Cattle Council of Australia president Markus Rathsmann.
CCA President Markus Rathsmann said Australia’s pathway to meet its climate targets were a once in a generation opportunity to make beef part of the wider climate solution.
“The beef industry has stewardship over nearly 80 percent of Australia’s farmland – this will be vital in any climate solution,” Mr Rathsmann said.
“A successful pathway to our climate targets will be one beef producers want to engage in.
“We’ve already cut our emissions in half and are progressing a plan to reach net-zero by 2030.
“Any producer involvement must be voluntary – we can’t be forced to carry the burden again.
“If cattle producers aren’t given a choice, then the government’s policies would have failed.
“Also, cattle are part of a natural cycle and don’t put more carbon in the atmosphere as fossil fuels do.
“Climate policy presents too many opportunities for the beef industry, to get this wrong.
CCA Independent Director Olivia Lawson said the cattle industry had the know-how to improve environmental outcomes while boosting productivity.
“Seaweed feed additives can boost beef production by 20% while cutting emissions by 96 percent, Ms Lawson said.
“Soils can capture carbon, while improving pastures, and boost the number of cattle we can run.
“Smart vegetation management can create shelter for our animals and improve weaning rates.
“We need the right climate policy framework, so these initiatives benefit both producers and the environment.
“70 percent of Australian beef is exported and we can’t afford to fall out of step with our international competitors and investors.
“The Australian beef industry underpins more regional communities than any other business. The future of regional Australia depends on a constructive dialogue between government and the beef industry.”
Source: Cattle Council of Australia. More information: www.cattlecouncil.com.au/sustainability
The circumstances which prevail in relation to Australia’s climate targets presenting “significant opportunities for beef producers” are, in principle, not dissimilar to those which prevailed prior to the introduction of the NLIS. Then, the larger operators, willingly or otherwise, accepted the scheme and just got on with it because they could afford to. They wanted to be able to access any benefit the scheme provided. Not so the smaller operators, who pleaded unsuccessfully for an extension of time to purchase the technology and modify their infrastructure. Basically, the smaller operators didn’t get much of a hearing. Please, let us not repeat the process.