Any investment manager will tell an investor to spread risks, to have a diverse portfolio, to engage with many sectors of the local economy, to invest in other parts of the globe, to hedge your bets, a mix of shares, real estate and cash – we have all heard this advice. And for the most part we agree with it and do our best to abide by it. Yet we do not take the same approach to our own sustenance. Unlike the savvy investor, humans have an unparalleled reliance upon just a few forms of cereal grains. This is of concern given that grains provide the bulk of nutrition to almost all of the world’s billions of people.
Seeing the limits of the current system
Before exploring where new value might lie, it is important to understand where the threat to value lies in the current system. Now in most parts of the world we mostly rely on only eight or so species of plants for grains. Given their pervasive nature they are easy to name quickly: wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, oats, barley, rye, and millet. There are a few others that are consumed in smaller quantities, but overall we have a very heavy reliance on this small number of species. Our investment adviser would be telling us that this is too narrow a portfolio and that we should be broadening it to spread risks.
The other notable fact about this short list is that most, if not all, are annual plants. These plants do not persist for more than one season, for the most part remove rather than add carbon to the soil and, as they die each year, they leave the soils free of living green matter. This lack of living matter means that they are unable to absorb rainfall if it falls at that time.
Altogether there are too many eggs in the one basket of annual cereals as the principal source of foods for the world’s billions. These plants require significant investment in terms of time and money. It starts with annual resowing, with all the risks of failure and high costs involved. Repeated cultivation has been shown to remove soil organic matter and so reduce the ability of the soil to host beneficial microflora, to absorb water, to be soft underfoot (remember soft soils? They are a thing of the past in much of Australia), to retain nutrients and to smell and feel good. Anyone digging up soil on dedicated cereal cropping farms in most parts of Australia will, apart from deciding that they need a crow bar to get into the soil, notice the absence of worms and that lack of strong earthy smell. Surely this is not a system that offers the long term benefits that come from healthy soil.
Production of these crops not only strips the soil of essential nutrients that must be replaced or else production will fall, but it also requires the use of selective herbicides to remove weeds. Many of those same weeds are now developing resistance to those chemicals. This implies a need to either use higher doses of the same chemical or change to another chemical and start all over again. In short, total reliance upon annual crops is a one-way street to oblivion. It is a system that can produce grain, but does so at the expense of the soil and of the environment.

Risky business
Significant risks are found at many stages throughout the growth of the crop. At sowing time inadequate rainfall can reduce stand density and may indeed dictate a repeat sowing. During the growth stage again inadequate rainfall might not allow sufficient plant growth to stimulate reproductive stem formation. Finally at harvest time too much rainfall, ironically, can ruin the crop.
It is also a system reliant upon petroleum for fuel to sow, harvest and manage, for fertilizers to promote growth, for herbicides to control weeds and for insecticides to reduce pests. In a world where crude oil will never be cheap again, and along with that other inputs such as fertilizers, growers of annual crops are continually seeing their costs of production increasing. Perhaps breaking the link between expensive oil and grain production should be at the forefront of 21st century practice?
Seeing new options through history’s lens
What we need to do is to look around at other systems and see if they can be used. In Australia we have stunning examples of very long-term grain-food production that had no degrading impact on the environment, that did not require expensive fertilizers or pesticides, and grew without the need for irrigation water to be diverted from river systems. These long term cereal production systems were a feature of Aboriginal-Australian farming systems for thousands of years.

It is not well known that Australian Aborigines used our perennial grasses as grain sources each year for food, usually in the form of a damper, and had well-established methods of production. The region where this was best known was called the Panara by early European anthropologists and extended in a large swathe from the Flinders Range through western New South Wales, north through central and western Queensland, straight through the Northern Territory into the Kimberley and then south into the northern wheat production areas of Western Australia. In the shape of a donut with a bite removed covering the Great Australian Bight, this area covered more than one quarter of the total landmass of Australia. In this huge area Aboriginal Australians kept themselves fed with grains from our perennial grasses and supplemented that basic diet with other bush foods.
The existence of this managed grain production system was novel to the early European explorers, like Sir Thomas Mitchell, who wrote: ”In the neighbourhood of our camp the grass had been pulled to a very great extent, and piled in hay-ricks … extending for miles … (that) had evidently been thus laid up by the natives, but for what purpose we could not imagine”. It took later botanists and anthropologists to determine that the Aborigines had been using these ricks (windrows) to ripen the seed, which was then collected, cleaned, stored, and used to make a bread-like damper.
So why do we not look to use the same sort of system for grain production now? Maybe Australian cereal breeders should become more aware of Australian native grasses and the existence of the Panara. Sure, we are not in a shifting hunter-gatherer society any longer, and I am not suggesting we revert to those practices. Rather, I am suggesting that we look at the species that were used by those clever societies and see if they can be adapted to form part of a new production methodology that is more sympathetic with the realities of Australia, and indeed the globe, in the 21st Century.

A new production system using perennial grasses
We need to be looking at perennial grasses for our new grain types, not annuals. As it happens, Australia has many suitable grain-production candidates amongst its perennial grasses. It is not the purpose of this essay to discuss the merits of each of the candidates, rather to encourage people to think more broadly about their choice of species and then to look closely at some of the Australian native options and opportunities.
But what would a new production system look like? There are many different models and they will vary from region to region, but I suspect they will have several consistent features. They will be perennial, they will match the rainfall zone and be permanent and persistent pastures in each zone, they will be palatable to domestic stock, they will be harvestable for grain using conventional equipment, and they will have grains that are easy to thresh.
Can you imagine a permanent pasture that also produces a grain crop in those years when the rainfall amount and timing permits? It would also be the pasture that is able to survive the drought that will inevitably occur without the need to resow once the drought breaks. In another area with another grass pasture and crop, it will be the permanent pasture that grows vigorously under the trees, that produces a grain crop at the end of the wet season but still does not compete for moisture during the dry months. It would be a new world of true dual-purpose crops – where farmers have the options to simply graze a paddock or alternatively to graze it for a shorter period and then to let it run up a grain crop. This is a perennial grain-cropping system as it was used in the long-time past but which is still there for the discovery if we are wise enough to look.
Time to think, time to act

This is a low-risk, low-cost system that is sadly not known to most plant breeders. What is horribly clear however is that continuing to invest in breeding of the existing cereal species looking for a variety that might be slightly more drought tolerant means continuing to favour a system that degrades our soils and environment. Is it not time to rethink? Why not be active and systematically collect potential crop plants from around Australia? Why not go to marginal environments and find those native grasses that grow there already to see if they can be adopted for use in modern farming? Why not broaden the thinking of the plant breeders and give them opportunities to be creative in their species selection? It would be to the good of us all.
Comments welcome below.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
“We need to be looking at perennial grasses for our new grain types, not annuals.”
I think this is an excellent idea worth progressing.
trevor prowse
retired farmer
Research in Western Australia has shown increases in crop yields because farmers have adopted no-till cropping. The soil structure improves ,along with an increase in benificial soil flora and fauna. Break-down of crop residue has improved, soil carbon has doubled in some areas, water penitration has improved . The efficiency ratio to rainfall has improved. When you consider that large areas of Australia are really marginal in regards to historical rainfall, farmers are really getting more food produced than any other society. There are many other more rewarding research options we need but research should always have some research that has no real immediate conclusion. Barry Marshall `s cure of ulcers is an example in medicine.The thought of no fossil fuel is a problem for farmers , especially if we had to have solar powered tractors and to go back to our soil destroying multiple cultivation to kill weeds.
Josh Brown
logged in via Facebook
Well thought and written article. Since it is largely speculative my first reaction is to question how these crops could be given preference in the current economic system? Private investors would need to know that the area would gross more cash if allowed to flourish with native cereals or areas would need to be secured by a state (or public/private) entity for some sort of trial crop.
Any private farming would surely start on a fairly experimental basis and I imagine that it would require some cunning branding of the native grains as superior for the environment and health, therefore justifying a higher price. I'm interested to see if anyone in the food industry can see money in this area.
Ewen Peel
Farmer
This article certainly raises some good ideas about where the future of grain production might be headed.
Read moreA lot of the native and imported grass species have already been evaluated for possible food use and I believe some have potential.
I don’t think the real issue is the ability to grow the produce but to gain acceptance in the market place with the end users and processors.
Unless there is some advantage to the end user then we are unlikely to see any great change in demand.
There are many…
Alastair Breingan
retired
I am very interested in this subject. We run a smallholding providing most of our veggies etc, but would love to experiment with grains (and we have the space to do so). We are however in the wet area of northern NSW (the Manning Valley).
Are there any current suitable options, and where could I find more info?
John Newlands
tree changer
My understanding is that perennials do not invest in plump seeds as an evolved reproductive strategy. Therefore grain yields are unlikely to justify the high cost of diesel for harvesting machinery and supplementary NPK top up.
As agriculture becomes more Cubanised we should grow more root crops in raised beds in the suburbs, perhaps using processed sewage for nutrients. Tree nuts could supply oil and protein. Out of town the rangelands could return to long periods of fallowing and light grazing, Grain will become a lesser part of our diet.
BTW I have experimented with making charcoal out of fescue dominated hay. Not worth the effort.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I doubt if fully natural varieties would be economic, and a hybrid variety would be necessary. Natural varieties are rarely successful as an agricultural crop.
The sugar industry went from 0% trash blanketing to about 100% trash blanketing in a few decades. This often reduced yields, but eventually costs were reduced because of reduced tillage, reduced herbicide use, reduced irrigation, reduced losses from soil erosion, and reduced diesel consumption. Increasing humus content in the soil also reduced fertilizer loses with less leaching.
So a change of variety or farming practices may reduce yield, but it becomes economic as it can significantly reduce farming costs.
james rohan
logged in via LinkedIn
Has there been research using a mass balance approach as is used in manufacturing agricultural products? This approach would show yield through each phase and show impact on final yield.
I believe cost of quality paradigm could add significant value to agriculture although perhaps this is already in use. A pareto of the yield loss in the stages of growth and harvest may demonstrate how perennials perform differently. For example, perennials may not allow window crops but may allow grazing as an offset.
Richard Widows
logged in via Twitter
Fantastic and timely article. Sounds like you should be talking to the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance about their discussion of a "peoples food plan". Perennial grains, in my view, must be a central part of this discussion.
Ian Chivers
CEO
Hi Richard,
I have not heard of the Alliance. Any information?
Ian
Richard Widows
logged in via Twitter
Hi Ian,
It's worth reading this Conversation from a few weeks back- http://theconversation.edu.au/the-draft-national-food-plan-putting-corporate-hunger-first-8342
And here is a link to their website- http://australian.foodsovereigntyalliance.org/
Ian Chivers
CEO
The economics of production of a perennial grain crop are quite different to those of an annual crop. There is only one sowing event and only one establishment period. This means that the costs of these events are much less when carried over the life of the plant. If you like to use the jargon, the fixed costs are much less each year than annual crops, other than the first year.
Another point of interest is that once a crop is established it does not have to be harvested if conditions do not…
Read morejames rohan
logged in via LinkedIn
Ian,
I have researched practices in forestry and tobacco so perhaps this might not fit. These examples require multiple pass on planting as seed does not germinate uniformly. On a perennial, the requirement to selectively plant in gaps is cost prohibitive resulting in re-establishment of a greater area. Seed harvest may be similarly problematic in that leaving in the ground too long can impact on quality affecting both yield and price.
I believe these grains have merit in that oil is going…
Read moreTim Scanlon
Debunker
While I am all for perennial cropping systems I think there are some flaws in the article.
My first point is that categorising food production as limited because we only have 8 grains is misleading. As an example, wheat is grown all around the world in a vast range of ecosystems and soils. This means that there is more to wheat than just a limited species of grass, it is in fact a very diverse and adaptable plant with thousands of cultivars bred for various situations and uses.
My second point…
Read more