Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 3:26:36 to 3:30:44
Discussion on the potential for seaweed-based ruminant feeds to reduce emissions and increase productivity, and frustration over the lack of prioritization for assessment by the government.
Topics: Agricultural research and levies, Emissions reduction, Agricultural productivity
Speakers: Speaker 8, Speaker 12, Speaker 3
on that. >> Yeah, look, I just I just want to reinforce what Senator McDonald's saying. I was meeting with some proponents uh with respect to ruminant feeds um just a few weeks ago. >> Uh they are likewise very frustrated that they're being told you're not being prioritized. >> Yeah. >> And so you tell us that this is important. We're being told it's important. Government policy saying we've got to do this. And uh I've got a letter in front of me saying that um this has not been prioritized by the assistant minister for method development. I mean so and we start banging up against time frames to get things done and we haven't started yet. And so the conversation I was having with um the proponent for the seaweed product that >> um has um had some pretty good results with respect to reductions in um in emissions but also increases in productivity. So there's two sides to this coin. Um uh and the and the possibility of a split assessment much easier to measure in a feed lot. >> Yeah. >> Circumstance. >> Yeah. >> Versus rangeands which is I know what Senator McDonald's talking about. But the opportunity to get a split assessment done get this product into the market. Um and if the testing numbers that are being uh suggested where you're talking about a 6% increase in productivity along with the reduction in emissions because the the methane that was being emitted is going into productivity of the animal. So you're getting a twofold that's probably going to drive the change as much as the emissions reduction. So you're going to get a dual benefit. But we can't even get through the door. >> And so when you're meeting with Iraq in a week or so, can I ask from us, but also from those proponents who are out there with what I think or what seem to be very good solutions to to these problems. Can we at least get them on on the consideration list? Because at the moment they're not. And I think that's seriously pro problematic uh in terms of where we go with this. We had a conversation a couple of estimates ago about um the native forest industry and its role in carbon uptake. U the officials from Abears quite rightly said we send all this stuff across to the department of environment who ignore us. >> Um we it seems we're getting exactly the same treatment here. Does anybody listen to us in this portfolio would be my question because we keep on getting fobbed off. >> And um it's not as if the industry is not wanting to play its part. They're here. There's products sitting there waiting to be assessed and we can't even get on
the list. >> Certainly certainly will be something that um we look to discuss and and those feed additives. Um I think there's there's some really good um science um I guess endorsing those emission reductions >> but we can't get it assessed >> and and >> it's not prioritized >> and I'd defer to colleagues but obviously um the the arrangement is proponentled as well. So it um it requires a proponent to put it forward
>> but they're banging on the door. They they want it they they're saying letters in and the letters coming back saying you're not prioritized
>> senators if it helps I'm you know obviously new kid on the block but um very happy to to raise this with my environment colleagues as well just to see what the reasoning is behind it and as Mr. Lo said he'll raise it with Iraq but um yeah I've very clearly heard heard your concerns.