Natural Sequence Farming (NSF) is a rural landscape management technique aimed at restoring natural water cycles that allow the land to flourish despite drought conditions. NSF offers a low-cost, widely applicable method of reducing drought severity and boosting productivity on Australia's farms and landscapes. The technique is based on ecological principles, low input requirements and natural cycling of water and nutrients to make the land more resilient.

To find out more about Peter Andrews, Natural Sequence Farming principles and the efforts to bring Peter's techniques into mainstream use in Australia.

Over 30 years ago Peter, bought a run-down 2000 acre grazing property called Tarwyn Park, near Bylong in the Upper Hunter Valley. He then quietly set about testing the theories that he had been developing virtually ever since he was a child, growing up on a station near Broken Hill. By 1976 Peter Andrews claimed that the model he had set up on Tarwyn Park was an example of a sustainable agricultural system.

Peter had recognized that the incised nature of most streams in Australia was in fact accelerating the fertility decline of agricultural landscapes (Figure 1). Stream incision meant that the increasing erosive energy of water was leading to accelerated soil and nutrient loss, lowered capacity for the floodplain to hold water and a loss of wetland habitat within that valley. Stream incision had in fact lead to a total disruption of the natural fertility cycle, leading to a chronic decline the overall health of the landscape. He also observed that, under natural conditions, the interaction between fluvial and biological processes would combine to maximise the efficiency of nutrient and water use as well as carbon cycling. He argued that this would actually lead to a growing of that landscape as sedimentation would far exceed erosion and carbon sequestration would far exceed carbon loss. Find out more of the story in 'Back from the Brink' available at most bookstores.

The penny is finally starting to drop for both those on the land and apparently many scientists working on soil health - pasture cropping works, and it has some remarkable effects, both for farm profits and farm health. I cannot begin to explain how excited I find this whole approach and have put a lot of my heart and soul behind promoting it - there are so so many benefits and few, if any, real negatives. It is true that it may take a season or two to get a perceived turn around, but while things are changing you can still remain productive.

There are many pasture cropping events in the pipeline for next year hosted by the pioneer of pasture cropping - Colin Seis. I will provide details and updates as they come to hand in the FTSU Newsletters .

In the meantime RCS have just launched their new 3-day program - Pasture Cropping for Profit, which is set to revolutionise cropping much as Grazing for Profit has done for grazing. Course dates can be found in the Calendar of Events .

Polyface Farm

Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm in the US is a wonderful example of a biological farmer who has written a few books outlining his approach, both from an on farm practical guide and a powerful marketing perspective. I strongly recommend his books : You Can Farm , Salad Bar Beef and Pasture Poultry Profits for both small and large scale growers (his personal list of recommended reading is also worth looking at!). There are some very thought provoking fundamental ideas scattered throughout. His enthusiasm for farming and its future is very invigorating and has been known to have changed the perspective of many farmers, both here and overseas - ever heard of the chicken tractor?

One of his latest articles published in Acres USA - entitled Forgiveness Farming - is well worth reading. Download here:  Forgiveness Farming 22/11/2006,11:58 235.91 Kb

1st March 2010 - email feedback

BAA Members James and Maxine Blackburn have written about how Demeter International's trade marking of the word 'biodynamic' in Europe has affected biodynamic farmers in France, Italy and Ireland:

"The year before last, we spent a week each in France, Italy, England and Ireland. We made contact in each country with Biodynamic farmers or marketers, and in the case of Italy, were able to meet with the Vice President of Biodynamics Italy, and in Ireland with the head of what is left of the Biodynamic movement there.

Demeter appeared to be only of advantage to the large operators, farmers and producers , and their registration fees and charges are massive. In Ireland, this had virtually destroyed the biodynamic movement, since most Irish BD farmers have small acreages and production, and when BD Ireland decided to join Demeter the BD producers could not afford these fees and opted to give up the BD title, and move to being Organic. There were then only 4 individuals who still called themselves Biodynamic. Thus aligning themselves with Demeter virtually destroyed Irish Biodynamics. Even the President, who told us this had scaled down his operation to a token output and bought a fishing trawler.

We believe the same would happen here since the BD farmers we know would likely not be able to afford the $8,000 annual fees. Should we also be stopped from calling ourselves Biodynamic, then BD in Australia would be no more. Ulli Spranz and Ross McDonald both have a large commercial output, and would likely benefit from being able to market under the Demeter label, especially if they have plans to export, but their gain would possibly destroy most BD producers, the members of BAA, whose interests they are meant to be fostering. They, and their supporters on the Board, cannot be allowed to remain in control of BAA."

Counter Arguments

Some counter arguments to holding the EGM have begun to circulate. Below are some comments about them.

1) Since the last AGM with Ulli Spranz in the chair, board members have had to sign a 'Statement of Committment for Nominees and Directors' and a 'Statement of Disclosure' to the BAA Constitution and the 2001 Corporations Act, but in practice pledging allegiance and confidentiality to the board. This has puzzled certain board members both current and past, as their allegience is with the membership, especially when from time to time there alledgedly have been allusions to breach of confidentiality and liability for damages. But is it damaging to BAA members to be aware of what the BAA board is doing? As confirmed on various occasions by ASIC, not-for-profit entities are run by members for members. In contrast, for-profit entities are run by their boards where commerical in-confidence issues are often necessary.

2) Hugh Lovel is not responsible for calling this EGM and will certainly not chair it as alleged. This EGM has been called by a group of concerned members, of which Hugh happens to be one.
Additionally every effort will be made to ensure all members are contacted and allowed to vote if elibible in regard to this EGM.

3) Ordinary members are legally and constitutionally permitted to hold their own EGM, separate from the BAA board and office. The rules are outlined in the BAA constitution link below. Concerned members decided to take this route because of the escalating intimidation coming from both the board and the BAA office. It does mean that this process has to be wholly funded by these concerned members - no BAA monies are being used.

4) BAA was never established to take on any certification role - it is a teaching and support body for biodynamics. The door is open to compromise when one organisation teaches and certifies farmers. BFA realised this too and separated their certifying activities to a separate body to avoid any possible conflict. 

5) We have been refused access to BAA’s current member database, despite Section 173 of the Corporations Act allowing members a copy of an organisation’s Register of Members providing it is for a legitimate reason that is not for commercial purposes, ie advertising. We have requested an up-to-date Register on numerous occasions via post, phone and person since January without success, and despite a recent warning letter from ASIC to BAA for not supplying the Register. We have a list believed to be current at June 2009, which we have used. Unfortunately this means that some new members will miss out receiving a postal vote. To this end we will also use the media to alert any likely ‘missing’ members that they also have the right to vote in this EGM. We are confident that using these measures we will be notifying all members as best as possible under the circumstances.

6) Ulli Spranz was a founding director of BCA (Biodynamic Certification Australia) and is still a director and she has signed for BCA on every ASIC form to date.  

7) Demeter USA has applied to trademark the word 'biodynamic' in Australia, as they hold this trademark in the US. They are a member/affiliate of Demeter International, which implies a close connection between the two. Demeter International has made their intentions clear on their website. (see Trademark link below or visit the website. If you need help searching Trademark application No. 1207719, follow these instructions). 

8) It was contended that the reason the word 'biodynamic' had to be trademarked was to protect its use from companies like Monsanto - this argument was used successfully in the US in 2000 (read about the consequences of that for US biodynamic growers below) and was gaining traction in Australia. The argument has now shifted to claiming that it will protect biodynamic growers from Chinese exploitation. Apart from creating ownership and profits for an elite few in Germany, does granting Demeter International exclusive oversight of biodynamic certification in Australia for anyone marketing farm products as biodynamic really protect anyone from anything? In the US many biodynamic practitioners now simply do not/can not mention 'biodynamic'. Is this what we want for our membership?

9) It is claimed that without Demeter International standards Australian produce will find it difficult to access European markets. This may be true in some cases. The real question, however, is it appropriate for BAA to be acting in such a commercial matter, whose mission is education and support for biodynamic growers? Or should it be a consideration for an independent certifying entity, such as BCA, for which its very purpose of formation was to certify?

Clarification of Domestic Certfication Status

The Australian National Biodynamic and Organic Standards are only for export at present.(although we use them as domestic standards) - but we have nothing legally domestic for imports to be assessed against.

These new standards being developed with Standards Australia will be a legal standard for domestic certification  which means that any Organic or Biodynamic Standards coming into Australia  must comply with these standards.
 
Until these domestic standards are approved, we have to accept whatever comes in organically/biodynamically. If Australian certified farmers want to export to USA or Japan or EU they have to pass their standards - NOSP, JANZ etc.

If the Demeter Standards are accepted here for our domestic biodynamic standards then only Demeter certified Biodynamic foods and produce will be allowed into Australia as Biodynamic. No other form of Biodynamic produce will be allowed in. (I dont know that we get that much anyway) - but if BD growers are turning away from Demeter for certification, then all overseas Biodynamic produce would come in under organic certification and we would not be aware that it was grown biodynamically.

Updates as of 15th February 2010

A group of concerned members spent a day working on the legalities of pulling an EGM (extraordinary general meeting) together. These members are committing their own resources to make this happen, which includes sending postal votes out to ALL BAA members via post. Only current members can vote, and worryingly, we have discovered that many members have not be notified of lapsed memberships, so we would like to urge all of you to check your membership status and renew if it has lasped so that you can vote on this important issue. Note: Newsleaf subscribers only are not members, so cannot vote.

The resolution being put forward to vote on is to remove Ulli Spranz, Anton Van Klopper, Ross McDonald and Julian Castagna as board member of Biodynamic Agriculture Australia, Ltd. (BAA); and to replace them by the following candidates for the BAA board: John Priestley, Cheryl Kemp, Ray Unger, Carolyn Ditchfield and Brett Sanders. The reasons for proposing this, and the intention of the new board are included in the post out.

IF YOU HAVE NOT RECIEVED YOUR POSTAL VOTE IN THE MAIL BY THE END OF FEBRUARY - PLEASE PLEASE EMAIL  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Contact was made with ASIC regarding what can and can't be done by members. Apparently members do have the right to access the membership database, but despite repeated requests over the last month or so, we have been told in no uncertain terms that the request will not be acted on - we are therefore restricted to only using an old database list to send out postal votes. If you know of other members that may be unaware of these issues, please spread the word. We need as many votes in as possible!

A day after the meeting of concerned BAA members, a group went to the Bellingen offices to request the membership database once again, in person. Again the request was declined, and a harassment form was lodged by the BAA manager against Hugh Lovel, John Priestley, Dorothy Priestley, Shabari Bird and Brett Sanders (a response that has occurred on numerous occaisons against other members turning up at the BAA offices). It appears that the BAA offices are off limits to members! (Copies of previous written requests for the database can be emailed through to you).

A board meeting was held last Saturday where Hugh Lovel requested the use of a voice recorder as past Minutes have not be recorded correctly and he wanted security that all information would be recorded correctly. It caused a lot of consternation amongst the other board members and he was requested not to.

The first agenda item was the harassment notice from the BAA manager - at that point Hugh Lovel was ejected from the board meeting and has been suspended from future board meetings (and left to his own devices as to how to get back to the airport etc). Before removal though, Hugh and Shane were grilled over their signatures on the letter to the Standards Committee (see link to a copy below).

Soon afterwards Shane Joyce excused himself from the meeting stating that he would reflect on and consider his position. He found the environment far too hostile to contemplate spending the remainder of that Saturday and Sunday there.

Postal votes are being mailed out this week - PLEASE PLACE YOUR VOTE AND SEND IT BACK ASAP.

Other Pending Concerns

The current BAA board are taking steps towards attaining Demeter International Certification. It should be noted that 1) A biodynamic certification system has already been established in Australia that is up and running and accessible by all BAA members, 2) Demeter International certification requires more ‘purist’ biodynamic practices – innovations like broadcasters, homeopathies, altered spraying times etc will not be tolerated, and 3) the cost of certifying through this organisation is relatively onerous at 2% of nett income, and value-adding of that product incurrs another 2%, and if a distributor is used another 2% is charged. This is all on top of existing local/national certification fees. (One recent European biodynamic practitioner visitor to Australia said that his DI dues to use the biodynamic demeter labelling was EU8000 per year for his 30 acre farm!!).

Demeter International (for which Demeter USA is a subsidiary) are also pushing to have the word 'biodynamic' trademarked despite it being a generic word used for over 80 years. Demeter USA has managed to trademark it with grave consequences for many existing biodynamic practitioners, and now there is a move to get Australia to do the same. Exclusive commercial ownership over such a word is repugnant to many members, yet the current Board is moving towards owning such a tradmark. (By the way, perhaps coincidently, it was immediately after Hamish Mackay stood up against this that he was ousted by the Board). 

Even BAA educational programs would require adjustments to reflect these 'stricter' Demeter requirements Note: that is already taking effect under the guise of an updated Resource Manual, which is touted to become the sole basis for all biodynamic educational programs (Is this really an update or re-alignment with Demeter values in advance? Are these guidelines or rules?) Sharing innovative ideas are likely to be suppressed within the organisation.

In the latest NewsLeaf, the Chair indicated that BAA would be joining Demeter International soon (to date BAA has only been loosely aligned as a guest member) – yet this issue has not been discussed or voted on by BAA members. Joining Demeter will involve hefty annual fees, and will likely only benefit those who have commercial value-added enterprises wishing to access European markets. (Co-incidentally a majority of BAA Board members just happen to be in that position).

Perhaps a more appropriate avenue for such activities would be through BCA (Biodynamic Certification Australia) where the interests of that organisation’s members could best be served by such a move.

Note: BCA is in not ‘part of’ nor a ‘sister’ organisation to BAA (as suggested in the latest NewsLeaf). It is a separate legal entity. Interestingly, at the moment both Boards are served by three of the same individuals, which could be construed as a conflict of interest – particularly on this issue. To date BCA have no working capital. The Chair (who is Chair on both Boards) has already used BAA money to finance BAA's guest membership with Demeter International, so this idea may not be so radical as it may at first seem.

A letter of complaint has been recently sent to the Australian Standards Committee outlining many concerns. Please feel free to pen your own letter (BAA member or not) to the Standards Committee complaints and feedback section - you are welcomed to even rephrase the letter used above.

Some Public Documents of Interest

Letter to Standards Committee 17th February 2010

Final Request to BAA Office for Member Database

Trademark History

Trademark Details

BCA Appointment of Directors

BCA Financial Statement 2009

BCA Registration of Company 2007

BCA Constitution

Minimum Till Conversion Pros and Cons Workshop and Field Day

The Gineroi Landcare Group with Border Rivers-Gwydir CMA, Upper Gwydir Landcare Association and the NSW Farmers Association  are organising an important workshop and field trip addressing the conversion of traditional machinery for minimum tillage operations.

The event will be held at the Bingara RSL Club, 7th December starting at 9am. Lunch and drinks provided, though a $5 donation for the Gineroi Landcare Group is encouraged. 

Farm Sector May Get a Spot on Carbon Taskforce

27th November 2006 

The National Carbon Forum held recently in Canberra has finally stirred up some political interest with a push to include a representative from the farm sector onto the newly announced 'Carbon Taskforce' - see details... Windsor Nov07 05/12/2006,12:35 56.90 Kb

Biofuels

There has been a sudden flurry of activity surrounding the topic of biofuels - biodiesels and ethanol. Only 6-12 months ago it was difficult to find any information anywhere on the topic, except some 'how to' sites on the internet (a good one referred to by some local on farm producers is the Journey to Forever site). I have been forwarded 2 recent articles below and will continue to spot post other articles that may be of interest as the industry evolves.