News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Cattle Council wary of WWF plan for green beef 

Cattle Council wary of WWF plan for green beef

12 Jun, 2009 03:33 PM
Cattle Council of Australia has cautiously welcomed the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) plans to recognise producers who supply beef in an environmentally friendly way.

The WWF is suggesting a supply system that enables consumers to choose ‘greener’ products.

"Australian beef producers are stewards of our land and they have been producing sustainable beef in an environmentally friendly way for generations," Greg Brown, president of the Cattle Council of Australia, says.

"As an industry that produces around 2.2 million tonnes of beef and veal a year and the world’s second largest exporter of beef, we recognise the need to manage the land we own in a sustainable way.

"If the WWF is proposing a wider choice of beef for consumers without wanting to impose a rigid one-size-fits all categorization then we’d consider supporting it.

"We still need to see the detail of the proposal first before any endorsement is given."

Beef producers manage 43 per cent of Australia’s total landmass and Australia is one of the world’s most efficient producers of cattle.

The global population is estimated to reach 9 billion people in 2050 placing increasing pressure on agriculture world-wide.

"Our society is concerned about feeding the world’s population sustainably," Mr Brown said.

"We must increase awareness among consumers of the Australian beef industry’s value in producing quality food that utilises sustainable production systems managed by astute farmers."

But AgForce Cattle president Grant Maudsley took a harder line, saying comments by the World Wildlife Fund’s Nick Heath demonstrate a lack of knowledge and credibility about the environmental integrity already built into Queensland’s rangelands beef production systems.

Beef producers are world leaders in developing environmental, animal welfare and eating quality standards for their food products and do not need claims of leadership from non-farming extreme green groups, Mr Maudsley said.

"Nick Heath needs to catch up," Mr Maudsley says.

"AgForce won’t condone bad land managers, but Queensland beef producers already grow environmentally sustainable, natural food products and have been for many decades using ecosystem management practices that foster sustainability and biodiversity because – guess what – we want to be around producing food for many generations to come."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Note to subeditor: There is a difference between a "cautious welcome" and being "wary".
Posted by spottedquoll, 14/06/2009 6:30:44 AM
Doth WWF do this out of the goodness of their collective heart? Maybe we beef producers could bankroll them in their efforts to put us out of business by suporting their scheme.
Posted by Cynic, 14/06/2009 5:03:40 PM
Mr Maudsley is so very right in what he says. It is time for ALL food producers to stand up to these people, we must stand united and make the public realise that we already do, and have done for years, all these things they are demanding. If they continue to force prescriptive farming regulations onto us there will be a food shortage. Contrary to common opinion there is very little profit in most food production and these imposts must stop or we will simply close down. Time for farmers to join the relevant organisation for their industry and start to defend ourselves and fight back.
Posted by Concerned Northerner, 15/06/2009 5:00:26 AM
Never smile at a crocodile.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 15/06/2009 5:50:53 AM
Having lived in Qld for a number of years - & worked in agriculture - well this is a load of rot re Qld beef producers being environmentally sustainable! Maybe some are - but I'd reckon they're in a minority!
Posted by bs, 15/06/2009 6:59:36 AM
If the ag and beef sector is doing so good environmentally then they need to sack thier marketing managers because it is not the message we get.
Posted by the lorax, 15/06/2009 7:51:17 AM
Survival in Business Rule 1. Never, ever, enter into partnership with spivs. Rule 2. Never, ever, allow spivs to set quality standards for your product.

The WWF can only further their aims by defaming someone. They can only gain credence to their position if farmers accept their perverted perceptions. That is, their reputation can only be improved at the expense of farmers' reputation. Tell them to get their ignorant metrocentric brains up to speed or go to the far queue.

The essence of any sort of quality standard is an unswerving dedication to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The WWF has spent two decades dishing out the spin, their own spin, and nothing but the spin.

Posted by Ian Mott, 15/06/2009 7:51:29 AM
What the hell is any agricultural group doing even recognising a green extremist group like WWF? You don't have to scratch very far under their skin to find their real green agenda & that is the removal of all livestock from the landscape. Google Prof Barry Brook from Adelaide Uni to see what I mean. There are green groups & there are green groups. There are many good, constructive, co-operative groups out there promoting sustainable agriculture, but WWF is NOT one of them. As a multi-national extremist group they are very good at strategic manoeuvring & will make Cattle Council look silly in the long run, in the same way PETA now effectively control the wool industry. By all means continue with the development & promotion of sustainable agriculture, but DO NOT even recognise WWF as a player in the industry or we invite trouble in the extreme.
Posted by Trev, 15/06/2009 8:48:16 AM
Maybe the Cattle Council is feeling lonely up there in their government funded (from original levies) offices. Maybe a lot of cattle producers don't like the exorbitant levies achieving nothing except more bureaucratic positions creating spin about how good cattle prices are. So maybe it makes sense that Cattle Council want to get into bed with somebody, anybody; even the WWF is better than a cold bed without company. Well it might seem that way initially.
Posted by John Michelmore, 15/06/2009 11:36:34 AM
The feedback comments to this article show what's wrong with agriculture and how difficult it will be to achieve change! Firstly, our industry leaders have stood tall and proud and proclaimed our environmental credentials so often that we actually believe our own spin. Sorry folks, most agriculture is not clean, green or sustainable (however you measure that) - far from it! If you want an example, think about the amount of erosion after heavy rain, dust storms or the continual decline in soil organic matter. Further, those farmers trying to do the right thing have no real way to show that they truly are environmentally friendly. ISO 14001 is about the only recognised way at this point, so a user friendly verifiable way to push our credentials would be a good step forward. I have done work in co-operation with WWF over several years (I don't work for them or belong) and have found them most moderate, rational and constructive.

We can't just keep spreading spin. We need to be able to put up evidence. A marketing incentive scheme linked to environmental sustainability is the holy grail but very hard to implement. Anyone looking to help to achieve this should be encouraged. The usual environmentalist bashing will not help!

Posted by NSW Mark, 15/06/2009 12:37:48 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Greg Brown: It’s important consumers recognise, nurture and value the Australian people and systems producing food if Australia is to continue to feed ourselves and others in a sustainable way.
Greg Brown: "It’s important consumers recognise, nurture and value the Australian people and systems producing food if Australia is to continue to feed ourselves and others in a sustainable way."
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
08 June, 2009
11 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Senate reject the federal Government's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation?

Yes, reject it: the Senate should vote against the legislation passed last week by the House of Representatives.
(62.7%)

No, vote for it: the legislation should be passed by the Senate.
(11.6%)

Postpone it: Senate should wait till after Copenhagen Summit.
(25.7%)

Total Votes: 723
Poll Date: 08 June, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...