • Farming expos with an educational theme targeted to the urban community. • Explore ways to create more interaction between farmers and the urban population. • Engage the media to be supportive of campaigns to create an improved urban: rural dialogue. • Create opportunities for the urban population to have more interaction and hands on experience of agriculture, eg. farm visits. • Urban and rural community interaction at farmers markets, agricultural displays, field days, agricultural shows, etc.
An individual communication during the course of the project suggested that the Casey/ Cardinia region could support a “Hobby Farmers” field day on an annual basis. This could be along the lines of the Seymour Field Days which are basically an opportunity for the supply industries into agriculture to market their products to the target market of smallholdings operators in the region. It is a commercially driven event as opposed to an Agricultural Show. Such field days do however create the opportunity to attract the urban population and provide education to them on a whole range of farming issues. They also create the opportunity to educate “Hobby Farmers” in a range of areas including responsible land management, animal husbandry, sustainability issues, etc. The idea merits further investigation.
Recommendations
1. Consider the formation of a Casey and Cardinia farm forum network. 2. Investigate the potential for a “Hobby Farmers” field day in the region. 3. Explore ways to educate the urban population about farms and farming. 4. Encourage the compilation of sectoral industry data on economic outputs, production statistics and employment numbers.
50 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Business Administration and Legislative Issues
This topic has been discussed repeatedly throughout the period of this project. The first discussion that the Project Officer had with an individual farmer during the course of this project brought forth the comment that a written questionnaire as part of a survey would not be well received by primary producers due to the amount of paperwork farmers already had to process in the running of their businesses.
The impact of various governmental legislations for primary producers is not too different to the effects felt by small business in general. There are however some additional legislative issues imposed on rural landowners and farmers ranging from native vegetation, licensing of farm dams and water rights issues through to child labour permits for family members. To the man on the land it appears that individual government departments at both the State and Federal level are implementing legislation without any knowledge of, nor any regard for, existing levels of legislation implemented by their counterparts or by other agencies. The result is an ever increasing burden on primary producers to both comply with the administrative requirements of more and more legislation and often to pay for additional licences and permits.
The frustration felt by many primary producers is expressed by the following comment quoted directly from a respondent to the survey who is a herb grower.
“We are besieged by the issues of cost of labour, insurance, rates and government charges, bank charges and regulations in general and due to these issues our days are numbered in business. It has been a case of get big or get out and we are very small and not in a position to expand. We are a niche business struggling to survive for many years. Paperwork has become excessive for the proprietor and continues to grow”.
This topic was introduced into the ‘Focus on Farming’ workshop held as part of the Agricultural Audit. It was interesting to note that there was discussion in the workshop relating to the GST and this system is still causing concern and difficulties for small business owners.
Whilst the problems were easily identified, the potential solutions to the problems are not so easy to find. Agribusiness leaders and organisations therefore need to continually lobby governments at all levels to make the legislators aware of the administrative burden which is now beginning to impact on the farm sector.
Recommendations
1. Assess level of support for the provision of GST short courses aimed specifically at the primary producer. 2. Work towards making local government aware of the administrative burden now imposed on primary producers. 3. Support attempts by agribusiness organisations to reduce/simplify the administrative and legislative burden now impacting on the farm sector.
51 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Planning Issues Relevant to Agriculture
This agricultural audit has highlighted the size and importance of farming in the region and indicated that the primary production sector makes a significant economic contribution to both the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire.
It is imperative therefore that the existing farming industries are retained. It is also strategically important that new primary production businesses are attracted to the region. However, the priority is to ensure that farming and other primary production industries are viable and the two Councils should therefore take all the actions available to them to support the ongoing viability of agriculture in the region.
There needs to be a recognition that farming on the fringe of urban development can carry additional costs which when imposed on industries which are often under a severe costs versus returns price squeeze (see page 47) can tip the balance of viability of a business. Examples of some of these additional costs are damage to property (fences, machinery, buildings, irrigation equipment, etc), stress to livestock from uncontrolled dogs which can cause loss of production and in severe cases livestock death, additional veterinary costs, weed infestation from poorly managed adjacent properties, weight limits on roads due to increased traffic flows which can involve farmers in travelling additional kilometres between farms, theft of and damage to crops, etc.
One of the main influences that local government can have is to ensure that appropriate planning controls are in place. The objectives should be to protect the landholders ‘right to farm’ which as previously reported on pages 33 and 34, is under threat from the lack of understanding brought into rural areas by urban dwellers in addition to the issues mentioned in the paragraph above. The overall objective of revising planning permits would be to allow the full utilisation of existing or potential future agricultural uses.
Although there are ‘right to farm’ issues in most localities throughout the region the heaviest burden is on those farmers operating in the close rural: urban interface areas otherwise referred to as the urban fringe.
Under the section ‘Rural: Urban Interface – Looking to the Future’ at page 38 of this report there is brief discussion on the need for a greater level of forward planning in relation to the interaction of the rural: urban interface.
One of the issues in this area is the confusion within the rural sector caused by the recent implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the adoption of the Green Wedge legislation. Both are initiatives of the Victorian State Government and both include a core objective of protecting good farming land from urban encroachment. However, there remains a belief in the minds of many farmers that the UGB is only a temporary line intended to be in place for an undetermined period of time, even though it forms an integral part of the Melbourne 2030 plan. This still leaves the option of selling land adjacent to the UGB as a realistic opportunity in the minds of many such landholders.
Local Councils can therefore make a significant contribution to reinforcing the objectives of the UGB and in the process provide certainty to both the regions farmers and land developers. The limits of development need to be clearly established through local planning schemes. If these limits are further reinforced through the provision of buffer zones then the potential for conflicting messages received by any sector of the community will be minimised.
52 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Buffer Zones
There have been various suggestions as to the size of buffer zone that is needed in order for it to be effective. Some commentators have said that a minimum of 500 metres is required whilst others have suggested that 100 metres would be adequate. The reality of the situation is that each site for a buffer zone would need to be assessed individually. Current vegetation and topographical contours would be two of the variables to consider as would the siting of roadways and railways. For example, a buffer zone where there is an existing four lane highway with a wide central reservation and expansive side verges may only need a minimal 50 metre wide strip of vegetation on the farm land side of the highway to provide an adequate buffer zone. On flat or marginally undulating land where there is no existing boundary other than a fence, a vegetation or other strip of 300 to 400 metres may be required.
The creation of effective physical buffer zones between urban development and commercial farming activities would have a number of positive effects for the Casey / Cardinia region. These would include:
The establishment of a visual topographical boundary at the perimeter of urban development which would clearly identify the farming areas from the urban areas. Such a boundary would have a greater impact than a line on a map in the minds of both the farming and the urban community in establishing the UGB.
It would increase farmers and landholders security of tenure over the land that they own. This would create an improved environment for capital expenditure and commitment to the land.
The incidence of complaints from urban dwellers against farmers would be dramatically reduced.
The negative impacts of farms having immediate urban neighbours would also be significantly reduced.
Types of Buffer Zones.
Forests
There are many benefits of this type of boundary which include the fact that a forest is an environmentally friendly boundary. It can be used for passive recreation pursuits or form part of a linear park. It also provides a wildlife corridor as well as contributing to the control of the water table in the area thereby reducing salinity. Forests contribute to the carbon sink and are a visually attractive asset for both rural and semi urban areas. If the right tree species are planted it can also be an income earning resource, eg. Blue Gums or selected softwoods. If this income earning option is selected it needs to be managed in such a way that the harvesting process does not completely destroy the buffer effect of the forest and consideration would also need to be given to a perimeter strip of permanent vegetation on the urban side of the area to minimise the negative visual effects of recently harvested trees. Good access for harvesting and transport equipment is also required. However, all these aspects are manageable with adequate forward planning.
Golf Courses
These are perhaps an obvious choice for a buffer zone but the limiting factor is the number of courses that any region can support. However, depending on the locality, a golf course is a
53 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
practical choice for a buffer zone, especially if the planning permit requires a minimum strip of suitable vegetation adjacent to the commercial farm land.
Other Open Spaces
If the location is appropriate, the provision of other open space could be considered, eg playing fields or wetlands for providing biodiversity of flora and fauna.
Large Subdivisions for Hobby Farms
This option is also a practical solution to the issue of buffer zones, particularly in a region where there is demand for large lifestyle blocks of land. If this option was to be implemented for any particular area it is recommended that there should be some planning restrictions placed on the subdivision. These restrictions would include a minimum size of block, the shape of the blocks to ensure a minimum distance of commercial farms from high or medium density housing, restrictions on the siting of the dwelling which would have to be a minimum distance from the adjacent farming boundary and an understanding by the residents of the hobby farms that they are adjoining commercial farm land. These restrictions could be written into the title deeds as a covenant.
Industrial Estates
High Quality Garden Style Industrial Estates could also be an option with appropriate security fencing and a band of vegetation on the boundaries adjoining farm land.
Recommendations
1. Ensure planning controls provide certainty as to the right to farm, certainty as to long term use and opportunity for value adding rural products. 2. All future planning applications for planning permission on the urban fringe should include an assessment of the need for a buffer zone. 3. Undertake a study of existing commercial farming / urban dwelling interfaces to assess the need or potential for the establishment of a buffer zone.
54 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
REPORTS OF ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS.
The following reports are the result of individual conversations that the Project Officer held with individual stakeholders during the course of the Audit. The opinions expressed in this section are those of the individuals being interviewed.
Jenny Pullar, President, Cardinia Ranges Vignerons Association.
The first vineyard was established in the Cardinia region in 1986. There are now fourteen Vineyards in the region. The Cardinia Ranges Vignerons Association represents 90% of these growers.
The region is generally cooler than the Yarra Valley and can therefore grow premium cool climate grape varieties with the largest acreage being Pinot Noir followed by Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay and smaller plantings of other varieties.
The vineyards tend to be smaller in acreage than in many other regions. There are only four properties farming over 5 hectares of grapes and the price of land in the area is an influencing factor in the size of the properties. Many of the vineyards have been established as lifestyle choices. Approximately 50% of the owners of the vineyards would however be employed full time in their businesses. They produce small quantities of high quality boutique wines and the majority of the operations bottle their own produce and have cellar door sales. A small amount of fruit is sold to other wineries to crush and blend with other grapes.
Australia is divided into regions by the Australian Wine and Brandy Association and Cardinia is in the Port Phillip Region. There is the opportunity to develop regional brands but this has not yet occurred. Victoria could be marketed as the prime producer of Pinot style wines with the climate giving the State a real advantage over other areas of Australia.
Future of the Wine Industry
There is a need to firmly establish the region as a producer of quality boutique wines.
The large volume producers of Australian wines tend to have sales and marketing arrangements in place with both the supermarkets and the bulk retailers, eg. Dan Murphys. The local Cardinia industry is therefore concentrating its sales and marketing efforts into the restaurant and hotel trade in both Melbourne and locally in the outer South Eastern suburbs and the boutique export markets.
They are also focussing on wine tourism. A brochure is being produced identifying the wineries with cellar door sales and these will be distributed through local tourism offices, municipal offices, bed and breakfast operations, motels, etc. The region is within easy reach of the whole of metropolitan Melbourne and can therefore be promoted as ideal for day trips.
There is some concern that the proposed Pakenham by-pass will encourage day trippers to travel further into central Gippsland and therefore avoid tourism opportunities in Cardinia. The wine tourism area needs to establish a strong awareness of its presence and attractiveness before the by- pass is built. The annual dollar value of cellar door sales in Victoria is over $400 million and the Cardinia region needs to gain its share of that market.
55 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Beef Farmer
• A beef farm operation on approximately 70 hectares of land. One of the partners in this operation earns off farm income.
• Small farm beef operations in West Gippsland tend on average to be a break even financial proposition and can loose money for prolonged periods. Many of these farms are run as lifestyle choice operations because beef is one of the less time consuming farming choices, particularly if only a fattening operation rather than a breeding herd. However, with their weekend work included, the partners estimate that their combined commitment per week amounts to at least 34 hours.
• The majority of beef farmers do not have the ability or opportunity to set prices for their finished product. They are therefore “price takers”, as are dairy farmers but with different market forces influencing the prices. The main influencer in the beef industry is the marketing channel dominance of the large supermarket food retailers. This market dominance results in a lack of aggressive competition amongst buyers for the livestock in the region which has the effect of lowering prices for beef animals.
• Even with the input of 34 labour hours per week this farm still has to employ outside contractors to complete much of the work for them, eg. for pasture renovation, fencing, etc. The payment of those contractors is one of their main cost inputs to the business.
• There is no formal organisation representing the beef industry in the region. There was at one stage a “Beefcheque ” group organised for the local area. This is a Victorian Department of Primary Industry initiative aimed at educating beef farmers to produce more beef from grass but as far as this farmer was aware the group folded due to lack of interest.
It is increasingly difficult to get beef farmers (or any other type of farmer) to join groups or associations because they do not see any benefits coming from such association. They are price takers and receive payment at market prices relevant to the day the cattle are sold.
Dairy Farmer.
• An excellent farm business with this family operating one of the best dairy farms in the region. • The current attitude is that the dairy industry is not an attractive proposition for anyone to invest into. The farm is currently only earning around 4% Return on Funds Employed (ROFE). • A dairy farmer has no bargaining power in the price received for milk. In addition, because prices paid for liquid milk fluctuate as the dairy season progresses, farmers begin the annual cycle of milk pricing not knowing what overall price they will receive for the coming financial year. It is a business which starts every financial year with farmers not knowing whether they will return a profit from their endeavours at the end of the financial year. • This farm supplies Bonlac and they tend to set their prices around those indicated by Murray Goulburn, the largest milk processor in Victoria. In addition to having no influence in the price received for milk, dairy farmers have very little influence on the prices they have to pay for inputs, eg. fertiliser, concentrate feed, replacement machinery, etc. These inputs are predominantly supplied by large agribusiness organisations which have the ability and capacity to adjust prices to protect financial margins.
56 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
• Because of these dairy industry structural issues, many dairy farmers feel disenfranchised and powerless to control their own financial and business destiny. The areas that they can influence are farm management, production outputs and efficiency factors. The leading Victorian dairy farms are now amongst the most productive and cost efficient in the world yet these innovative farmers currently struggle to make a reasonable return on the funds they have employed in their businesses. • The farm owners are encouraged to see Council employing an Agribusiness Officer but are sceptical of the benefits of such a program. This is mainly because of previous programs which have had no follow up activities. • One of the issues that constantly annoys this farmer is the lack of understanding demonstrated by local government of the agricultural sector. Local government does not appreciate the economic value generated by the farming sector and the downstream effects that this has in the region. They also seem to have an expectation that farmers will continue to farm and look after the land in the urban rural interface areas regardless of the costs imposed on them through rates and taxes and regardless of the earnings that they are able to achieve through their farming activities. If costs continue to rise and earnings continue to fall as they are at present then there will be no commercial dairy farmers left in the region within a decade. • Surveys are badly regarded in the farming sector, especially if they attempt to gain information about farm earnings. The principal of this business believes that if a financial survey showed farmers to be making a healthy profit that the Council would immediately increase the rates levied on farms across the municipality. • This farmer would like to undertake further training in a range of issues and he would also like his son to do some further training. The main barrier to attending courses is the time constraint that dairy farmers experience and the associated mental and physical tiredness through long hours of work is a further compounding issue. Managing a large dairy farm is a time consuming business and this farmer estimates that both he and his son work a 70 hour week in order to cover the work required. They would employ an additional person but the returns from the industry at present do not allow them to do this.
Dairy Farmer.
• A farmer with an Agricultural Science Degree who returned to run the family farm having previously worked in an executive position for a large corporate agribusiness. • Dairy farmers are price takers with no influence on prices paid for production and very little influence on prices that have to be paid for inputs. Costs on the business eg. Council rates, industry levies, taxes, etc increase with no regard to the level of earnings of dairy farmers and therefore their capacity to financially meet such increases. In addition, farmer’s returns are extremely volatile because they are influenced by a range of factors outside the control of the individual farmer. Apart from the local issues of weather conditions and the cost of inputs, the Australian dairy industry is a price taker on the world market for dairy commodities (i.e. low value added, eg dried milk powders) and high value added food products eg. cheeses, yoghurts, etc. • Farmers in general therefore feel disenfranchised and powerless to control their own financial destiny. • He has a general mistrust of government at all levels including Council. He virtually repeated the words used by the dairy farmer quoted above in stating that “if farmers were able to generate increased income the Council would immediately increase rates”. • Because dairy farmers feel disenfranchised and alienated they are not willing to attend meetings or join farming groups because they do not believe that any positive outcomes will be achieved.
57 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
This farm supplies a cheese company located in Melbourne. They pay approximately the benchmark cents per litre of milk as set by Murray Goulburn and their price fluctuates accordingly, normally being one cent /litre above the benchmark rate. The directors of the cheese company are finding it increasingly difficult to get their suppliers together to discuss supply and pricing and any other issues. • Young people do not want to enter the dairy industry because of the long and anti-social hours required, the unpredictable financial returns and right to farm issues. This farmer does not have any children. His next door neighbour who is also a dairy farmer, has told his teenage children that he does not want them to take over the farm. He is encouraging them to find alternative work with better pay in the urban area and also to live in the urban area because he does not see a viable future for dairy farming in this region. • This farm is in an area almost entirely comprised of farm land. There are however some individual non farm dwellings scattered throughout the area. The farmer being interviewed related a case he experienced a few weeks ago. He was working in the dark in the late evening over sowing a grass paddock. This entails the use of a farm tractor towing a seed drill. A non farm dwelling occupier living on the boundary of the farm came out to the farmer and complained about the tractor headlights shining through their windows and disturbing their privacy as the tractor turned on the headland of the paddock.
A non farm dwelling in this area was advertised for sale earlier this year. The farmer occupying the property adjoining this dwelling (not the farmer being interviewed) was afraid of the dwelling selling to a non rural occupier who would not understand farming practices. He erected a sign in his paddock which was adjacent to the house for sale advising that the land was part of a commercial dairy farm and as such was subject to manure being spread (smells), being grazed by cattle (noise), sprays and machinery being used.
Thoroughbred Racing Trainer
The horse racing industry is very well organised and run by a professional body, Racing Victoria. It generates enormous economic activity in the region, particularly to the Cranbourne area. In order to better understand the industry and its current status, the project officer visited a trainer who has been in the industry in the region for many years and held a discussion on his current situation and the situation within the industry in general. The comments recorded are those of this one trainer who is running a fairly average sized stable in the Cranbourne area.
• This trainer currently has sixteen racehorses under training which are stabled on this Cranbourne property. He also has a further ten horses which he has contracted out to another trainer for pre-training prior to coming back to the home property to be worked with the other horses. • The business employs five people in addition to the owner, his wife and their son. The business finds it difficult to get good employees who are willing to work the hours required, have some knowledge of handling and working with horses and who are prepared to do some of the hard physical and dirty work. • This is a full time business for the owner and his wife and their son. Some of the smaller trainers only have as few as six horses under training but due to the financial returns available from this type of enterprise, these smaller trainers are tending to leave the industry unless they have the land and facilities to get bigger and train more horses. The top trainers in the area have up to 50 horses being worked in their stables. • It is a very price competitive industry. The recommended fee per day for a thoroughbred racing horse under training is set by Racing Victoria Limited at $82.80. This trainer reports however that this rate is impossible to achieve due to the competitive nature of the industry.
58 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
Some of the very top trainers with a high ratio of winners: runners may be achieving close to this fee but the majority of trainers are not. • The price: cost squeeze operates in this industry as well as in any other industry. Costs are constantly rising and this trainer cited Workcover as one of his major costs and one that is causing some concern in the industry. In addition to the increasing costs of Workcover, this trainer (and reportedly many others within the industry) is very critical of the Workcover inspectors. They do not have any experience or knowledge of the racing industry and therefore do not understand that working with thoroughbred horses is very different to working with machinery. This trainer would like to see a Workcover inspector allocated to the racing industry who has some knowledge of working with horses. • The drought has also had a severe impact, predominantly through increases in feed costs which have almost tripled in the last three years. • To the best of his knowledge, the Cranbourne Racing Club is in a sound financial situation as opposed to many country racing clubs which have been subsidised by Racing Victoria for some time. Some of the country tracks however are looking to close in the not too distant future as they are finding it impossible to attract sufficient cash flow to remain financial, even though they are subsidised by Racing Victoria. • This trainer acknowledges that Cranbourne is now one of the best places in Victoria and potentially within Australia, to train race horses because of the excellent facilities provided by the Cranbourne Training Track. The area continues to attract more trainers and horses due to this facility.
59 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
LIST OF PRIORITY ACTIONS
The recommendations following each of the individual topics under ‘DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES’ in this report forms the complete list of actions which it is suggested should be instigated in order to begin the process of addressing the issues raised in the report.
It will not be possible however to address all the issues immediately and therefore the following actions are recommended as those which should be addressed first.
Rural/ Urban Interface
• Liaise with officers in the Shire of Yarra Ranges to assess the effectiveness of their education program to the urban community. • Prepare an advisory leaflet on rural: urban interface issues specific to the Casey/Cardinia region. • Communicate with the farming community to ensure that they understand the full implications of the State Governments Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
The Escalating Cost of Land in the Region
• Continue to monitor and support the work of the Future Family Farms project being run by the Victorian Department of Primary Industry.
Sustainability and Land Management
• Investigate the delivery of appropriate training courses, which include sustainability, to the target audience identified in the survey. • Create links with lead organisations in the organics industries so that potential organic growers have ready access to relevant information.
Water
• Liaise with Frankston and Mornington Peninsula Councils to ensure a ‘Regional’ approach to farm water issues. • Maintain existing contacts with Southern Rural Water, South East Water and Melbourne Water to promote the ongoing supplies of adequate water for the regions farmers. • In relation to the Eastern Irrigation Scheme:- - Identify the prime farming zones which will accommodate expansion due to the Eastern Irrigation Scheme recycled water and protect them from development or inappropriate uses. - Protect existing farming zones to give security of tenure to potential agricultural investors. - Identify potential extension routes to the currently proposed irrigation supply pipe line. - Identify and communicate with potential new agricultural investors to the region. - Plan for future infrastructure needs brought about by increased farming activity Potential sites for new businesses, eg. aquaculture, hydroponics Roads for larger vehicles and increased traffic flows
60 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
- Major non arterial linking roads - Review weight limits - Assess bridge weight limits
Roads and Transport
• Investigate the possibility of implementing an 80Km/hour speed limit on selected rural roads throughout the region. • Map the major access routes for the transport of goods in and out of the intensive farming areas of the region.
Costs versus Returns Price Squeeze
• Canvas the possibility of forming business clusters within the region. • Continue to support the growth of Cardinia Farmers Market and explore the potential for other such markets in the region. • Continue to liaise with the regional Food and Wine Network and involve interested primary producers in the process. • Explore the potential to increase overseas exports direct from the farm.
The Profile Perception of Farming
• Establish a Casey and Cardinia farm forum network. • Encourage and assist industry associations to gather accurate statistical data relating to their industry in the region.
Business Administration and Legislative Issues
• Assess level of support for the provision of GST short courses aimed specifically at the primary producer. • Work towards making government at all levels aware of the administrative burden now imposed on primary producers. • Support attempts by agribusiness organisations to reduce/simplify the administrative and legislative burden now impacting on the farm sector.
61 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
COMMENTS FROM THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The following is a selection of comments to the open questions in the survey questionnaire. They are reproduced as a sample of the comments that were received and included exactly as they were written (any clarifications needed to be added to aid understanding have been placed in brackets). The comments indicate the many issues, both positive and negative, which are currently relevant to the farming community in the region. There is no ranking or importance placed on these responses which have been extracted in the order in which the questionnaires were returned to the City of Casey offices.
Q. 35 Do you think that there are any advantages to operating your business in the Casey/Cardinia Region?
“Proximity to wide range of education choices for family. High land values when we want to realise the asset”
“If the EIS (Eastern Irrigation Scheme) gets up and running it will give us water security, and enable us to plan into the future with a degree of confidence”
“close proximity to major markets, easy access to goods & services, Cardinia shire promotions that include agricultural products”
“close to major towns, rail, education facilities”
“reliable climate eg rainfall in Gippsland, availability of supplies and contractors, closeness to livestock exchange”
“availability of 3 phase power and Melbourne price gas, high rainfall area to provide water for chooks”
“close to Melbourne, schools and facilities for children”
“close to (horse) training tracks”
“close to sale yards for cattle sales, close to factory for potato processing, good fertile soil”
“proximity to Melbourne, fastest growing in Australia, ability to engage in off farm employment”
“close proximity of property for district markets and roads, clay sub soil allows good result up to late autumn, good results from raised land in paddocks in winter with water logged paddocks”
“very horsey area with huge equestrian interest”
“good agricultural land, usually reliable rainfall, close to amenities and supplies”
“Cardinia support Landcare very well”
“close proximity to excellent livestock market facilities, vet services, stock and station agents, feed supplies eg Pakenham Produce”
62 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“close to market, the interest in agribusiness by the council i.e. as evidenced by the issue of the questionnaire, a relatively peaceful area, politically and environmentally” “plenty of space, cheaper land at Koo Wee Rup area, number of small markets to sell fresh produce”
“we can produce a product during drought where other areas struggle in drought, Safeway want red soil potatoes, this area can produce that product”
“central to equine industry” “being a central farm area, attracts most businesses required to operate intensive farming to this area, dirt roads now kept to a reasonable standard”
“allows one of us to work in a major regional centre, in the discipline for which one is qualified, access to goods and services, easy access to cattle market and fertiliser supplies”
“being close to the VLE in Pakenham”
“proximity to markets, availability of appropriate farm contractors, availability of services when required”
“allows access to my city based business, currently a very quiet pleasant area, schooling and retail facilities are good”
“soils, close to Melbourne, employment being close to Melbourne, close to airport, climate”
Q. 36 Do you think that there are any disadvantages to operating your business in the Casey/Cardinia Region?
“city influences imposed on country”
“too much complaints by residents around farmers about chemical smells, irrigation noise, tractor noise”
“cost of land is expensive so it restricts growth”
“roads unable to carry increased traffic, right to use normal farming methods threatened by urban growth, bureaucratic controls”
“concern of increasing sub division, making smaller tracts of land unviable and placing increasing pressure on sustainability”
“we are being forced out by "city slickers" pushing the price of agricultural land up, shocking road conditions on Koo Wee Rup swamp, too much traffic for dirt roads”
“price of farming land now so high that is not economic to expand our family operation”
“increasing pressure from hobby farmers who have unrealistic expectations of living in a rural area, expect all the services and yet pressure the agricultural industries who are keeping the area green and economically viable”
“increase in farm theft, rates too high”
63 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“lack of sealed roads and state of unsealed roads, reductions of water allocations, delays, difficulties in obtaining permits, ridiculous laws regarding lopping and removal of overgrown and dangerous trees on ones property”
“urban sprawl close to farms and prime agricultural land, new residents to the area not understanding the ways, ethics of country life”
“increasing pressure from urban expansion, area in danger of losing its agricultural focus”
“Casey / Cardinia like and consider themselves to have a rural aspect for their town dwellers, but do nothing to support the rural part, lot of things like noxious weeds seems to be outside both the will and jurisdiction of local government, lots of absentee land holders waiting for subdivision opportunities”
“inappropriate zoning of the land, trespassers, vandals, dogs at large molesting cattle, builders rubbish blowing onto property causing a hazard to cattle and polluting waterways”
“increasing traffic, on feeder roads same as 30 yrs ago (i.e. unimproved), difficulty in moving farm machinery on roads, future plans for Berwick- Five Ways Road, if traffic is diverted around Clyde recreation reserve”
“roads in our area very hard on transport trucks and own vehicles, particularly winter time”
“no room for expansion i.e. most parcels of land not suitable either being too small, expensive, wrong soil type, no available water, road regulations restricting vehicles over 8 tonnes from travelling between farms, urban development encroaching on farming land restricting farming operations”
“rates and water rates far too high, dumping of rubbish along roads and blowing onto property now becoming major problem, proximity of development- theft, dogs etc major problem to farming, lack of council services in relation to rates”
“rezoning and urbanisation make it harder to run a business profitably, the City of Casey intend to rezone my property and will probably rate me out of business, the council should not be allowed to push profitable businesses out of an area, especially considering the time and capital outlay that horticultural business invest in a property, and in the shire”
“rates too high for farmers, farm land being eaten up by housing developments, theft and crime”
“very very poor roads, trucks loading for airport complain about loads moving and damage to produce, this should be placed back onto the Shires, pay for damaged produce, trucks carrying asparagus can't even be kept clean, roads are a mess and we are carting food”
“green wedge issues that restrict our land usage”
“the rating of agricultural land represents 12% of our gross income from primary production, this reduces our ability to employ labour, expand and purchase goods and services, we will eventually be forced to sell and move to more rural municipality”
“domestic dogs not retained on their owners property
64 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“poor roads-worst roads in thirty years, unreal restrictions on farmers, eg clearing for fence repair or maintenance”
Q.37 Are there any issues affecting the ongoing viability of your business?
“increasing taxes, charges, levies from government at all levels”
“liability insurance for horse associated business. Possible cost of accreditation. To reduce rising cost of feed”
“dairy prices on international markets, right to farm issues”
“land prices are too high for us to expand because city people want the land for lifestyle pursuits. This is also making it hard to rent land, young stock and hay / silage crops”
“land use, 100 acres too large an allotment for horse breeding”
“the ramifications of registering dams and the ability to harvest and conserve the rain that falls on ones property”
“have to work off farm to survive, prices on cattle sales have not increased much in 20 years yet cost have gone up tenfold”
“land prices, hard to expand, buy the next door block”
“future water costs”
“exchange rates, commodity rates, increasing costs, business admin, export logistics”
“the continuation of climate change and the drought due to global warming”
“costs continually increasing much faster than increase in value of cattle, more bureaucracy and red tape, weeds seem more prolific and difficult to contain”
“possibility of free trade agreement with USA allowing chicken meat imports into Australia with all its diseases”
“the profitability of growing asparagus has been lacking for the last 7-8 years”
“excessive council rates on rural property, it takes most of the farm income”
“the main worry is if the rates keep going up so dramatically that we will not be able to keep the area maintained by spraying weeds and fertiliser and generally keeping the place looking nice”
“we would like to state that farming in an area which will soon be residential is going to be increasingly difficult if not impossible, hopefully consideration will be made to people in similar situations as ourselves, subdivision for us would be attractive, we could then re-establish elsewhere”
“land prices; need to be able to subdivide to complete with escalating prices and keep land in farming but that in itself can cause problems”
65 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“markets overseas, Australian dollar increase and no free trade agreements between USA, Japan and Europe make exports difficult, overseas farmers receive government assistance and subsidies”
“the lack of rights to farm”
“currently the availability of treated class A water before next summer”
“a horrific fear that in future, we will be forced out by the ever increasing use of farmland for housing, makes us feel very insecure indeed”
“the rapid rise in land values over the past two years will make it very difficult to purchase affordable land for farm expansion, the continuing demand for land for lifestyle living will mean that agriculture will continue to become less important in years to come”
“beef prices have not kept up with inflation, we are now using most of our land to agist dairy cows or lease to dairy farmers, this is less work and more profitable”
Q. 38 Please mention any other issues you feel are important for agriculture in the Casey/Cardinia Region.
“high cost of production. Improve roads in the Bunyip to Cora Lynn area”
“as small operators we are not really financially viable but the lifestyle issues are very significant”
“farmers right to farm on land which is at the interface of suburbia, municipal rating structure which is sympathetic to farmers, protection of livestock from wandering dogs, eradication of weeds”
“Councils must ensure that no more good agricultural land is rezoned for further subdivision, criminal to see beautiful land around Narre Warren, Berwick, Cranbourne going under housing. Farm rates must be kept to an absolute minimum”
“land not viable for income earning farm and small property values without the option to subdivide will soon force us out of the property. When the pension issue arises, owning unproductive farmland is a liability”
“farmers are slowly being strangled out of existence in both Shires, income from asset value is just not there”
“drastic need to ban use of all artificial weedicides which are killing our soils. Reduce dependency on our water supplies by educating farmers on how to farm properly etc”
“maintaining the horticultural zone on the peat land of Koo Wee Rup swamp”
“need more trees grown to protect the area and livestock, more encouragement and recognition and assistance by Shire”
“the upgrading of existing feeder roads to cope with traffic demand”
66 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit and Action Framework February 2004
“tourism related to each type of enterprise for people to easily find and access in turn generates employment, good road access, shire encouragement for new ventures, promotion of farm products to domestic and overseas markets”
“more places to ride (horses) off road, competition venue, drivers to be made aware of horses, some sort of control / inspection of how horses are kept and looked after, anybody can currently have a horse even if they have no knowledge”
“preserve the bush and wild life and contain the house explosive growth to some minor extent”
“need to educate land owners about value of re vegetation using native indigenous species and how to do it properly, methods of farming will have to change to control salinity, rate rebates must be introduced on a sliding scale etc, incompatibility of certain farming practices with suburban lifestyle at rural urban boundaries needs to be planned for”
“hard to find larger affordable parcel of land to expand with water, good soils and council interface when developing a new block, right to farm in interface council areas, need buffer zones next to vegie farms to minimise complaints from neighbours”
“urban sprawl is making these two regions look untidy, larger farms are squeezed out, their should be a 10km green belt buffer zone to segregate farms from urban boundaries”
“the preservation of agricultural business should be a priority of Cardinia and Casey”
“the Shire is concentrating on the towns and not on the agricultural side, so we suffer eg high rates and bad roads”
“open mindedness of the farmers, working in co-operation with each other, helping hand to each other etc”
“local Council and government are forever increasing our workload to comply with ever increasing legislations, this impacts greatly on the time we have available to address these issues as well as trying to run a successful operation”
“our unmade roads are wrecking our vehicles and our horse truck and float, the low tree branches along the roads scratch our truck and rip the clearance light off constantly, people are loath to use our roads and ask to meet us at the highway- very bad for business- very bad image for the Shire”
“to forever keep in the highest priority of our consideration that, small acre dwellings are encroaching into agricultural areas and not the other way around”
“weed control on many small farms totally inadequate, dogs sometimes troublesome, have encountered some comment on noise made by cattle in the past by newer residents. Property is remnant of former dairy / grazing property”
“quality assurance and integrated pest management are much more important to Australian agriculture in the future than organic production”
67
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE
How this audit will benefit you
It will:-
• allow you to have your say about your industry and farming issues • demonstrate the importance of agriculture to the region, to Victoria and to Australia • identify the major issues that are important to agriculture in the region • improve industry representation to local, State and Federal Governments • raise the profile of the whole industry
The success of the whole project, of which this audit is part, relies on input from all farmers in the region so you are encouraged to take the small amount of time needed to complete this questionnaire.
Why do we need an agricultural audit?
• Your local Council is giving you the opportunity to raise important issues for the future of farming in this region. • They want to learn more about the diversity of agriculture in the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire. • They want to highlight the economic value of farming to the region. • Issues needing follow up action will be identified.
Other potential benefits to be addressed:-
• business development opportunities • export potential • regional marketing programs
We also want to collect information from those who do not work full time on their farms. The large numbers of part time farmers are significant to the region’s economy. What happens next?
• the information will be collated and analysed • the completed picture of agriculture in Casey and Cardinia will be produced • issues for further action will be prioritised • the report will be circulated widely to government and other organisations • the report will be available to individual farmers for business or industry planning.
We value your privacy.
• The results will be collated and presented in aggregate only. • No individual businesses will be identified at any stage. • None of the individual information provided will be available to any other individual, organisation or group. • It will not be used for any other purpose.
Please place your completed questionnaire in the enclosed reply paid envelope or alternatively fax via number (03) 9705 5202 to reach us by:-
Friday 1st August 2003.
Faxing your reply
You do not need to fax the pages in their correct order. Simply fax the five sheets face down starting from Question 1 and once they have gone through your machine, turn over all five sheets and fax the reverse sides. We will sort them when received.
Any Queries?
If you have any queries relating to the questionnaire or the project, please phone Barrie Pickersgill, Agribusiness Officer, on 03 9705 5200.
Commonwealth Government Statistical Clearing House
Approval Number 01358 -- 01
This project is funded by the Commonwealth Government’s Regional Assistance Program, administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services and is supported by South East Development. Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Valuing our Regional Agriculture
Preliminary Question
1. Do you derive any part of your income from producing and/or selling agricultural/primary products, services or livestock? This includes commercial horse related activities.
No 1 Go to Q 40
Yes 2 Please read the notes below and then proceed to Q 2
Who has received the audit questionnaire
Questionnaires have been mailed to all landowners outside the urban area, irrespective of land size.
Rates databases have been used to address the mail out. If a company, partnership, family or other organisation has two or more holdings listed, duplicate holdings have been deleted to avoid excess forms being posted. Please accept our apologies if you have received more than one questionnaire.
If you do have more than one holding in the region comprising the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire and you did receive more than one copy of the questionnaire, please combine the data from all such holdings onto one form.
Do not include holdings outside the Casey/Cardinia municipal boundaries.
Land Area, Use and Alternative Uses
2. What is the total area of your property/properties?
Include land that you rent or lease from some one else.
______hectares or ______acres.
3. How much of the total area shown above is currently productive agricultural land, ie. as pasture, cropping land or otherwise under cultivation?
______hectares or ______acres. Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
4. If the productive area shown at Q3 is less than the total property area shown at Q2, what is the non agricultural land used for?
Agricultural Production Over the Last Twelve Months
The questions contained in this section are aimed at identifying the types and levels of agricultural production and land use.
The term “agricultural production” includes commercial horse related activities.
5. Over the last 12 months what agricultural activities were you engaged in and /or what agricultural products did you produce? There are seven spaces provided. Please use as many spaces as you need.
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last twelve months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.) Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Crop/Livestock Type______Variety/Breed______If Livestock, please state number of animals______Annual Production Output (ie quantity sold in last 12 months) (make sure you include the units you are using, eg. Tonnes, Kg’s, Litres, animal numbers, bunches, dozens, etc.)
Overseas Exporting
6. Do you export overseas any of your primary products, including livestock, directly from your property?
No Go to Q 8
Yes
7. Are you considering increasing the proportion of your products that you export?
Yes 2 Go to Q 9
No 1 Go to Q 9
8. Do you have any interest in exporting any of your products overseas?
Yes 2
No 1
Agricultural Employment in Casey/Cardinia
9. Do you work full time in your agricultural activities?
Yes 2
No 1
10. Please estimate how many hours per week you devote to commercial agricultural production.
11. Do you employ people in your business? The term “employ” includes any paid or unpaid family members who work for the business.
No 1 Go to Q 16
Yes 2 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
12. How many of the following types of people work for your business? (The numbers should include owners/operators and any other family member(s) who work for your business).
Employee Type Number Full-time Part-time Casual (excluding seasonal casuals – see Q 13 below) Total
Qualifications (any discipline, not just agricultural) Number Degree Qualified Workers Diploma Qualified Workers Semi skilled/qualified Workers Unskilled Workers Other (please specify)
13. Do you employ SEASONAL casual workers during the year?
No Go to Q 15
Yes
14. Please insert the approximate numbers employed in the box adjacent to the relevant month(s).
Seasonal Seasonal workers workers (number) (number) January July February August March September April October May November June December
Employment Training and Skills Issues
15. Do you find it difficult to get people with the right skills to work for your business? If you do, please describe briefly.
16. As the owner/operator/manager of the business are there any business or agricultural skills which you would like to improve through further training or education for yourself? If so, please list briefly. Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Value Adding
“Value Adding” means increasing the dollar value of a primary product from your agricultural operation through further processing (eg. milk into cheese, berries into jams,) or increasing the consumer appeal of a product (eg. washing and/or attractive packaging for various crops). Value Adding therefore attracts a higher price than you would otherwise have got for the basic product. Value Adding can be done either on the farm or at other premises owned by the primary producer. It is done before you sell the product to any other person.
17. Do you “Value Add” to any of the primary products you produce prior to them leaving your property?
No 1 Go to Q 19
Yes
18. If you do Value Add, please describe briefly how you do this.
Organic Production
19. Do you consider yourself to be an organic producer?
No go to Q 22
Yes
20. Are you accredited or certified as an organic producer?
No 9 go to Q 23
Yes 8
21. If so, under which organisation(s) are you accredited? (Please tick more than one if appropriate)
NASSA1 BFA2 BDRI3 OHGA4 OVAA5 OFC6
OTHER7 Please State which
22. Do you have any interest in becoming an organic producer?
Yes 2
No 1
1 National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia 2 Biological Farmers of Australia Cooperative 3 Bio-Dynamic Research Institute 4 Organic Herb Growers of Australia 5 Organic Vignerons of Australia 6 Organic Food Chain Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Quality Assurance and Quality Management
23. Does your agribusiness have any written system of Quality Assurance or Quality Management practices in place?
No 1 Go to Q 25
Yes 2
24. Is your Quality Assurance or Quality Management system certified by an external auditing organisation?
No 1
Yes
Agribusiness Issues
This section is designed to gather information about various issues for agricultural businesses in the Casey/Cardinia Region.
Business Confidence
25. How do you foresee production, income and employment for your business in the next 12 months? (Tick one box per line only)
Increase Increase Stay the Decrease a Decrease a a lot 5 a little 4 same 3 little 2 lot 1 Production Income Employment
26. How do you foresee production, income and employment for your business in the next 5 years? (Tick one box per line only)
Increase a Increase Stay the Decrease a Decrease a lot 5 a little 4 same 3 little 2 lot 1 Production Income Employment
27. Are your responses to Questions 25 and 26 influenced by reduced outputs and/or earnings from the current drought?
No 1 go to Q 29
Yes 2
28. If your business has suffered due to the drought and assuming that the drought is now easing, please indicate how long you anticipate that it will take your business to recover from the effects of drought?
______Year(s) ______Months Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Business Planning
29. Do you have a strategy or plan for the future of your business?
No 1 go to Q 31
Yes
30. Which of the following best describes your Strategic Plan or Business Plan? (please tick one option)
A plan which is not written 2
A written plan covering one year 3
A written plan covering two to three years 4
A written plan covering four to five years 5
A written plan longer than five years 6
Agricultural Inputs and Sourcing
31. Please list below the five main input costs, ie goods and services, that you purchase for the operation of your business. This incudes the hiring of contractors if appropriate. i) ______ii) ______iii) ______iv) ______v) ______
32. Please estimate the approximate level of the total inputs (ie goods and services) used by your business that you source from local businesses operating within the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire? Please tick only one box.
All of them 6
Most of them 5
About Half 4
A few of them 3
None of them 2
Not sure 1 Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
Water Issues
33. In the operation of your business, do you use water from the following (please tick more than one option if appropriate)
Town Supply 1
Dam on a waterway or gully 1
Catchment Dam that is not on a waterway or gully 1
Bore 1
Direct from a Local Waterway 1
Recycled Water 1
Purified Effluent 1
Other 1 For “Other” please give details (eg, re-use) ______
34. Are there any issues relating to water that impact on your business operation? Please list up to three.
General Agricultural Issues
35. Do you think there are any advantages to operating your business in the Casey/Cardinia Region? (please list up to three)
36. Do you think there are any disadvantages to operating your business in the Casey/Cardinia Region? (please list up to three) Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
37. Are there any issues affecting the ongoing viability of your business? If so, please describe briefly.
38. Please use the space below to mention any other issues you feel are important for agriculture in the Casey/Cardinia Region.
Please turn over to the last page Æ Casey and Cardinia Regional Agricultural Audit
For the Future
39. Would you be interested in joining an agribusiness organisation or group if one were to be formed for the Casey/Cardinia region?
No go to Q 40
Yes please add your details below.
Note -The details you add will be transferred to a Casey/Cardinia agribusiness database so that we can contact you in the future. These details will not be used for any other purpose.
If you answered “Yes” to this question and you prefer to keep your business details separate from the rest of this form you can either: a) mail your details back to us in a separate envelope (see reply paid envelope for address) or b) fax this page back to us separately to 9705 5202 or c) leave this page blank and phone Barrie Pickersgill with your details on 9705 5200.
Business Name:
Business Address:
Postcode:
Postal Address (If different to Business Address):
Postcode:
Contact Phone No:
Main business contact person (Dr, Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss)
40. Please estimate the time you needed to complete this questionnaire.
Mins
Please place the completed questionnaire in the reply paid envelope provided. Alternatively you can fax the questionnaire back to (03) 9705 5202 (see note at the bottom of page 2 of the introductory notes re faxing your reply).
Thank you very much for your contribution.
FOCUS ON FARMING Regional Agribusiness Workshop Are you interested in the future of farming in Casey and Cardinia? If you are, you need to be at this workshop.
The workshop offers a rare opportunity to meet with a wide cross- section of the farming community, agribusiness organisations and government agencies to learn the results of the Regional Agricultural Audit and to discuss vital questions, such as:
• What are the region’s strengths? • What will our agriculture look like in 25 years time? • What are the key challenges we face in moving forward? • How can we overcome the challenges and build on our strengths to achieve a positive future? INVITATION You are invited to discuss the FUTURE of FARMING in this region with other farmers, agribusiness organisations and representatives from various government agencies.
WHEN – Wednesday, 15th October 2003 TIME – 11.00 am to 3.30 pm. WHERE – Council Chamber City of Casey offices, Magid Drive, Narre Warren.
Lunch will be provided for all participants. Please however book your place at this workshop as numbers are limited and we need confirmation of your attendance for catering by Friday 10th October. To Book Contact Leanne Terrington or Barrie Pickersgill on 9705 5200 FOCUS ON FARMING Regional Agribusiness Workshop
The pages which follow are direct copies of the notes which were written by the participants at the above workshop held on the 15th October 2003. These notes are being mailed out to everyone on the agricultural database so that those of you who did not make it to the workshop can see the results from that day.
The headings to each section indicate at which stage in the workshop process the notes were produced. I have included an agenda from the workshop along with these notes as this will serve to remind those who attended of the process and give those who were not there an indication of the different themes under which the notes were produced. Also included is a tidied up copy of the ’25 years from now Wish List’ that Bruce Turner copied from the original white board graphics / notes.
I have included a copy of the PowerPoint presentation which I gave at the workshop, outlining the results of the survey which was done earlier in the project. There are a couple of additional slides in this version that were not included in the workshop presentation.
I would like to thank all those people who gave up their valuable time to attend the workshop and who made the day such a success. As you will see from the attached notes we collected a large amount of material. This has increased the understanding of the issues faced by farmers through out the region.
Please note that I have transcribed the notes written at the workshop exactly as they were written. Where I have felt the need for clarification or expansion of a point to make it understandable, those clarifications or additional comments are printed in italic font.
Regards,
Barrie Pickersgill Agribusiness Officer Casey and Cardinia Agricultural Audit City of Casey and Cardinia Shire Focus on Farming REGIONAL AGRIBUSINESS WORKSHOP 11.00 am to 3.30 pm, Wednesday 15 October 2003 Council Chamber, City of Casey offices, Narre Warren Purpose To review the results of the Regional Agricultural Audit and to generate ideas for action by the farming community and organisations to address outstanding issues. AGENDA
10.45 Arrival Self service tea and coffee available before and during the sessions
11.00 Welcome and introduction Halvard Dalheim
11.10 Format of the day Bruce Turner (facilitator)
11.15 Overview of farming in the region Barrie Pickersgill to present audit results
11.25 Strengths and opportunities Workshop discussion and feedback
12.10 A vision for the next 25 years What will our agriculture look like?
Workshop discussion
12.40 The challenges we face in moving Barrie Pickersgill to present an outline of forward the main themes from the audit results
12.55 Preparation for the afternoon Bruce Turner to outline the process session
1.00 LUNCH
1.30 Theme-based discussions Participants select a theme of particular – Session 1 interest, nominate theme leaders and use questions (see overleaf) as discussion starters
2.15 Theme-based discussions Opportunity to change themes for all − Session 2 except volunteer theme leaders
2.40 Report back focusing on Summary presentations from each theme actions/solutions leader followed by discussion
3.25 Next steps and closing remarks Barrie Pickersgill (See over for ‘guide questions’ for theme-based discussions) GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR THEME-BASED DISCUSSIONS Please help your theme leader (who will be a volunteer from your group) to record key points from the discussion around:
1. Understanding the challenges What are the particular issues that affect you within this theme? What are the problems you currently face and what do you expect will be challenges in the future?
2. Goals What would be the best possible, long-term outcome(s) from your point of view if these issues and challenges can be overcome? What would this look like?
3. Strengths and opportunities Which of the strengths and opportunities we mapped before lunch can help us here? Are there any others?
4. Actions What do we need to do, what can we do, what do we want to do, in the next five years to build on the strengths and opportunities and realise our long-term goal(s)? - Try to come up with actions/solutions that are realistic and achievable and describe what needs to be done, who needs to be involved (including perhaps one person from your table and/or today’s workshop) and, if possible, when.
Please help your theme leader identify key points for a two-minute summary presentation to the whole workshop. Session – Strengths & Opportunities
Participants were asked to identify the Strengths and Opportunities of farming in the region. Each table wrote a series of small coloured sheets that were displayed for the remainder of the workshop. The issues raised fell into broad categories and are recorded below under those categories which have been divided into Strengths and Opportunities.
Strengths
Soil & Close to the Service Land Supply of labour + off Lifestyle Climate Metropolitan Area Industries values farm employment Survived Access to Markets & Support High Labour supply accessible + Lifestyle. Drought. services. industries capital contract labour companies. here/near. value of Productive land. Large local ‘direct’ land. Availability of part time market. Proximity to work off farm to subsidise High rainfall. service costs. Proximity to Melbourne industries. Soil Quality. & services. Labour & industry.
Good soil & Close to markets & climate. facilities.
Fertile country. Arterial road link-up.
Range of soil Good access. types. Transport links local/overseas.
Opportunities
Value Adding Increase Networking Strategic Planning Tourism & Education Efficiency Farm Farming practices Networking Protected horticultural Promotion of tourism. diversification (opportunities). discussion group. area. (other Ag/non Ag Education. enterprises). Develop more Melbourne 2030 plan. versatile/sustainable Export Market. farming practices. Session – A Vision for the Next 25 Years
The workshop participants were asked how they would like to see the region and in particular, farming in the region, 25 years from now. The comments are recorded as they were received, ie. table by table (or group by group).
Group 1.
• To have been able to expand operations and maintain options available (rather than lose them) • Opportunities to intensify/diversify operations to be available • Agriculture to be more viable for the younger generation • Export markets to have been enhanced • Increased environmental sustainability • Pool of skilled people to have been maintained / enhanced so skills have not been lost to the industry • Less bureaucracy on permits more manageable farmer friendly system • Increased agricultural awareness amongst broader community
Group 2.
• Available and reliable water supply at an affordable price • Buffer zone (land not road) interface between rural and residential zoned land • Non restricted road system • Council capable of embracing change quickly - zoning - encourage expansion or change for demand • Unity among agribusiness – need to support each other eg. beef v chicken • 2030 restricts ability of farmers to adopt to changing market demands – intensify if necessary • Greater export markets/ local markets • Farm rate for Casey
Group 3.
• Maintain horticultural zone on peat land in Cardinia (environmentally sensitive areas) • Maintain viable size holdings • Sustainable water supply – agriculture • Improved environmental management (Landcare) • Controlled subdivision • No restriction on alternate agriculture usage • GM free
Group 4.
• Chemical controls over chemical use in residential areas – ‘hot spots’ • Natural Gas supply • Major road improvement • Adoption of farm rate for City of Casey • Increase in general understanding by Councils of what farming is about • Sustainable development • Right to farm – less government restrictions re farm labour/family, permits re trees, ripping rabbit burrows, etc • Railway network re instated • Less bureaucrats – no State Government – only Federal – Casey to revert back to two Shires • Re-cycling of water to increase + move to a more equitable distribution • More incentives for those employing water conservation • Greater control over development / housing – re. sustainable development
Group 5.
• Retain farming as sustainable occupation • Rural businesses valued /supported by wider community and governments • More long term view and planning / development of protective strategies • Public and government awareness of importance of agriculture • Need for more subsidies (especially in times of crisis) • Change of attitude - farmers themselves - non-farming community - Government Sustainability • Urban / rural balance – representation • Produce sold at value which allows farmers to make a reasonable living • Farmers leave properties in better condition than when they took them over
Group 6.
• An increase in organic farming • Agri-tourism • Food trails (& wine) • Increase in agricultural awareness / education / responsibilities • Better land management • Restrictions on sub divisions particularly on productive farming land
Group 7.
• Green belt for agriculture • Corridor between farming and residential • Emphasis on organic farming
Group 8.
• Family farms to stay as they are • Big farms maintained as big farms • Urban sprawl limited – high density living with nearby open space • Loss of good farming land stopped – preserve good soils • Choice – sub divide if we want to but able to keep big farms together • Education to new residents re the benefits of country living- how to – dogs control, litter, control of children, driving on narrow roads, stock, passing horses in vehicles, by-laws enforced • Right to farm – existing farming activities allowed to continue • Weed problem – control - land developers take responsibility - small land owners - highways • Rubbish dumping problem – Councils • Security – crime prevention – robberies, gates left open, equipment • Costs of farming kept under control ie. rates
FocusFocus onon FarmingFarming
1
CaseyCasey && CardiniaCardinia RegionalRegional AgriculturalAgricultural AuditAudit && ActionAction FrameworkFramework
2 ObjectivesObjectives
Gain data re agricultural production capabilities Identify and understand the challenges faced by farmers in the region Develop communication and networking frameworks Retain employment levels and develop opportunities Investigate potential for future projects
3
TheThe SurveySurvey
All holdings outside the urban area were sent a questionnaire
3884 forms mailed out – Casey 1451 – Cardinia 2433
857 were returned = 22.1%
4 RespondentsRespondents byby MunicipalityMunicipality
Casey Number % By extrapolation Income earning 138 42.2 612 No Income 189 57.8 839 327 100 1451
Cardinia Number % By extrapolation Income earning 387 73 1776 No Income 143 27 656 530 100 2432
5
SizeSize ofof LandholdingsLandholdings
250
200
150
100
50 Number of Respondents Number
0 Unkown Under 26-50ha 51-100ha 101- 200+ha 25ha 200ha 6 Land Sizes (propertiesproperties underunder 2525 ha)ha)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Cardinia Frequency 15 Casey 10 5 0 < 4.9 ha 5 - 9.9 ha 10 - 14.9 ha 15 - 19.9 ha 20 - 24.9 ha
7
RespondentsRespondents MajorMajor CommercialCommercial AgriculturalAgricultural ActivitiesActivities
Other Hay Nurseries Flowers Wine grapes Soft fruit Orchard fruit Vegetables Horses Eggs Chicken meat Beef Dairy farming
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
8 Number of Respondents Respondents Secondary Commercial Agricultural Activities
Other Hay Nurseries Flowers Wine grapes Soft fruit Orchard fruit Vegetables Horses Eggs Chicken meat Beef Dairy farming
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
9 Number of Respondents
AverageAverage sizesize ofof holdingholding byby activityactivity
Nurseries
Flowers
Orchard fruit
Vegetables
Horses
Chicken meat
Other
Beef
Dairy Farming
0 20406080100120
Hectares 10 KeyKey InputsInputs
Other Admin Seed Insurance Transport Rates Fencing Water Packaging Storage Farm Chemical Animal Health Power Fertiliser
Goods & ServicesPurchased Feed Repairs Labour
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Responses 11
PercentagePercentage ofof locallocal sourcingsourcing
not sure none 1% 3% few all 12% 29% not sure none half few 15% half most all
most 40% 12 TimeTime SpentSpent onon FarmingFarming ActivitiesActivities
120
100
80
60
Responses 40
20
0 Under 11 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 51 to 61 to 71 to 80+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hours Worked 13
TotalTotal NumberNumber ofof PeoplePeople EmployedEmployed Employee Numbers other than Seasonal
Respondents No. of Employees 218 1 108 2 51 3 33 4 9 6
2 18
1 104 14 PeoplePeople employedemployed inin FarmingFarming
Number of Respondents Total no of employees Casey Full time employees 58 254 Part time employees 85 145 Casual employees 32 94 Cardinia Full time employees 179 456 Part time employees 230 379 Casual employees 68 175
The above numbers are presented for interest only. It is unclear how representative the respondents were in terms of employing people against the total survey population. The Total no. of employees includes property owners and family workers.
15
SeasonalSeasonal WorkersWorkers EmployedEmployed byby RespondentsRespondents
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
y h r r r y r ay e ly st e e ar n u u u arc M Ju J mbe M April emb emb e ebrua Aug t v Jan F October Sep No Dec
16 KeyKey EmploymentEmployment IssuesIssues
Employment was not a cause of major concern for the respondents The most frequently mentioned issues were: – Recruitment – Training
(and in particular, finding people with the right skills) 17
OwnOwn TrainingTraining RequirementsRequirements
None
Livestock/Farm Management
Business Administration
Training Type Training Professional Development
Chemical Use on Farm
0 20406080100120140
Responses 18 BusinessBusiness ConfidenceConfidence (12(12 monthsmonths forecast)forecast)
70.0
60.0 Forecast 50.0 Production Forecast 40.0 Income
30.0 Forecast Percentage Employment 20.0
10.0
0.0 Decrease a Decrease a Stay the Increase a Increase a lot little same little lot
19 “None” responses not included
BusinessBusiness ConfidenceConfidence (5(5 yearyear forecast)forecast)
60.0
50.0
40.0 Forecast Production 30.0 Forecast
Percentage 20.0 Income Forecast 10.0 Employment
0.0 Decrease a Decrease a Stay the Increase a Increase a lot lot little same little
“None” responses not included 20 TypeType ofof BusinessBusiness PlanPlan
250
200
150
100 Responses
50
0 No Plan Plan not Written Written Written Written written plan 1 year plan 2-3 plan 4-5 plan 5+ years years
21
ValueValue AddingAdding
No activity 89.5%
Packaging 4.2%
Further Processing 2.4%
Training Horses 2.0%
Wine Production 1.0%
Marketing 1.0%
22 OnOn FarmFarm QualityQuality AssuranceAssurance
Externally No Response Certified 6% 3%
Yes, documented 25%
No 66%
23
OrganicOrganic FarmingFarming
Do you consider yourself to be an organic producer? – No 90.0% – Yes but not accredited 9.2% – Accredited organic .8%
Do you have any interest in becoming an organic producer? –No 78.0% –Yes 18.4% – Missing 3.6%
24 ExportExport (Direct(Direct fromfrom thethe Farm)Farm)
No 92.4% 483 Yes 7.6% 40
68% of those already exporting are considering increasing their export activity.
Of those who do not currently export, 16.1% have some interest in becoming exporters.
25
DroughtDrought InfluenceInfluence && RecoveryRecovery
Influenced by Not influenced by drought drought • 52.2% • 43.8%
Time to Recovery • Average (mean) time to recover = 25.1 months • Range: 6 - 60 months
26 SourcesSources ofof WaterWater
250
200
150
100 Responses
50
0 Purified Recycled Direct Other Dam on Town Bore Catchment Effluent Water from a waterway Supply dam that Local or gully is not on Waterway waterway or gully 27 Source
KeyKey WaterWater IssuesIssues
180 160 140 120 100 80
Responses 60 40 20 0 Water Cost Salinity Other None availability
Issue 28 KeyKey AdvantagesAdvantages ofof thethe RegionRegion
None
Cranbourne Horse Complex
Access to Workers
VLE
Council Support Issues
Soil Quality
Climate
Proximity to City
0 50 100 150 200 250 29
KeyKey AdvantagesAdvantages ofof thethe RegionRegion Close to Melbourne – Excellent main road network – Access to markets – Access to customers – Within an hours drive to all urban areas Climate of the Region – Normally reliable rainfall Quality of Soils – Varied soil types – Some extremely versatile soils Access to a Labour Force
30 KeyKey AdvantagesAdvantages ofof thethe RegionRegion Availability of Farm Contractors Victorian Livestock Exchange Cranbourne Horse Complex Good Farm Supply Stores Close to Major Infrastructure – Education – Medical – Cultural – Sporting – Rail Network Areas of Great Natural Beauty
31
IdentifiedIdentified ChallengesChallenges
Administration
Traffic Volumes
Commodity Prices
Government Processes
Sustainability Issues Roads
Rising Costs
Value of Rates
Rural Urban Interface
0 50 100 150 200 32 Responses PricePrice ofof LandLand
Farm expansion issues $ return against invested assets Farm succession Deterrent to new entrants Young farmers entry issues Cost of rates
33
RightRight toto FarmFarm
Lack of understanding Complaints (noise, dust, odour, etc) Legislative issues Dog attacks on livestock Dumping of rubbish Theft from farms Vandalism Inadequate representation on Councils Increasing traffic on rural roads Planning issues
34 WaterWater
Availability overall (big picture) Allocations Re-cycled water Water efficiency Water conservation Farm dams Water legislation Salinity
35
SustainabilitySustainability -- LandLand ManagementManagement
Weed control Pest control Land management Conservation Conservation legislation Soil erosion Flooding
36 RoadsRoads andand TransportTransport
Current and future distribution/logistical issues Catering for larger vehicles Increased traffic volumes Funding Load limits Speed limits
37
CostsCosts vsvs ReturnsReturns priceprice squeezesqueeze
Price takers not makers Lack of influence over marketing channels Power of major retailers Lack of control over price of inputs Lack of control over legislative costs International exchange rates
38 TheThe ProfileProfile PerceptionPerception ofof FarmingFarming
Local Council’s State government Federal government Within farming circles Urban population New entrants New employees
39
BusinessBusiness AdministrationAdministration LegislativeLegislative IssuesIssues
GST Workcover Native vegetation Farm dams Superannuation
40 TheThe 88 MajorMajor ChallengesChallenges
Price of land Right to farm Water Sustainability/Land Management Roads and Transport Costs vs Returns price squeeze The Profile – Perception of Farming Business Administration – Legislative Issues
41
42 Session – Theme Based Discussions
The following section relates to the Theme Based Discussions when workshop participants selected the particular theme they wished to discuss. There were eight themes presented as challenges to the agricultural sector. Notes from each theme are presented below.
Theme 1 - Price of Land
Negatives Low return on investment Succession – may require a move Hard to expand Attracts ‘Green’ part time farmers Young farmers look elsewhere
Positives Proximity to - resources - services - infrastructure Aesthetically pleasing Investment for future (capital increase) (superannuation) Succession - $’s to hand on greater Asset to borrow against Attract city ‘farmers’ Quality of land for farming not necessarily price determiner
Goals Greater farmer representation on Councils Increased agribusiness representation in Economic Development Greater unity of farmer groups – ‘One Voice’ Variation on titles to allow excisions of blocks to allow main farm to survive No section 173’s
Actions
Re education at government level – from planners through to CEO’s Decentralisation of - labour - industries Local and State government to continue region promotion campaign Theme 2 - Right to Farm
1. Understanding
Right to decide what is produced eg. - crop - what you harvest - if you can value add - how you market product - freedom to determine hours of farm operation
Buffer zone – who pays - Council - developer - land owner
Noise – farm operations - animals - pumps - truck movements
Smell – chicken farms - operations fertilisers / manures
Theft & Vandalism
Trees – crop harvesting – restrictions placed on trees planted for cropping purposes
2. Education
Non farmers to have understanding of what is involved to produce product To have trees recognised as a crop To make sure farms operate with a good code of practice To be able to value add to product you are producing Unity in understanding other farmers operations
3. Strengths
Awareness & education Zoning Unity Regulations
4. Actions i. Not to have regulations that will effect the ‘Right to Farm’ – consult with farmer ii. Authorities to object to complaints that interfere with the farmers ‘Right to Farm’ iii. More farm representation on Council / boards / committees & governments Theme 3 – Water
Challenges
Groundwater availability - total - when wanted
Groundwater salinity
Recycled water – coming too slowly
Sharing water equitably amongst users
Goals
1. Getting class ‘A’ recycled water to land suitable for high value horticulture at affordable prices 2. Council and water authorities working together so water availability and land zoning are matched 3. Water used more efficiently
Strengths and Opportunities
Networking – so we work together and with Councils
Actions
1. Council lobbying with industry over importance of recycled water 2. Storing some of annual allocation through winter dam fill 3. Councils do land capability / suitability audit – work with SRW & Melbourne Water & industry networks so there is a long term infrastructure plan for recycled water piping to suitable areas – both here and further Shires. 4. One water authority (Melbourne Water) to manage recycling process 5. Improved education and awareness of water trading rules 6. More research and extension on improving water use efficiency 7. Improved management of groundwater Theme 4 – Sustainability & Land Management
1. Issues a) Fragile soil structure (moderately infertile) b) Water scarcity c) Weeds & pests d) Loss of indigenous vegetation (& fauna) e) Chemical vs. Organic f) Reward for responsible management – rates reduction g) Bureaucracy gone mad h) Lack of - knowledge (landowners) - sense of responsibility i) GM crops / ? animals ? j) Rules - relevant } - necessary } & Reasonable - enforceable }
2. Goals a) Re GM crops – production maximised but not at expense of long term viability, health, safety, etc. b) Education of everybody - newcomers farmers everybody c) Means of implementing the goals readily d) Change of philosophy – landowners as caretakers rather than exploiters e) Farmers can make a good living f) Future generations to continue in agribusiness g) Increased efficiency in water usage - maximised catchment - minimised evaporation h) Every one aim for 30% native vegetation (productivity increases up to 30% cover, in theory) i) Identified the best long term solution to maximise productivity with respect to fertilisers j) Rates related to relevant aspects of property ownership, not to land value
3. Strengths / Opportunities a) We (the Shires) do have good climate, fertile land available & topography for good water catchment b) Potential sources of labour to help with environmental improvements, eg Greencorps (unemployed) – could be expanded c) Acceptance of Melbourne 2030 aims d) A significant level of interest and will e) Proximity to big centre(s) – (double edged sword) f) State / Local Governments that seem to be listening to the community 4. Actions
- Persuade the powers that be that agriculture needs far more support - Education programs – with accessible venues - Financial incentives / disincentives eg. subsidies / rate reductions - Get unemployed involved - Tap into local knowledge - Reintroduce high level of scientific research (so changes of farm practice have scientific basis) - Develop a system to recycle water - Improve information collection / distribution / retention (filing) - Recognition that future criteria for sustainability may change. Must leave room for flexibility - GM Crops. Issue needs debate before introduction – should be trialed on small scale first in an isolated, secure location. If deemed OK to proceed, GM free areas should be designated giving CHOISE. Don’t put all our (GM) eggs into one basket : educate people to eliminate fear Theme 5 – Roads and Transport
A) Green wedge planning affects farms interrupted by or split / adjacent to Pakenham by-pass Devalues land Makes farming very difficult Legislation is hard to change once implemented
Upgrade load limits on bridges
B) Why do owners have to pay a contribution to sealing when it is a public road
C) Speed limits (lack of) causing surface breakup - type of vehicles ie trucks buses Dust control – suppressant Regular road maintenance (grading) Side road clearance Cut water easements into drains
Solving Problems
A) Green wedge needs more discussion by those affected B) Road funding should be by whole community C) Road design to suit all. Load & speed limits decrease on dirt roads?
1. Challenges
How to reduce speed on appropriate rural roads Roads to suit farming practices (built 50 years earlier) ie. B-doubles, tankers, etc Upgrade bridges (to carry heavy loads). Old bridges built approximately 50 years ago – horse and cart days Seal main rural roads at Government cost Cardinia classified as an urban shire, not rural – negatively affects funding
2. Goals
Better distribution of rate payers contributions to road costs, not bureaucracy
Best Possible Outcome
Road upgrades Fair distribution of construction costs Plan roads to suit vehicle use Safer roads
3. We have good road infrastructure in place. Opportunity of upgrading at minimal cost now. 4. Action
We need to act sooner (rather) than later. More community input at ground level such as to-day We want our Council to be a true representative of our concerns. Cranbourne, Pakenham, Officer ready to burst at seams without appropriate infrastructure in place (roads) Theme 6 – Costs vs Returns Price Squeeze
Challenges
1. Farm Rates Casey – no farm rate (metropolitan). Can = 30% of net income Cardinia – not an issue at present
2. Costs Rates – Fixed, not related to output Labour
3. Price No say. Takers not makers. Beef farmers go to auctions therefore can control price to some extent Vegetables – don’t know from day to day what price they will get
Supermarkets squeeze price How can we gain market power?
4. Need for Australia wide co-operatives eg. mushrooms
5. Need for secure contract eg ‘x’ quantity at ‘y’ price Contract difficult to obtain due to variation in demand
6. Time consuming to provide local shops only – especially for sole operator
7. Need to establish market power
Diversify markets? 15 acres Asparagus now = 100 acres $ wise in (12 – 15 years) time Not knowing what amount that is being produced therefore can’t maximise production Middle man making money not producer
Goals
1. More $’s for producer 2. More power / unity for growers. UK – buying groups represent growers – get best price – dictate prices to supermarkets Potatoes – Packers Group have potential to dictate price but don’t at present Asparagus – Understanding between growers. 2 groups, Coles and Safeway + it is very difficult to sell at markets unless you are well known and go each week. 3. Establish a Clearing House. All sales occur here at the Clearing House. Previously Onion Board & Potato Board leading to black market resulting in collapse 4. Educate consumers to demand produce which gives fair price to growers Fruit shops } Farmers Markets } can provide this Supermarket chains very difficult 5. Government regulation to protect growers 6. Farm rate for Casey
Strengths and Opportunities
1. Farmers Markets 2. Consumer education – buy locally 3. Trend to regionalisation 4. Farm gate to plate trend 5. Branding
Actions
1. Lobby Casey to revise the way they value / estimate rural land rates. It is inappropriate to base it on recent land sales – need farm rate 2. Increase frequency of Farmers Markets - change in shopping habits - educate public People shop weekly, so if they are to change from supermarkets, Farmers Markets need to be weekly. 3. Identify niche markets and fill them 4. Central body – established to fight for price & educate public Theme 7 - The Profile / Perception of Farming
Urbanites Farmers Both Understanding (between the two groups. Definition of farming – broad acre vs hobby farms – define (hobby farms as) where (people) don’t (earn a living) from the farm Want farming feel & rural environment Farmers becoming more industrialised Don’t know what farmers needs are in regard to Assets rich verses $ poor farming processes Costs of land in these Shires versus costs / rates in Is their perception realistic about farming? Nth Victoria Not understanding of the ‘needs’ of the urban Farmers seen as ‘Rich’ landholders community Urban community but look out onto farms Council rules same in suburbia as rural land Lack of knowledge of what’s produced in community / area Farmers within the community talking to each other = networks for farmers eg dairy or beef Education via ‘Farmers Markets’ Interaction and education Venue for farmers to interact amongst themselves
More promotion for farmers in the area eg. Expos and interaction Farmers willing to talk and meet = free lunch or relevant issues Farming groups involved in community Media support on both sides of the fence
Strengths / Opportunities
Urban interaction with farmers eg. meet / pat animals Common interests in area eg. rural land Establish more of a community spirit More information in newspapers
Actions
Networks Farmers Market Permanent display - rotation of different farming in this area - funding / education /interest programs Interaction and hands on experience for urbanites Improving interaction - eg. farming tourism ie. let urbanites have a go at farming - niche communities Challenge to get interaction between different forms of farming Identify needs of individuals and what they expect within their environment. The perception can be improved with interaction - coordinated - managed - organised Display farming techniques, practice of farming. Be realistic More economic disclosure – perceptions of regional Victoria and farming Education on both sides Knowledge of inputs for ongoing farming = educate them! Lobby the Council re rural verses suburbia rules – dogs, cats, trees, permits
Summary
Community interaction and education (Farmers Markets, displays, field days, ag shows) Networks for farmers in different farming scenarios Venue for farmers to get together and talk Establish more community spirit Media support for campaign = more articles in local paper. Lobby media to be accurate in reports not sensationalism to sell papers / headlines Shire more aware of farming issues (especially when they class land as ‘prime agriculture’) for things like dogs and cats (limited numbers). Permits for tree clearing, dam cleaning, putting in a culvert. Rented farm houses – problems with uneducated tenants eg. dogs chasing cows and attacking them Promotion via education – community based eg. the carrot is a sausage sizzle Theme 8 - Business Administration / Legislation
General
GST – in, will not go out. Need for a better understanding on process – education Workcover – need review by State Government Native vegetation – better consultation, owners and authorities. Need for flexibility re trees in vs trees out Dams – flexibility Superannuation – LGA’s reinvest within their area Town planning 2030 – concern EES (Environmental Effects Statement) – re Pakenham by-pass – too much detail, no recommendations Child labour permits
Strengths / Opportunities
Opportunity now for Shires to influence State Governments 2030 vision Shire to develop own 2030 vision with strong rural input Shires to change LGA superannuation spending
Goals
Reduce / simplify red tape (one stop shop) at all levels Shires to develop own 2030 strategy with rural input Greater agribusiness input from dedicated officer Increase Council awareness (including staff) of rural needs / wants Keep planning controls with local government not with Spring Street.
Ranking of the Top 12 Industry Sectors for Casey and Cardinia - ABS stats 2000-2001
CASEY CARDINIA Industry Sector $ Value Industry Sector $ value
1 Chicken Meat 26,055,433 1 Chicken Meat 33,958,096
2 Celery 14,378,355 2 Milk 33,840,347
3 Cultivated Turf 8,357,585 3 Asparagus 29,427,242
4 Parsnips 6,517,590 4 Beef (cattle 19,861,051 & calves slaughtered)
5 Nurseries 3,942,220 5 Potatoes 18,566,161
6 Cut Flowers 3,865,512 6 Cut Flowers 6,671,078
7 Beef (cattle 3,522,857 7 Apples 6,265,392 & calves slaughtered)
8 Lettuce 3,493,716 8 Pasture cut for ) 5,772,504 hay (other than Lucern)
9 Milk 3,449,091 9 Small & Berry & Tropical Fruit 2,937,349 (strawberries, kiwi fruit blueberries, raspberries, )
10 Leeks 3,441,477 10 Nurseries 2,920,920
11 Asparagus 2,915,448 11 Cultivated Turf 2,806,147
12 Brussel Sprouts 1,287,166 12 Egg Industry 1,171,648
Other figures of Interest Total Vegetables $ 49,182,302 54,083,402 (asparagus + potatoes = $47,993,403)
Total $ Value of Agriculture 109,568,683 173,091,457 Agricultural Census 2000-2001
Number of Establishments by EVAO and Industry for Casey LGA
Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations ($)
Less than 22,500 to 50,000 to 100,000 to 150,000 to 200,000 to 350,000 to 500,000 to 1,000,000 to ANZSIC 22,500 < 50,000 <100,000 <150,000 <200,000 <350,000 <500,000 <1,000,000 <2,000,000 >2,000,000 Total 0111 Plant Nurseries - - 3 2 2 5 2 1 - 1 17 0112 Cut Flower and Flower Seed Growing --52213 1 - -15 0113 Vegetable Growing 2 4 9 5 - 14 6 8 4 5 57 0114 Grape Growing ------0115 Apple and Pear Growing ------1 1 0116 Stone Fruit Growing 1 ------1 0117 Kiwi Fruit Growing ------0119 Fruit Growing n.e.c. - 1 ------1 0123 Sheep-Beef Cattle Farming ------0125 Beef Cattle Farming 32 17 14 1 1 1 - - - - 66 0124 Sheep Farming ------0130 Dairy Cattle Farming - 4 5 - - 5 2 - - - 16 0141 Poultry Farming (Meat) - - 3 - - 3 1 1 4 1 12 0142 Poultry Farming (Eggs) - 1 - - - 1 1 6 - - 10 0151 Pig Farming - - 1 ------1 0152 Horse Farming 5 2 1 1 ------9 0153 Deer Farming 2 ------2 01 Agriculture 42 29 40 12 6 30 16 18 8 8 209 Agricultural Census 2000-2001
Number of Establishments by Area of Holding and Industry for Casey LGA
Area of Holding (ha) ANZSIC < 5 5 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <75 75 to <100 100 to <200 200 or more Total 0111 Plant Nurseries 7 2 2 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 17 0112 Cut Flower and Flower Seed Growing 51 6 2 - 1 - - - - 15 0113 Vegetable Growing 7 10 12 6 2 5 5 6 2 3 57 0114 Grape Growing ------0115 Apple and Pear Growing ------1 - 1 0116 Stone Fruit Growing 1 ------1 0117 Kiwi Fruit Growing ------0119 Fruit Growing n.e.c. - - 1 ------1 0123 Sheep-Beef Cattle Farming ------0125 Beef Cattle Farming 3 2 1 4 9 9 15 6 9 9 66 0124 Sheep Farming ------0130 Dairy Cattle Farming - - - 1 - 1 3 4 2 5 16 0141 Poultry Farming (Meat) 6 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - 12 0142 Poultry Farming (Eggs) 2 4 - - - 1 - - 2 - 10 0151 Pig Farming - 1 ------1 0152 Horse Farming - - 1 3 - 4 1 - - - 9 0153 Deer Farming - - - - 2 - - - - - 2 01 Agriculture 32 22 25 17 14 22 25 17 19 16 209 Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced by SLA, 2000-01 Casey
205801612 205801613 205801616 205801618 10
Casey (C) Casey (C) Casey (C) Casey (C) Casey Berwick Cranbourne Hallam South Total
Value Value Value Value Value Annot- Annot- Annot- Annot- Annot- Commodity description Value ($) ations Value ($) ations Value ($) ations Value ($) ations Value ($) ations 0100158 Total area of holding - VACP (ha) 2,077 891 138 * 11,316 14,422 1008158 Other pastures cut for hay - value ($) 80,791 0 0 701,203 781,994 1008759 Pastures cut for hay - total value ($) 80,791 0 0 701,203 781,994 1100658 Pasture seed - value ($) 0004*4 1110059 Pasture seed - total value ($) 0004*4 1110159 Pastures and grasses - total value ($) 80,791 0 0 701,207 781,998 1500158 Wheat for grain - value ($) 0 0 0 424,284 424,284 1509259 Cereals for grain - total value ($) 0 0 0 424,284 424,284 1908558 Cultivated turf - value ($) 0 8,114,160 0 243,425 8,357,585 3 1909358 Other crops cut for hay - value ($) 0 13,475 * 0 0 13,475 1909959 Crops cut for hay - total value ($) 0 13,475 * 0 0 13,475 1918158 Nurseries - value ($) 1,450,250 337,030 * 0 2,154,940 3,942,220 5 1918358 Cut flowers - value ($) 53,896 * 512,008 * 0 3,299,608 3,865,512 6 Nurseries and flowers and turf 1918558 - total value ($) 1,504,146 8,963,198 0 5,697,973 16,165,317 3409958 All other vegetables for seed - value ($) 0 0 0 26,796 26,796 3505958 Potatoes - total value ($) 0 0 0 1,196,744 1,196,744 3600658 Asparagus - value ($) 0 0 0 2,915,448 2,915,448 11 French and Runner beans 3601258 (fresh market) - value ($) 6,562 * 0 0 0 6,562 3601358 French and Runner beans - total value ($) 6,562 * 0 0 0 6,562 3601558 Beetroot - value ($) 0 0 0 81,067 81,067 3601758 Broccoli - value ($) 0 22,321 0 1,097,706 1,120,027 3601858 Brussels sprouts - value ($) 91,088 * 350,027 * 0 837,051 1,278,166 12 3601958 Cabbages- value ($) 0 261,203 0 826,983 * 1,088,186 3602058 Chinese cabbage- value ($) 0 0 0 272,094 272,094 Capsicum and chillies and peppers 3602158 - value ($) 0 0 0 5,400 * 5,400 3602458 Carrots - value ($) 0 0 0 963,333 963,333 3602758 Cauliflowers - total value ($) 0 0 0 428,760 * 428,760 3602958 Celery - value ($) 0 142,830 0 14,235,525 14,378,355 2 3603258 Cucumbers - value ($) 0 0 0 1,883 * 1,883 3604458 Leeks - value ($) 0 1,600,465 0 1,841,012 3,441,477 10 3604558 Lettuce - value ($) 473,683 * 0 0 3,020,033 3,493,716 9 3604858 Zucchini - value ($) 0 244,075 * 0 0 244,075 3606058 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - value ($) 0 0 0 896,591 896,591 3606158 Onions - white and brown - value ($) 0 0 0 831,286 831,286 3606358 Parsley - value ($) 0 0 0 469,150 469,150 3606458 Parsnips - value ($) 30,754 * 368,040 0 6,118,796 6,517,590 4 3606758 Peas - green (for fresh market) - value ($) 6,283 * 0 0 0 6,283 Pumpkins & triambles 3607158 & trombones - etc - value ($) 0 14,319 * 0 297,643 311,962 3608058 Sweet corn - value ($) 0 0 0 214,663 214,663 Vegetables for human 3609758 consumption nec - value ($) 108,739 * 708,275 * 0 8,202,470 9,019,484 3610059 Total Vegetables - value ($) 717,109 * 3,711,555 0 44,753,638 49,182,302 4203359 Pome fruit - total value ($) 3,654,393 0 0 259 3,654,652 4203958 Apricots - value ($) 00000 4206658 Plums - value ($) 0 2,799 * 0 0 2,799 4206858 Plums and Prunes - value ($) 0 2,799 * 0 0 2,799 4207759 Stone fruit - total value ($) 0 2,799 * 0 0 2,799 4210059 Orchard fruit - total value ($) 3,654,393 2,799 * 0 259 3,657,451 4300958 Blueberries - value ($) 00000 4309359 Total fruit excluding grapes - value ($) 3,654,393 2,799 * 0 259 3,657,451 4523058 Apples - value ($) 3,586,748 0 0 259 3,587,007 4617058 Pears excluding Nashi - value ($) 67,645 0 0 0 67,645 6300457 Wool - Other - value ($) 0 42 0 405 447 6300458 Wool - Shorn - value ($) 0 662 0 5,496 6,158 6300459 Wool - Total - value ($) 0 704 0 5,901 6,605 7002058 Milk - value ($) 0 0 0 3,449,091 3,449,091 9 7701058 Sheep and lambs slaughtered - value ($) 0 0 0 6,988 6,988 7704558 Cattle and calves slaughtered - value ($) 774,314 176,909 28,654 2,542,980 3,522,857 7 7705558 Pigs slaughtered - value ($) 0 0 0 87,713 87,713 8006658 Poultry slaughtered - total value ($) 0 16,440,462 0 9,614,971 26,055,433 1 Eggs produced for human 8007058 consumption - value ($) 0 0 0 6,146,430 6,146,430 5 8504758 Honey - value ($) 36,193 0 0 4,230 40,423 8504958 Beeswax - value ($) 980 0 0 540 1,520 8505058 Honey and Beeswax - total value ($) 37,173 0 0 4,770 41,943 9009959 Total value of fruit - ($) 3,654,393 2,799 * 0 259 3,657,451 Total value of crops 9011959 (excluding pastures & grasses) - ($) 5,875,648 12,691,027 0 50,902,950 69,469,625 9013959 Total value of crops - ($) 5,956,439 12,691,027 0 51,604,157 70,251,623 Total value of livestock 9015959 slaughterings - ($) 774,314 16,617,371 28,654 12,252,652 29,672,991 9017959 Total value of livestock products - ($) 37,173 704 0 9,606,192 9,644,069 9019959 Total value of agriculture - ($) 6,767,926 29,309,102 28,654 73,463,001 109,568,683
Notes n.p. not available for publication
This estimate has a relative standard error * between 25% and 50% and should be used with caution Estimate has a relative standard error ** greater than 50%, it is too unreliable for general use Agricultural Census: Agricultural Commodities, SLA Estimates, Year Ending 30 June 2001 Casey 11 Casey (Total) Description Estimate (Number) 0100101 Total area of holding (ha) 14422 0100111 AOH derived 12456 1005101 Pure lucerne cut for hay - area (ha) 0 1005102 Pure lucerne cut for hay - production (t) 0 1008101 Other pastures cut for hay (sown or native) - area (ha) 1462 1008102 Other pastures cut for hay (sown or native) - production (t) 5654 1008701 Pastures cut for hay - total area (ha) 1462 1008702 Pastures cut for hay - total production (t) 5654 3503101 Potatoes (early crop) - area (ha) 19 3503102 Potatoes (early crop) - production (t) 586 3503601 Potatoes (main crop) - area (ha) 89 3503602 Potatoes (main crop) - production (t) 2483 3505901 Potatoes - Total area (ha) 108 3505902 Potatoes - Total production (t) 3069 3600601 Asparagus - total area (ha) 123 3600602 Asparagus - production (t) 587 3601101 French and runner beans (processing) - area (ha) 0 3601102 French and runner beans (processing) - production (kg) 0 3601201 French and runner beans (fresh market) - area (ha) 1 3601202 French and runner beans (fresh market) - production (kg) 2649 3601311 French and runner beans - total area (ha) 1 3601312 French and runner beans - total production (kg) 2649 3601501 Beetroot - area (ha) 25 3601502 Beetroot - production (t) 395 3601701 Broccoli - area (ha) 76 3601702 Broccoli - production (kg) 642291 3601801 Brussels sprouts - area (ha) 52 3601802 Brussels sprouts - production (kg) 753769 3601901 Cabbages - area (ha) 75 3601902 Cabbages - production (t) 2491 3601911 Brussels sprouts and cabbages - total area (ha) 127 3601912 Brussels sprouts and cabbages - total production (t) 3245 3602001 Chinese cabbage (incl. bok choy and wong bok) - area (ha) 24 3602002 Chinese cabbage (incl. bok choy and wong bok) - production (kg) 376966 3602101 Capsicum chillies and peppers - area (ha) 2 3602102 Capsicum chillies and peppers - production (kg) 2652 3602401 Carrots - area (ha) 56 3602402 Carrots - production (t) 1471 3602701 Cauliflower - area (ha) 36 3602702 Cauliflower - production (t) 698 3602901 Celery - area (ha) 412 3602902 Celery - production (kg) 22650212 3603201 Cucumbers - area (ha) 1 3603202 Cucumbers - production (kg) 2170 3604401 Leeks - area (ha) 130 3604402 Leeks - production (kg) 2042783 3604501 Lettuce - area (ha) 337 3604502 Lettuce - production (t) 4493 3604701 Marrows and squashes - area (ha) 0 3604702 Marrows and squashes - production (kg) 0 3604801 Zucchini - area (ha) 6 3604802 Zucchini - production (kg) 172017 3604911 Marrows squashes and zucchinis - area (ha) 6 3604912 Marrows squashes and zucchinis - production (kg) 172017 3605101 Melons - rock and cantaloupe - area (ha) 0 3605102 Melons - rock and cantaloupe - production (t) 0 3605201 Melons - watermelons - area (ha) 0 3605202 Melons - watermelons - production (t) 0 3605301 Melons - other - area (ha) 0 3605302 Melons - other - production (t) 0 3605801 Mushrooms - area (ha) 0 3605802 Mushrooms - production (kg) 0 3605803 Mushrooms - area (sq. metres) 0 3606001 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - area (ha) 149 3606002 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - production (kg) 588314 3606101 Onions - white and brown - area (ha) 32 3606102 Onions - white and brown - production (t) 1660 3606301 Parsley - area (ha) 53 3606302 Parsley - production (kg) 136064 3606401 Parsnips - area (ha) 143 3606402 Parsnips - production (t) 5171 3606601 Peas - green (for processing) - area (ha) 0 3606602 Peas - green (for processing) - production - (shelled weight) (kg) 0 3606701 Peas - green (for fresh market) - area (ha) 5 3606702 Peas - green (for fresh market) - production (pod weight) (kg) 2436 3606811 Peas - green - total area (ha) 5 3606812 Peas - green - total production (pod weight) (kg) 2436 3606901 Peas - snow - area (ha) 0 3606902 Peas - snow - production (kg) 0 3607101 Pumpkins triambles & trombones - etc. - area (ha) 34 3607102 Pumpkins triambles & trombones - etc. - production (t) 532 3608001 Sweet corn - area (ha) 21 3608002 Sweet corn - production (t) 148 3608401 Tomatoes (processing) - area (ha) 0 3608402 Tomatoes (processing) - production (t) 0 3608501 Tomatoes (fresh market) - area (ha) 0 3608502 Tomatoes (fresh market) - production (t) 0 3608811 Tomatoes - total area (ha) 0 3608812 Tomatoes - total production (t) 0 3608901 Swedes - area (ha) 0 3608902 Swedes - production (t) 0 3609511 Vegetables for human consumption - total area (ha) 2208 3609701 All other vegetables for human consumption - area (ha) 307 4203901 Apricots - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4203902 Apricots - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 12 4203903 Apricots - production (fresh weight) (kg) 0 4203915 Apricots - total trees - number (n) 12 4204301 Cherries - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4204302 Cherries - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4204303 Cherries - production (kg) 0 4204315 Cherries - total trees - number (n) 0 4205501 Nectarines - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 0 4205502 Nectarines - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4205503 Nectarines - production (kg) 0 4205515 Nectarines - total trees - number (n) 0 4205701 Olives - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4205702 Olives - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4205703 Olives - production (kg) 0 4205715 Olives - total trees - number (n) 0 4206001 Peaches (processing) - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4206002 Peaches (processing) - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206003 Peaches (processing) - production (kg) 0 4206015 Peaches (processing) - total trees - number (n) 0 4206101 Peaches (fresh market) - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 0 4206102 Peaches (fresh market) - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206103 Peaches (fresh market) - production (kg) 0 4206115 Peaches (fresh market) - total trees - number (n) 0 4206211 Peaches - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4206212 Peaches - 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206213 Peaches - total production (kg) 0 4206215 Peaches - total trees - number (n) 0 4206601 Plums - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 0 4206602 Plums - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 178 4206603 Plums - production (kg) 1462 4206615 Plums - total trees - number (n) 178 4206701 Prunes - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4206702 Prunes - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206703 Prunes - production (kg) 0 4206715 Prunes - total trees - number (n) 0 4206811 Total plums and prunes - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 0 4206812 Total plums and prunes - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 178 4206813 Total plums and prunes - total production (kg) 1462 4206815 Total plums and prunes - total trees - number (n) 178 4300901 Blueberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 0 4300902 Blueberries - bearing area (ha) 1 4300903 Blueberries - production (kg) 0 4300915 Blueberries - total area (ha) 1 4301901 Raspberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 0 4301902 Raspberries - bearing area (ha) 0 4301903 Raspberries - production (kg) 0 4301915 Raspberries - total area (ha) 0 4302201 Strawberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 0 4302202 Strawberries - bearing area (ha) 0 4302203 Strawberries - production (kg) 0 4302215 Strawberries - total area (ha) 0
Note This estimate has a relative standard error between 25% and 50% and * should be used with caution Agricultural Census 2000-2001
Number of Establishments by Industry and EVAO for Cardinia (S)
Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations ($)
22,500 to 50,000 to 100,000 to 150,000 to 200,000 to 350,000 to 500,000 to 1,000,000 to ANZSIC <22,500 <50,000 <100,000 <150,000 <200,000 <350,000 <500,000 <1,000,000 <2,000,000 >2,000,000 Total 0111 Plant Nurseries - 3 1 - 1 5 - - - 1 11 0112 Cut Flower and Flower Seed Growing -4 5 6 - 1 2 3 - 123 0113 Vegetable Growing 2 5 9 7 6 19 20 21 12 3 104 0114 Grape Growing 2 5 1 ------9 0115 Apple and Pear Growing 4 - 2 4 1 3 - 3 2 - 19 0116 Stone Fruit Growing - 1 ------1 0117 Kiwi Fruit Growing - 1 - ----1 - -2 0119 Fruit Growing n.e.c. 1 - 2 - 1 - - 1 - 1 7 0123 Sheep-Beef Cattle Farming 111------4 0125 Beef Cattle Farming 145 69 28 7642 - - -261 0124 Sheep Farming 3 ------3 0130 Dairy Cattle Farming 5 13 26 31 27 40 14 9 1 - 166 0141 Poultry Farming (Meat) - - - 1 - 2 6 9 4 1 24 0142 Poultry Farming (Eggs) - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 - 5 0151 Pig Farming ------0152 Horse Farming 10 6 1 - 1 - - - - - 18 0153 Deer Farming - 1 ------1 01 Agriculture 180 114 81 56 44 76 46 49 20 7 674 Agricultural Census 2000-2001
Number of Establishments by Area of Holding and Industry for Cardinia (S)
Area of Holding (ha) ANZSIC < 5 5 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <75 75 to <100 100 to <200 200 or more Total 0111 Plant Nurseries 5 4 1 - - - - 1 - - 11 0112 Cut Flower and Flower Seed Gr 4441212 2 2 - 23 0113 Vegetable Growing 1 4 14 15 11 8 13 13 19 7 104 0114 Grape Growing 2 1 - 2 3 - 1 - - - 9 0115 Apple and Pear Growing - 4 2 4 2 2 4 - - - 19 0116 Stone Fruit Growing - - 1 ------1 0117 Kiwi Fruit Growing - - - 1 - - - - 1 - 2 0119 Fruit Growing n.e.c. - 2 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 7 0123 Sheep-Beef Cattle Farming ------1 - 3 - 4 0125 Beef Cattle Farming 4 3 15 37 26 35 60 17 45 19 261 0124 Sheep Farming - - 1 - - 1 - - - - 3 0130 Dairy Cattle Farming 3 1 - 7 8 12 23 32 61 19 166 0141 Poultry Farming (Meat) 4 1 9 5 - 2 - - 2 - 24 0142 Poultry Farming (Eggs) - 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - 5 0151 Pig Farming ------0152 Horse Farming - 4 7 - 3 1 - - 3 - 18 0153 Deer Farming ------1 - - 1 01 Agriculture 25 29 56 75 58 72 107 68 139 46 674 Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced by SLA, 2000-01 Cardinia. 205801452 205801453 205801454 10
Cardinia (S) Cardinia (S) - Cardinia (S) - Cardinia - North Pakenham South Total
Value Value Value Value Annot- Annot- Annot- Annot- Commodity description Value ($) ations Value ($) ations Value ($) ations Value ($) ations 0100158 Total area of holding - VACP (ha) 18,092 13,747 22,250 54,089 Pure lucerne pastures cut 1005158 for hay - value ($) 29,022 * 15,498 * 178,878 * 223,398 1008158 Other pastures cut for hay - value ($) 1,616,992 1,668,169 2,487,343 5,772,504 8 1008759 Pastures cut for hay - total value ($) 1,646,014 1,683,667 2,666,221 5,995,902 1100658 Pasture seed - value ($) 2,582 * 0 38,442 * 41,024 1110059 Pasture seed - total value ($) 2,582 * 0 38,442 * 41,024 1110159 Pastures and grasses - total value ($) 1,648,596 1,683,667 2,704,663 6,036,926 1500158 Wheat for grain - value ($) 59,656 * 96,639 * 94,126 * 250,421 1501758 Barley for grain - value ($) 26,429 * 84,810 * 0 111,239 1509259 Cereals for grain - total value ($) 86,085 * 181,449 * 94,126 * 361,660 1510858 Cereals cut for hay - value ($) 0 41,607 * 0 41,607 1806959 Oilseeds -total value ($) 27,927 * 5,314 * 0 33,241 1809059 Legumes for grain - total value($) 35,160 * 82,860 * 0 118,020 1809158 Field peas for grain - value ($) 0 7,275 * 0 7,275 1900958 Canola - value ($) 27,927 * 5,314 * 0 33,241 1905258 Lentils - value ($) 28,213 * 75,585 * 0 103,798 Faba beans (incl.tick and horse 1907658 and broad - value ($) 6,947 * 0 0 6,947 1908558 Cultivated turf - value ($) 0 2,806,147 0 2,806,147 11 1909358 Other crops cut for hay - value ($) 0 n.p. ** 0 90,114 1909857 Other crops - value ($) 63,895 * 6,251 * 159,539 * 229,685 1909959 Crops cut for hay - total value ($) 0 131,721 * 0 131,721 1918158 Nurseries - value ($) 2,420,480 132,770 * 367,670 * 2,920,920 10 1918358 Cut flowers - value ($) 4,832,639 697,649 1,140,790 * 6,671,078 6 Nurseries and flowers and turf - 1918558 total value ($) 7,253,119 3,636,566 1,508,460 * 12,398,145 3403158 Potatoes for seed - value ($) 712,147 0 51,081 * 763,228 3409958 All other vegetables for seed - value ($) 0 0 30,815 * 30,815 3505958 Potatoes - total value ($) 16,691,836 979,253 * 895,072 18,566,161 5 3600658 Asparagus - value ($) 4,407,950 781,527 * 24,237,765 29,427,242 3 French and Runner beans 3601258 (fresh market) - value ($) 0 0 37,155 37,155 3601358 French and Runner beans - total value ($) 0 0 37,155 37,155 3601558 Beetroot - value ($) 12,508 * 0 21,422 * 33,930 3601758 Broccoli - value ($) 68,251 * 0 874 69,125 3601958 Cabbages- value ($) 0 0 347,863 * 347,863 3602058 Chinese cabbage- value ($) 0 0 433 433 Capsicum and chillies and 3602158 peppers - value ($) 524,602 0 12,491 537,093 3602458 Carrots - value ($) 0 0 1,441 * 1,441 3602758 Cauliflowers - total value ($) 0 0 80,024 * 80,024 3604458 Leeks - value ($) 0 0 589,659 * 589,659 3604558 Lettuce - value ($) 24,652 * 0 0 24,652 3604858 Zucchini - value ($) 21,278 * 0 29,387 * 50,665 3606058 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - value ($) 0 0 102,223 * 102,223 3606158 Onions - white and brown - value ($) 0 0 113,526 113,526 3606358 Parsley - value ($) 0 0 77,092 * 77,092 Pumpkins & triambles & 3607158 trombones - etc - value ($) 0 0 126,111 126,111 3608058 Sweet corn - value ($) 30,832 * 265,615 * 523,268 819,715 3608458 Tomatoes (processing) - value ($) 0 3,277 * 0 3,277 3608558 Tomatoes (fresh market) - value ($) 0 0 54,826 * 54,826 3608858 Tomatoes - total value ($) 0 3,277 * 54,826 * 58,103 Vegetables for human 3609758 consumption nec - value ($) 2,016,085 * 0 1,005,104 * 3,021,189 3610059 Total Vegetables - value ($) 23,797,994 2,029,672 28,255,736 54,083,402 4200258 Oranges - navel - value ($) 0 115,913 * 0 115,913 4200758 Oranges - total value ($) 0 115,913 * 0 115,913 4201058 Grapefruit - value ($) 0000 4201258 Lemons and limes - value ($) 18,055 * 16,305 48 * 34,408 4201859 Citrus fruit - total value ($) 18,055 * 132,218 * 48 * 150,321 4203359 Pome fruit - total value ($) 2,366,496 4,049,662 0 6,416,158 4203958 Apricots - value ($) 7,302 * 165 * 0 7,467 4204358 Cherries - value ($) 0000 4205558 Nectarines - value ($) 22,784 * 268 * 0 23,052 4205758 Olives - value ($) 0000 4206158 Peaches (fresh market) - value ($) 52,965 * 0 0 52,965 4206258 Peaches - value ($) 52,965 * 0 0 52,965 4206658 Plums - value ($) 20,393 * 4,419 0 24,812 4206858 Plums and Prunes - value ($) 20,393 * 4,419 0 24,812 4207759 Stone fruit - total value ($) 103,444 4,852 0 108,296 4209758 Other nuts - value ($) 34,084 * 0 0 34,084 4209959 Orchard fruit - other & nuts - total value ($) 34,084 * 0 0 34,084 4210059 Orchard fruit - total value ($) 2,522,079 4,186,732 48 * 6,708,859 4300958 Blueberries - value ($) 105,617 * 198,034 * 0 303,651 4301958 Raspberries - value ($) 0 72,277 * 0 72,277 4302258 Strawberries - value ($) 1,813,205 * 0 0 1,813,205 12 4305058 Kiwi fruit - value ($) 748,216 0 0 748,216 4307259 Small and berry and tropical fruit - value ($) 2,667,038 270,311 * 0 2,937,349 9 4309359 Total fruit excluding grapes - value ($) 5,189,117 4,457,043 48 * 9,646,208 4523058 Apples - value ($) 2,340,818 3,924,574 0 6,265,392 7 4613058 Pears - Nashi - value ($) 5,939 34,613 0 40,552 4617058 Pears excluding Nashi - value ($) 19,739 90,475 0 110,214 5110053 Grapes - Wine - value ($) 74,124 52,628 0 126,752 5110058 Grapes - total value ($) 74,124 52,628 0 126,752 6300457 Wool - Other - value ($) 1,770 2,728 1,268 5,766 6300458 Wool - Shorn - value ($) 20,272 26,181 17,691 64,144 6300459 Wool - Total - value ($) 22,042 28,909 18,959 69,910 7002058 Milk - value ($) 10,097,390 7,548,596 16,194,361 33,840,347 2 7701058 Sheep and lambs slaughtered - value ($) 50,370 52,029 34,381 136,780 7704558 Cattle and calves slaughtered - value ($) 5,168,257 5,590,015 9,102,779 19,861,051 4 7705558 Pigs slaughtered - value ($) 8,975 0 0 8,975 7707458 Other livestock slaughtered nec - value ($) 73,453 2,812 8,582 84,847 8006658 Poultry slaughtered - total value ($) 15,195,895 6,555,912 12,206,289 33,958,096 1 Eggs produced for human 8007058 consumption - value ($) 165,005 404,864 * 601,779 * 1,171,648 9009959 Total value of fruit - ($) 5,263,241 4,509,671 48 * 9,772,960 Total value of crops (excluding 9011959 pastures & grasses) - ($) 37,239,568 10,583,504 30,099,805 77,922,877 9013959 Total value of crops - ($) 38,888,164 12,267,171 32,804,468 83,959,803 9015959 Total value of livestock slaughterings - ($) 20,496,950 12,200,768 21,352,031 54,049,749 9017959 Total value of livestock products - ($) 10,284,437 7,982,369 16,815,099 35,081,905 9019959 Total value of agriculture - ($) 69,669,551 32,450,308 70,971,598 173,091,457 Notes n.p. not available for publication This estimate has a relative standard error * between 25% and 50% and should be used with caution Estimate has a relative standard error ** greater than 50%, it is too unreliable for general use Agricultural Census: Agricultural Commodities, SLA Estimates, Year Ending 30 June 2001 Cardinia.
Estimate Description (Number) 0100101 Total area of holding (ha) 54090 0100111 AOH derived 53522 1005101 Pure lucerne cut for hay - area (ha) 295 1005102 Pure lucerne cut for hay - production (t) 1234 1008101 Other pastures cut for hay (sown or native) - area (ha) 8397 1008102 Other pastures cut for hay (sown or native) - production(t) 41734 1008701 Pastures cut for hay - total area (ha) 8692 1008702 Pastures cut for hay - total production (t) 42967 3503101 Potatoes (early crop) - area (ha) 82 3503102 Potatoes (early crop) - production (t) 1904 3503601 Potatoes (main crop) - area (ha) 1540 3503602 Potatoes (main crop) - production (t) 45713 3505901 Potatoes - Total area (ha) 1622 3505902 Potatoes - Total production (t) 47617 3600601 Asparagus - total area (ha) 871 3600602 Asparagus - production (t) 5923 3601101 French and runner beans (processing) - area (ha) 0 3601102 French and runner beans (processing) - production (kg) 0 3601201 French and runner beans (fresh market) - area (ha) 2 3601202 French and runner beans (fresh market) - production (kg) 15000 3601311 French and runner beans - total area (ha) 2 3601312 French and runner beans - total production (kg) 15000 3601501 Beetroot - area (ha) 13 3601502 Beetroot - production (t) 165 3601701 Broccoli - area (ha) 7 3601702 Broccoli - production (kg) 39640 3601801 Brussels sprouts - area (ha) 0 3601802 Brussels sprouts - production (kg) 0 3601901 Cabbages - area (ha) 27 3601902 Cabbages - production (t) 796 3601911 Brussels sprouts and cabbages - total area (ha) 27 3601912 Brussels sprouts and cabbages - total production (t) 796 3602001 Chinese cabbage (incl. bok choy and wong bok) - area (ha) 0 3602002 Chinese cabbage (incl. bok choy and wong bok) - production (kg) 600 3602101 Capsicum chillies and peppers - area (ha) 20 3602102 Capsicum chillies and peppers - production (kg) 263785 3602401 Carrots - area (ha) 2 3602402 Carrots - production (t) 2 3602701 Cauliflower - area (ha) 14 3602702 Cauliflower - production (t) 130 3602901 Celery - area (ha) 0 3602902 Celery - production (kg) 0 3603201 Cucumbers - area (ha) 0 3603202 Cucumbers - production (kg) 0 3604401 Leeks - area (ha) 18 3604402 Leeks - production (kg) 350009 3604501 Lettuce - area (ha) 4 3604502 Lettuce - production (t) 32 3604701 Marrows and squashes - area (ha) 0 3604702 Marrows and squashes - production (kg) 0 3604801 Zucchini - area (ha) 21 3604802 Zucchini - production (kg) 35707 3604911 Marrows squashes and zucchinis - area (ha) 21 3604912 Marrows squashes and zucchinis - production (kg) 35707 3605101 Melons - rock and cantaloupe - area (ha) 0 3605102 Melons - rock and cantaloupe - production (t) 0 3605201 Melons - watermelons - area (ha) 0 3605202 Melons - watermelons - production (t) 0 3605301 Melons - other - area (ha) 0 3605302 Melons - other - production (t) 0 3605801 Mushrooms - area (ha) 0 3605802 Mushrooms - production (kg) 0 3605803 Mushrooms - area (sq. metres) 0 3606001 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - area (ha) 6 3606002 Onions - spring (incl. shallots) - production (kg) 67075 3606101 Onions - white and brown - area (ha) 6 3606102 Onions - white and brown - production (t) 227 3606301 Parsley - area (ha) 6 3606302 Parsley - production (kg) 22358 3606401 Parsnips - area (ha) 0 3606402 Parsnips - production (t) 0 3606601 Peas - green (for processing) - area (ha) 0 3606602 Peas - green (for processing) - production - (shelled weight) (kg) 0 3606701 Peas - green (for fresh market) - area (ha) 0 3606702 Peas - green (for fresh market) - production (pod weight) (kg) 0 3606811 Peas - green - total area (ha) 0 3606812 Peas - green - total production (pod weight) (kg) 0 3606901 Peas - snow - area (ha) 0 3606902 Peas - snow - production (kg) 0 3607101 Pumpkins triambles & trombones - etc. - area (ha) 16 3607102 Pumpkins triambles & trombones - etc. - production (t) 215 3608001 Sweet corn - area (ha) 104 3608002 Sweet corn - production (t) 566 3608401 Tomatoes (processing) - area (ha) 1 3608402 Tomatoes (processing) - production (t) 33 3608501 Tomatoes (fresh market) - area (ha) 1 3608502 Tomatoes (fresh market) - production (t) 40 3608811 Tomatoes - total area (ha) 2 3608812 Tomatoes - total production (t) 73 3608901 Swedes - area (ha) 0 3608902 Swedes - production (t) 0 3609511 Vegetables for human consumption - total area (ha) 2863 3609701 All other vegetables for human consumption - area (ha) 103 4203901 Apricots - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4203902 Apricots - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 148 4203903 Apricots - production (fresh weight) (kg) 6183 4203915 Apricots - total trees - number (n) 148 4204301 Cherries - trees under 6 years - number (n) 249 4204302 Cherries - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 1494 4204303 Cherries - production (kg) 0 4204315 Cherries - total trees - number (n) 1743 4205501 Nectarines - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 268 4205502 Nectarines - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 302 4205503 Nectarines - production (kg) 11257 4205515 Nectarines - total trees - number (n) 570 4205701 Olives - trees under 6 years - number (n) 5319 4205702 Olives - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4205703 Olives - production (kg) 0 4205715 Olives - total trees - number (n) 5319 4206001 Peaches (processing) - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4206002 Peaches (processing) - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206003 Peaches (processing) - production (kg) 0 4206015 Peaches (processing) - total trees - number (n) 0 4206101 Peaches (fresh market) - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 128 4206102 Peaches (fresh market) - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 640 4206103 Peaches (fresh market) - production (kg) 23100 4206115 Peaches (fresh market) - total trees - number (n) 768 4206211 Peaches - trees under 6 years - number (n) 128 4206212 Peaches - 6 years and over - number (n) 640 4206213 Peaches - total production (kg) 23100 4206215 Peaches - total trees - number (n) 768 4206601 Plums - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 60 4206602 Plums - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 896 4206603 Plums - production (kg) 12958 4206615 Plums - total trees - number (n) 956 4206701 Prunes - trees under 6 years - number (n) 0 4206702 Prunes - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 0 4206703 Prunes - production (kg) 0 4206715 Prunes - total trees - number (n) 0 4206811 Total plums and prunes - trees 6 years and under - number (n) 60 4206812 Total plums and prunes - trees 6 years and over - number (n) 896 4206813 Total plums and prunes - total production (kg) 12958 4206815 Total plums and prunes - total trees - number (n) 956 4300901 Blueberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 0 4300902 Blueberries - bearing area (ha) 2 4300903 Blueberries - production (kg) 14316 4300915 Blueberries - total area (ha) 2 4301901 Raspberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 0 4301902 Raspberries - bearing area (ha) 4 4301903 Raspberries - production (kg) 3112 4301915 Raspberries - total area (ha) 4 4302201 Strawberries - not yet bearing area (ha) 27 4302202 Strawberries - bearing area (ha) 28 4302203 Strawberries - production (kg) 301272 4302215 Strawberries - total area (ha) 55
Note
This estimate has a relative standard error * between 25% and 50% and should be used with caution