News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Local food gobbled up by Sydney's urban sprawl 

Local food gobbled up by Sydney's urban sprawl

22 Sep, 2009 06:42 AM
FARMS in the Sydney basin produce less than 5 per cent of the food energy used by the city's residents, a leading agricultural academic has calculated.

"It's very low and it's set to get lower because the metropolitan strategy includes large population expansion in the areas currently used for food production," said Professor Bill Bellotti, who holds the Vincent Fairfax Chair in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development at the University of Western Sydney.

"The councils do value agricultural land and put in place plans to protect that land, but this is not supported at all at state level … we seem to be locked into this urban sprawl, McMansion-type development," he said.

Professor Bellotti used figures from the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation on Australians' food energy intake to estimate that 3 to 5 per cent of the produce grown on Sydney's fringe ends up in the average resident's diet.

But the NSW Government's metropolitan strategy barely acknowledged food production, allowing development to gobble up farms despite the need for sustainable agriculture to deal with climate change, he said.

Under the strategy, about half the current food production in the city's south-west and north-west, including vegetables grown in greenhouses around Liverpool and the Hawkesbury, would disappear, Professor Belotti said.

"The proportion of water devoted to food production is also declining in the competition for its urban uses. So the situation for food production is not pretty in the basin," he said.

Professor Bellotti will deliver his findings at a UWS conference on Sydney's conflict between food and land hunger on Thursday.

Very efficient supply chains set up to deliver food direct to supermarkets had broken the link between the urban consumer and rural production, leading city residents to undervalue agriculture's importance, Professor Bellotti said.

Metropolitan fringe farms kept urbanites in touch with the produce of the soil and were environmentally important because they used recycled water and the city's green waste which can be converted into mulch and compost, he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
A very good reason for stopping immigration right now!
Posted by tigerdicky, 22/09/2009 9:58:00 AM, on The Land
Actually dicky (an appropriate name really) a higher proportion of immigrants live in higher density housing than your friends who love McMansions. That aside, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by these stats. Around 5 million people, with the bulk of agriculture well outside the city fringes, 5% almost seems high!
Posted by Alternative View, 23/09/2009 8:58:39 AM, on The Land
It's not urban sprawl so much as developer greed made possible by political compliance made possilbe by millions of dollars of developer donations. Here are a few facts and figures: Agriculture in the Hawkesbury Nepean Basin is worth $1billion to NSW each year. This figure grows to $4billion annually when you add the indirect income generated from Sydney agriculture.

Taking up just 2.5 per cent of the state’s land, Sydney farms produce: • 15 per cent of NSW’s agricultural produce • 20 per cent of the state’s vegetables • 100 per cent of leafy greens – including the Asian vegetables we love to eat • 48 per cent per cent of its poultry. • 100 per cent of its mushrooms.

And Sydney’s farmers are not just productive, they’re efficient: • The average return per hectare from Sydney farmland is $5433 per hectare • Across the rest of NSW, it’s just $136 per hectare. In fact, the river flats of the Hawkesbury Nepean Basin are among the best and most fertile farmland in Australia. And we're covering it up with concrete and asphalt. Makes a lot of sense.

Posted by john Newton, 23/09/2009 9:56:45 AM, on The Land
Alternative view, the bulk of agriculture may be well outside the city fringes. However the bulk of highly fertile land, hence the potentially most productive land, is being consumed by the cities themselves. These urban-fringe producers have the opportunity to access "water and the city's green waste which can be converted into mulch and compost", which the bulk of agriculture prays for it to fall from the sky. And it is these urban-fringe producers who provide you, Alternative View, with a little colour to your dinner plate and salad, i.e. the majority of your vegies and greens.
Posted by Builid Up Not Out, 23/09/2009 10:04:30 AM, on The Land
Alternative view, Richard to you!
Posted by tigerdicky, 23/09/2009 4:53:31 PM, on The Land
The attempts to protect valuable agricultural land by planning instruments is bound to fail. If we want agriculture in the marginal lands adjacent to our cities, then we have to be prepared to pay the prices which are necessary to make it viable. The dairy industry is a classic example of how location factors have changed making small scale market orientated dairies marginal enterprises. Why should the consumer pay the prices necessary to maintain industries that have had there day? Why should investment funds be wasted on marginal enterprises?
Posted by Barney, 23/09/2009 11:41:02 PM, on The Land
Built Up ... no dispute there, and I was not arguing about the productivity of the land (or the merits/otherwise of building suburbs on good ag land). My key intent was that dicky's comment was ridiculous, and the weight of city population almost dictates the result. Re the stats, we don't just eat greens (as nice as they are). I haven't seen any wheat/barley/other broadacre plantations when I drive through the outskirts of Sydney, and fruit orchards are, in most cases, not on the outskirts either. There is some livestock around the place, but nowhere near enough to feed our high meat society.
Posted by Alternative View, 24/09/2009 9:34:51 AM, on The Land
Alternative View, I don't know what planet you're living on - maybe Tasmania - the reason that you don't see the type of agriculture that is mentioned is that this prime agricultural land has been carved up for residential purposes to satisfy high immigration!
Posted by tigerdicky, 24/09/2009 1:07:01 PM, on The Land
It seems you have not comprehended my very first post dick. But I can't explain it more simply so will simply leave it for you to ask someone else. Over and out.
Posted by Alternative View, 25/09/2009 9:16:14 AM, on The Land

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.

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



The Land







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...