 Hello. Hi. I'm Emma Norrie from the Department of Primary Industries in New South Wales. Thanks all of you for very interesting presentations. I just had a question for Weneeta. Are you communicating all of your efforts through the supply chain, I guess, to those that are buying your products and are you having a positive response or even seeing a financial benefit from that? Is that working? Yeah. As Brooke alluded to earlier, we do in cotton, but that's the only commodity. And unfortunately when you're looking at the grains and cereals market, the oil seeds market, it's a bulk commodity. And one of the things that we are severely frustrated by is the merchants that are part of that process in selling things. So we don't actually have a direct relationship with the end buyer or the consumer. I think that's something that is a prime target for disruptive technology in the future. And one of the frustrations I had this year was we grow durum wheat, which is for pasta. And the Liverpool Plains has got really high quality vitriolic grains, and it's highly sought after, especially in Italy. And we had around about 17 to 18% protein. And all of our, 100% of our crop went DL1, which is the highest grade you can possibly have. And we did not get a cent of benefit from that extra quality in our product. And we tried to contact people to sell it separately via the container. It's almost impossible. But we know that the merchants buy that. And then it's the lowest common denominator. Our products then used to uplift somebody else's. Or they then just go and sell it as a premium product and get all of the margin. So yeah, no, I don't get paid for what I do in every commodity. We are seeing some great improvements in the cotton industry. But that is the exception to the rule. So anyone that, I mean, I'm constantly sitting there thinking what disruptive technology, what Uber technology can I find for me to sell my commodities? I want it yesterday. Thanks. There's a question right up the back. If the questioners could introduce themselves, I wouldn't help everyone, I think. I'll do that. Richard Dickman, Bayer Crop Science at Wineter again. The cotton, your ability to add value, extract additional value in cotton is really linked to the BMP and all of that associated with that. I mean, how do you feel about doing that for other crops as well? I mean, is it incredibly onerous? I mean, if you had to do it for your wheat and so on? Or is that something that really needs to be taken on by farmers if they want to extract the extra value? It's not an onerous job because the practices that you're doing apply, doesn't matter what crop you're growing. You're utilising the soil to grow something. And your farming practices don't change based on the seed that you put in the ground. So whether I put sorghum, whether I put corn, whether I put cotton, the best practice management that we're applying to that farm is there regardless. So I think those sort of acknowledged best farming practices can be across different commodities without a doubt. Is it onerous? No, because not only are we getting better results in terms of what we're getting out of our natural assets, we're also getting acknowledgement for the good work that we're doing. The financial reward for us may not be from the end purchaser, but it's definitely coming through in terms of our productivity. So yeah, if there were some certified practices that we can apply to our wheat or anything like that, we jump at the chance. But at the end of the day, I think the mismatch is they don't see that as something we should be rewarded for. They just see it as something we should be doing regardless. So how do you capture that value? Is the age-old, I suppose, dilemma? And most consumers just take it as granted that you do that regardless. They're not going to pay you premium for doing the right thing. So that's the dilemma we have, yeah. Well, other people think about a question. I've got one to, I think, Julia and probably Juanita. Juanita outlined the difference between cotton and the other crops. Julia, through the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative and your people at the processor and retail end of the spectrum, do you see any growth in other commodities starting to feed back down the supply line that the Kellogg's might want to say? Our corn flakes come from maize that's grown on good soil and being well maintained a little bit like cotton. Is it starting to appear through the supply chain? Yeah, look, I think in simple terms it is. But I would have to agree with Juanita that that's a given. So a company like Kellogg's or really any of our processor or manufacturing members, the brand names, if you like, and the coals and the woollies, they would like that assurance, but they're very unlikely to pay any extra for it. So the key for industry and for growers is to be able to do that, to meet those requirements, but do it in a very cost-effective way. Yep, Christian here from? Hi there, Pete Bedwell, Primary Media, one for you, Julia. Do you think you can sell sustainability? What you've put up there, it strikes me in Europe that this is already happening. There's more concern about sustainability than there is about animal welfare, for instance. So could you say, yeah, the sustainable chicken, for instance? Just don't say green chicken, because that turns people off. Look, I think Australia is quite different to Europe. I think in fairly simple terms that's probably the answer to the question. The consumer research that we've done, for example, and other brands have done, suggests that for our product, anyway, for chicken, sustainability, it's in that top category of products that consumers are concerned about the sustainability of. But what they're actually concerned about is animal welfare when you drill down. And then that's really why, for me anyway, you need to take quite a broad definition of what sustainability is, and I think the individual market will, I guess, nominate what the marker is. So for Australians, it seems to be about animal welfare, but the expectation that you're a good water manager and that you're managing environmental impacts through your supply chain, all of those sorts of things, that's an expectation that people take for granted that we're all doing. But I think there are some quite big differences between Europe and Australia. And I think also it will change. Question up the back. Hi, Anna Carr from the department. Thank you all very much. It's an absolute pleasure to hear from you. In the words, I think you might have mentioned them at the beginning, Neil, about soils ain't soils. So you can't compare the one soil good in one context from another. And in the same way, sustainability here is different from sustainability in Europe. So where in common do you get your notions of what is good from when it comes to sustainable practices and ideas? Where do you go? I'll throw my two bulbs within. I think in the soils area, we've barely started on the whole process of certification of what is a healthy soil. At the moment, there are proposals internationally for voluntary guidelines on sustainable soil management. Now framing that in a way that would work in Europe and would work for our soils, just that issue alone before you go to other parts of the world is incredibly difficult. And it's because of the geographic specifics of a particular management practice. That's a starting point. Further comments? I'll be up to that as well. In cotton, a lot of those global standards are being set by the NGOs. So NGOs are setting up sustainability metrics, programs. Individual brands are doing the same. And they're using average numbers for all cotton production in the world, which is really concerning to us because we're well above the average in many of the categories they're looking at. So Hugo Boss, for example, has its own calculator. It plugs in a whole lot of numbers when they want to develop a new shirt or suit or whatever. And it'll spit out numbers for what sorts of fabric should be used in that product. So we're working individually with those sustainability metrics programs to make sure that the Australian cotton story is treated differently in those kinds of programs because it's really difficult to get an average kind of expectation around what sustainability means for the whole industry. I would agree with that for our industry as well. But again, it's something that is evolving and maturing. So if you look at, for example, some of the data sets that are used when you're doing a lifecycle assessment, you can get a figure for chicken, for example. And it's the same. It's the average for all of the research that's been done across the world. So one way that we, I guess, test or know what good it looks like is through benchmarking. And that's through understanding your own business very well, I guess, and knowing what your numbers are and knowing what you're comparing to. I mean, a lot of the international research, particularly with lifecycle assessment, which is a very commonly used tool now, it's all to do with the scoping. So how far have they gone? How far have you gone? So we've taken the approach that we will measure as much as we possibly can so that we can draw a line around whatever they have to do that direct comparison. But benchmarking is one way of, I guess, helping with that problem. OK. It's 3.30. And people now have some busy networking to do at afternoon tea. I'd like to thank our speakers, Neil, Winita, Brooke, and Julia. And thank you.