Cameron Allan, Meat & Livestock Australia: Biocontrol and the end-user experience in livestock industries
CAMERON ALLAN: I'd like to present the end user perspective, from the livestock industries, on biological control of pest plants, and pest animals. And that perspective is via Meat and Livestock Australia. So MLA makes investments in R&D and marketing towards productivity, profitability, sustainability, and global competitiveness of the livestock industries. So management of pest plants and animals is one key action towards that outcome.
So one key point, just keep in mind, and touched on from what Andreas had said, pest plants and pest animals know no boundaries. This is this nil tenure approach. This is part of the challenge in management. And secondly, to the point there's no silver bullet. So the challenge is, how do we put this all together?
So firstly, we're thinking, we ought to recognise pest plants and pest animals cost the livestock industry. The former weed CRCs said weeds cost industry about 1.8 billion a year, and cost of control is on top of that. Pest animals-- rabbits, dogs, cats, foxes-- various reports put together they might add up to 1.5 million or billion a year. I think it's probably a little bit more than that.
But the key point is that there is this constant pressure from these populations on production systems. And that constant pressure is costing industry. That may be be-- it's described here. We've got decreased forage for livestock production. There's the cost associated with the control. It might be some infrastructure damage. It might be issues around animal health and welfare.
But importantly, there's impacts on the resource base, which might be loss of desirable species-- biodiversity decline, and that has implications for short and long term production. Put all of that together, there's a question around-- there may be issues with market access, continuity of supply, concerns about land degradation of the Australian livestock systems, or even methods of control. We've seen examples about toxins that are used, so we can't put livestock into certain markets.
Quick hands up, who's heard of those phrases before? "One years weeding, seven years seeding" and "they breed like rabbits." This really captures the issue. Some weed, seeds, would remain viable in the soil for two years-- up to 13 years. There's a constant pressure from the weed on production systems. And likewise, "they breed like rabbits." Andreas gave the example about this constant pressure from breeding in, and the replenishment of the population, which puts pressure on the production systems.
So putting that together, they breed, they seed. I said there's the economic challenges, but there's also, you might call, the psychological challenges. This one chap said, Cameron, we're going broke controlling it and we're going broke if we don't. So there's production, resource management, and even human welfare issues. But if we stop for a moment to think about, well, what's a conceptual model about how we deal with pest plants and animals? And it might be to consider that we have a particular population density here. We make an intervention. The populations decrease, and all things being equal, we have more desired start.
In the case of biocontrol, we have an intervention here, populations build up, and they keep pressing the population. We would see, with the case of weeds and pasture systems, that there is a more desirable pasture state, which is then replacing undesirable species to improve livestock production. And if we pick up the example of the rabbit abundance index that Andreas related to, we can see that same in action.
Mixed mitosis here. High lump numbers of rabbits. Numbers decrease. But over time, and the constant challenge from reproduction of rabbits, we see, basically, the rabbits are winning-- not withstanding the numbers that Andreas presented about the knockdown. So we make another intervention here, in the 1990s. And we see, because of immunity, the virulence decreasing, and indeed, basically, success in the drier areas, but less so in the mesic environment, where the populations can build up and then replenish the other areas. Remember? Pest animals have boundaries.
When we look from a weed point of view, onopordumilyricum, the seeds last in the soil 13 years. If we look at no control, basically we have this population of a lot of viable seeds per hectare. Where we've exerted some control, populations decreased. But I draw your attention here. Where we've ceased control, very quickly we've bounced back up. The pressure from seeding is back, putting up back onto the livestock production system, the pasture system.
So biological control does impact on pest plants and animals, and it does that by turning the table. It provides the constant challenge back onto the target. Now, the populations are dynamic. Sometimes there's good years that assist the agents. Other years it might that assist the target plant. We'll come back to this. But the biological control agent can target that underpinning source about the population or the growth, reproduction, of that population.
If we come down layer, and think, well, biocontrol assists a range of ways-- that the action can be very specific. And once those populations are built up, the impact can be sustained. But importantly, it is an adjunct to other controls, and I'll come back to that, but there is portability in the use, or the application, of that biocontrol. And by portability, it's meaning it can work where chemical controls or mechanicals can't-- on those rocky outcrops. Where those rocky outcrops might be that constant refugio for the animal, for the weed seed, to replenish and put pressure back on the management system.
So herein lies the opportunity with biocontrol. But I think the key point is this last one here, because humans are in the management process. Humans get busy. There are competing resources. This isn't just Joe Farmer, this is regulatory organisations, competition. So the human actions, or not, can then actually impact on that continuity of pressure back onto the target plant. Remember, breeding and seeding, we're saying there is a time dimension here, where we have to get it right time in, time out.
But put together, pest control is really tricky. We can think, from one point, we have insects, beetles, rusts, viruses. But we can also see that livestock producers have other tools in the toolbox, where we could exploit species difference, and the frequency and intensity of grazing by livestock, to actually help assist the beneficials-- the desirable pasture species-- to out-compete the undesirables.
But we can also see, how do we encourage competitive pastures with tactical use of fertiliser or cropping? The tactical use of herbicides, to modify the palatability of the target plant, to change grazing approach by livestock? So all we could see is in Northern Australia, the use of fire to actually address a particular issue.
So these are all tools in the toolbox, but the real challenge is, how do we put it together? And this is where, some time ago, we started talking about 3D's of weed management. About deliberation-- what have I got? What's my target? What's the issue? Through to, what are the tools I have? Because the weed control is very context specific, geographically, and the capabilities of that land manager.
The thirdly, the point is around diligence. Do it right, year in, year out. If the goal might be stop seeding, that's what you have to do, not just spray a paddock. Because it's working towards this point here, of advantaging the beneficials-- the competitive pastures, for example-- while putting pressure on the undesirables. And from a project which started in the 1990s with Paterson's curse in biocontrol, we're starting to put together the various approaches.
How do I use tactical applications of herbicide, fertiliser, grazing management, to work in concert with the biocontrol agents, so we don't end up with perverse outcomes like high density sheep grazing, and they're eating the agents that we want to be maintained, putting pressure on the Paterson's curse, in this example? The 3D's. To me, it's like a war plan. It's a game-- well, it's a war plan to think, when do I sit-in the B 52 bombers? What do they have to achieve? When do I send in the tanks? When do I send in the infantry? How do I do it in concert to apply that pressure on the target?
So first, one example. I'm picking up from Andreas around Thackaringa, David Lord and Broken Hill. The issue-- this is it. He's got records. He thinks that there's 28,000 warrens. And that example could equate to 28,000 sheep equivalents that are basically not adding to his grazing enterprise. When looking at the cost of control, ripping warrens was less than the value of the land that they were impacting on. So herein lies the challenge of saying, basically, I'm losing forage. I'm not making money. The cost is difficult.
The solution came from mixed Myxo and subsequently RHD, plus ripping warrens. They were the two key tools in his toolbox and that's the mess about integration. There's no silver bullet, remember. And the statement about Myxo saved the western division of New South Wales. And basically, through this process of biological control plus the warren ripping, we barely see a rabbit now. A huge difference over a long period of time, and that's a key message. Integrated management, and reckon that it will take time-- time and persistence.
The benefits have been stated from three generations of the family on Thackaringa. They said, there are production benefits. There are resource management benefits, and they even provide a longer list than what's put there. But there is a positive circularity, increased forage and diversity. That means there's greater infiltration of water, which actually grows more forage, which can then assist the business. And so we have removed the rabbits to this-- what's called a productive and more sustainable system in that environment.
But I draw your attention to this one line here, because this is about the portability. They said, the rangelands don't have the human resources. Remember, it's the cost of control. So biocontrol is the only solution. Same can apply in northern Australia where mechanical chemical options are quite constrained.
Second point, considering about Paterson's curse. Paterson's curse is a winter growing herb. It's a prolific seeder. Again, remember, the seeding constantly challenging production system. Those seeds can last up to five years in the soil. And so, on Peter Mills' property, the issue was having to spray almost all paddocks annually. The same outcome-- it reduced forage supply for about 25% Paterson's curse. I don't have 25% forage for lossed on production.
The approach that was put in place and started-- 1989, nearly 30 years ago-- by a control agent and now there are six agents that are acting on this particular properly. The benefits of this, the increased productivity, but now the reduced cost of control of only spraying one paddock since 2011. This is over 30 years. You can see the transition.
The key message here that's come out, is that out there, it takes time for agent populations to build up. But secondly, as I said, when there were better agents, more adapted to that environment, the impact was greater. Herein lies the challenge for science, because of the different contexts of which these various weeds express themselves-- their geographic differences. It's not one size fits all.
Second example here is around just some stipends from another producer, Tarcutta. The key message is around also with these different agents acting on different parts of the plant. So it's not just one, but something acting on the roots, something acting on the stems, or the leaves, or prevention of seeding. There's a suite of agents to put that constant pressure back on the target planet. But I'll just draw your attention to this last phrase here. Yes, there's production returns and less day-to-day management stress from having the agents. Haven't I got rid of that weed yet? It's back again. So there's this constant pressure back on the land holders. How do I deal with this? Biocontrol has a role.
I don't believe we've done a-- I'll just come back one point. We haven't got a great deal about valuation information on impacts. Former weed CRCC provided a positive benefit/cost ratio for biocontrol on a range of weeds, about 23 to 1. We've got case study examples. But this is from that Australian Honeybee Association in early last year. the issue is not about the content in the article, but I draw your attention to this, where, from Honeybees Council, where it said, previously, apiaries made a lot of honey from Paterson's curse. But over time, they said, you don't see much of it around nowadays because the biocontrol programme has been successful. It's gotten rid of a lot of Paterson's curse. So there's an anecdote to help build a wake of evidence about the broader benefit.
The third example is to think about blackberry, and nodding thistle. And here was the integration goats to address blackberry infestation and nodding thistle. Cost and ineffective control was a key driver, but importantly, this producer was quite concerned about excessive use of chemicals and also, the long term impact of that these chemicals.
So the case study area, started out of the 80 hectare block, stocked with goats and cattle, to reclaim the land. And then, basically, when the undesirable had been removed, to replace it with a desirable species-- i.e. pasture improvement. And it's this statement here, which I just think sums it up beautifully. "Turning $20,000 chemical and labour cost into a $20,000 revenue from goat sales." So there's a cost that's been turned into positive control.
Now, goats-- this moved from a pilot of goats being a key part of the broader business, where they act as a sentinel-- just a smaller number-- to make sure there is no seeding from nodding thistle, that there are no blackberry plants sprouting up and putting carbohydrate back into the reserves-- i.e. there is the constant pressure back on the target species. Key message? Replacing the removed plant with a pasture, and integrated management-- grazing and then following up with competitive species. And like the biocontrol agents, there is some management required. Remember, not a silver bullet.
So here there is some summary information, just in this case study block, and I draw your attention here where, because of goats plus cattle, we're actually running more meat production from that same area, because the animals are-- well, the goats are eating more of the forage, blackberry and nodding thistle that's grown, rather than just competing with cattle. And the benefit we've stated here of cattle plus chemical or cattle plus goats-- an $87 a hectare benefit. And that's moved from a case study plot to goats being incorproated across the farm.
This slide reinforces a point Andreas touched on about success from biocontrol agents comes with partnerships. This graphic in the centre came from a project that was started in the 1990s, where the target was around on Paterson's curse, thistles, blue heliotrope, and horehound. More than 4,000 releases were made. 1,700 producers, advisory offices, regulatory people involved in this partnership, and I think this mirrors the opportunities into the future.
And as Andreas touched on, we're turning a site, or with the calicivirus of having 16 research sites, into 600 impact sites, which actually also are research sites, because they're doing the pre-imposed monitoring. I think, into the future, we can see that model just being replicated because we are building the pipeline. We're not having this disconnect between discovery, distribution, and use of the cold face. We have all the players lined up with their specialties.
And that stuff, we've seen that with Parkinson in Northern Australia, discovering where by CSIRO working with the NRM bodies and land care and producer groups. Silverleaf NSW DPI 350 sites, with local government land care groups working three states on best management practises. And the opportunity, through funding from the Department of Agricultural and Water Resources, and there a profit programme, where this is being applied to parthenium[INAUDIBLE] as well as looking at new business models. So, in the future, it is this sort of approach, I think, which yields the benefit for everyone. It address the fragmentation, improves the coordination between these discrete work areas.
So in summary, yes, the livestock industries benefit from biological control of pest plants and pest animals. There are the production benefits, but importantly, reducing cost of production, also in the management of the natural resource base, because that has short and long term implications for the industry. As I said, the feed base is the engine room for the industry. We have to protect that.