The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Hard choices on the future of the land > Comments

Hard choices on the future of the land : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 6/11/2006

We must recognise that some farms and crops are not realistic in some areas of Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"And if something is unsustainable then, by definition, it must come to an end,--. It is up to us as a nation, to ensure that the transition from the current situation, to one that can continue, is as smooth, painless and fair as possible--."
Good words that express a philosophy essential for Australian society throughout the continent. But meaningless in the face of politicians' deliberate side-stepping of unpalatable fundamental issues:
First, Australia's climate has never been benign in relation to its agriculture, as practiced on its present scale. The last half century is acknowledged as having been a good patch. Perhaps the weather experienced over the last decade might be closer to long-term average. But certainty exists that those elements, already in place, of human-induced drivers of climate change will increasingly exacerbate existing problems until full effect is experienced, in another half century.
Second, agriculture-exported soil nutrients, embodied within produce, to cities and overseas, is not sustainable. These nutrients have to be returned/replaced, needing energy to do so. And phosphorus replacement is a concern.Insufficiency of available phosphorus and cheap energy would have Australian agriculture ceasing as part of world economy.
Third, Australian city and country might haggle among themselves, but are fully interdependent. Pressures upon Australian landscapes arise fundamentally from the weight of city populations and their needs/wants, mostly via direct pressure upon those working the land.
Ever since Charles Darwin's visit, perceptive people recognised problems inherent in an excess of people flogging this continent's limited capacity to provide for them. Twenty million people in 2006 is demonstrably an excess. How many is reasonable? Difficult to say. CSIRO's "Future Dilemmas" provides some options for numbers and consumption. No rosy picture comes out of it for continuing escalation of consumer-economics for ever-growing numbers of people. So I hope (not in expectation) that Andrew Bartlett's fine words about sustainability encompass consideration of Australia's burgeoning numbers (every four years another 1 million, and not enough say the Property/Business Councils).
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:40:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmn, Dude on a comfortable Senator's salary talks up "hard choices" on farmers future. Dude cautions about farmers "privilege" before they have even got a single dollar. Dude who has never sown a single crop in his life claims to know more about appropriate crop mixes and cycles than the farmers themselves.

This article is clear evidence that city and country are already two distinct communities. No-one ever questions whether any other part of the community deserves their safety net but the moment farmers need help we get all sorts of parsimonious bottom feeders talking about the need for "hard decisions".

So, when can we expect some hard decisions to be made for the urban community? When can we see certain suburbs in our metropolitan centres being bulldozed on the basis that they fail every credible test of economic, social and ecological sustainability?

When do we start withdrawing medicare treatment for the skin cancers of builders labourers on the basis that "they knew the risks"? Or how about cancelling the single mums pension on the basis that "they're just dumb slappers who won't learn from past mistakes"?

You're right, it sounds really offensive, but no less offensive than this rebadging of victorian notions of "deserving and undeserving poor" masquerading behind a veneer of ecological sustainability.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:44:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,
Sorry mate but you don't seem to understand, for every unviable farm we get rid of a farmer cannot claim business overheads, flood relief, drought relief, and besides, this would be taken as an afront to private enterprise, free enterprise. Don't you worry about that mate, just get all those dole bludgers a job, and she'l be sweey, oh I forgot 95.1% of those dole bludgers are working,...well it's just not "extreme right" to take an unviable farmer off the land.

Anyway they are all unviable, because we can get Zimbabweans to farm a lot cheaper than Aussie farmers, let's get rid of the lot of them, but then we'd miss "oh! it's dry" and "oh! too much water" wouldn't we, we Aussies like to hear the whine of the farming sector.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:50:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew, if the government wanted to alleviate the present problem and provide a permanent solution all it has to do is plan for the future – not the next election. Why not take a lead from the past. A while ago, politicians complained about the federal parliament building. They found it unsuitable. Many millions of dollars were found to build a brand new parliament. I think the expenditure on the flag pole alone was something like AUD$4 million. The problem was fixed. We didn’t have to press ‘hardship money’ into the politicians’ hands did we.

Prior to the building of the new federal parliament house, Premier Court of WA over-flew the area near Kununurra. He thought about what could be done with the area. It required money, commitment, the defeat of naysayers and more. We now have the Ord River Scheme which would’ve died aborning if you were allowed anywhere near it. We have a great example of what can happen when we have ‘can do’ people rather than ‘can not do’ people.

What about the AUD$1 billion cheque we’ve given the Indonesians. Do you see any Australian politician telling Indonesians that it would be silly and futile to rebuild on a known fault line? Why allow the Indonesians to enjoy sentimentality? When we send aid to Africa I don’t see you deliver a lecture to some Ghanaian that his tribal life in Tumu and his farming practices are both unsustainable. Not only do you sanction the delivery of aid to unsustainable practices but certain NGOs are calling for us to increase our aid so unsustainable practices are seen as OK by NGOs.

Be consistent Andrew and lay off the sauce.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 6 November 2006 1:02:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did you mention big picture Shonga?
Posted by Sage, Monday, 6 November 2006 1:05:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have always known where we are!

Sadly, Life is not a comfort zone, its a reality.

To the country folk, and with respect, join the real world.

Together is better than divide!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Considering not so long ago we were termed the Cinderella state before the discovery of gold, which did help to supply the money to spread the wheat belt out to where it is now. Although we do have bad drys including this year, our cockies seem just as reliable on far poorer soils than T'othersiders as they say.

Not in touch with records, but believe there have been three years in the last ten that in yield have easily beaten T'otherside as we repeat on poorer soils.

As many crops are harvestable over here, with early unseasonable summer rains helping yields in the south, the Cindrella state may win again.

Anyhow, with all our grizzling about cockies needing to give up compared to the bod's operating the ugly monstrous mechanical giants pulling valuable but expendable resources out of the ground, what really are our great grandkids going to rely on? In a years or so some of us could even have great great grandkids coming along.

Seeing that all Western graingrowers bar Australia and New Zealand are now being subsidised, is it criminal that our cockies should now have a bit of help?

Understand that Peter Costello's Future Fund has now just about covered our overseas trading debt now around five hundred billion dollars.

And as a big trading debt helps our dollar keep low in value helping to increase our export profits, so what the hell its all part of modern business.

It is so interersting to note Big Biz minded Johnny Howard at last interested in rural problems. Nothing like GW Bush, however, who has had an 80 billion dollar promissary note worth of US rural subsidies guaranteed from around 2002 right up to 2012, making sure the republicans at least will still hold the Presidency mainly through Mid-West votes.

As far as our cockies are concerned, maybe our Johnny should learn a bit more about rural protection from his bestest proven bosom buddy over there?
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 November 2006 7:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, If we can get rid of the farmers now, It won't be such a problem, next time we want their water for the "productive" city.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 6 November 2006 7:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that Andrew does not know a lot about farming.

You can farm anywhere, its just a question of stocking rate, given
prevailing weather conditions and the odds of taking the risk to
sow a crop, based on information at the time. Many smart farmers
in the West this year, reckoned that the crop risk was not worth it,
given the conditions and took a years long service leave. Makes
perfect sense!

Livestock are another thing altogether. Many people have gone broke,
trying to feed too many livestock, through a drought. It makes
far more sense to cut numbers early, before the paddocks are bare
etc.

Thats where we have a problem. Processors
are not silly, they know that if it doesent rain, farmers have no
choice but to sell. Given limited slaughter capacity in an inflexible meat industry, they can simply drop their prices and
wait. Farmers don't like to give away livestock, so hang on
hoping for rain, often with fatal consequences.
Right now mutton is at 60c a kg cwt or 300$ a tonne liveweight, about
the same as the price of wheat. That does not mean that the global
mutton price has dropped from 3000$ a tonne.

The solution is a simple one. Given that Govt can't legislate for
rainfall, meat production will always be at the vagaries of climate.
Any meatworks could introduce another shift, if they had the labour
and so double capacity. Yet our city legislation does not allow
for that, despite their inability to legislate for weather.

Allow us to bring in extra labour from SE Asia, to cope with
varying climate, on a seasonal basis. Those workers could earn here
in a month, what they earn in a year back home. Our farmers would
benefit, there would be real competition in the market, due to
demand. The animals would benefit, no standing around in paddocks
waiting for a slaughter date, as is now the case in WA, due to
lack of labour. In fact a win-win situation for all, so why don't
city slickers allow it to happen?
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 6 November 2006 8:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whenever you reach an intellectual impasse and nothing seems viable take a hard look at Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. It was once void of human life, trees, water and had only an abundance of sand. Some sand pile!
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 6 November 2006 9:31:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a good article Andrew.

But once again the big picture is missing, although I do sense that you have moved closer to it compared to your previous articles on this forum.

“We should be helping these farmers to move on while the drought is focusing the country’s attention on the bush.”

Absolutely. And in so doing we should be pulling right back on our overall agricultural demands from the land, especially of course on what is now known to be marginal or long-term unviable land.

But what is going to happen if we pull back on this primary industry sector while continuing to facilitate the overall expansion of our society?

It is glaringly obvious that we need to pull back on the whole kaboodle, or at least, strive to stop it from continuously growing!

Your previously-expressed support on this forum for continued population growth sits at stark odds with your message in this article.

“And if something is unsustainable then, by definition, it must come to an end”

Well, of course. And if the productivity off the land is not sustainable at the current rate, then how on earth can an ever-increasing demand for this productivity be sustainable?

Andrew, when are you going to admit that population stabilisation in this country is absolutely ESSENTIAL in our efforts to achieve sustainability….and that with the current rural/drought crisis and the water issue in urban areas, the time is right to really push this fundamental message?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No matter what we do, global warming is now a permanent fact.

Governments here are trying to come to the realisation that this is NOT a drought, this is the new permanent climate. The draught is now the normal pattern. We have to adapt to this situation.

Intervention is needed to save the overall land.

If farmers still have a passion to farm, there are a few options. I understand that the old cotton fields in the south of the US have plentiful well water, aquifers and rivers and their draughts are not as bad as ours. They can still grow cotton there, but most gave up about 30 years ago leaving unused land. Surely the Australian Government could organise a "buyback" scheme of Australian cotton farms, and assist in granting US Green Cards for the US, for cotton farmers to live and do their business where "king cotton" belongs: In the USA.

You can strike a baragain in Cotton utopia: in Louisianna. Now that so many have left the State. They didn't like water much. You do.

Similarly, other crops need will never get again find water in Australia. A similar "buy back" scheme should encourage such farmers to consider relocating to New Zealand as there is plenty of water there. In the mean time, the Governments can regenerate the environment and terraform the land.

If you can't solve the problem, look at all the possibilities and relocate. You really want to farm using specialised skills? You are probably on the wrong continent.

You can sit and pray on this dry dust bowel but I doubt this will work. The big dry is a booming a "wake-up" call to us all. It says: move on, wake up or perish.

Your ancestors would not give it a second thought. With Government assistance to relocate, they would be praticle enough to move on before you lose too much. It will get worse over time.

Your lives working in your agrarian traditions and protecting your families are more important than your national pride at this stage.
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I was a kid back in the late 1920's we had the biggest wheat farmer in the world in our district putting in 20, 000 acres with horse teams. Gustave Liebe, whose nephew Albert Klein had been locked up during WW1, not only because he was an outspoken German barstard, as said, but along with more German migrants who were working for the Liebes, some having been in South Australia, there were suggestions about what the Germans would do if they owned the place.

1. To dig a canal from the big South Aussie inlet to Lake Eyre filling it from the sea which would help change the dry inlet climate.

2. And because tropical rains are far more reliable in northern Australia than in the south, all major northern rivers like the Ord and Fitzroy, should be damned and used to irrigate the south.

It is so interesting that most of these Germans were locked up, and indeed, whether stretched or not during WW2 there were rumours coming down that the Japs had similar ideas about Australia's water problems as Gustave Liebe's Germans.

As part German myself on my mother's side, wonder whether the dry climate notwithstanding as they say, has reduced our capability to learn from others.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage,
Congratulation, you have finally found a big picture, now if I read you correctly, you are thinking, spend less on Government House and more on the people living in poverty in this country, new alternate energy sources, inovative things like that right? Don't give A$1 BILLION in aid to Indonesia when some of our own people are srarving and working poor. I agree, I have never begrudged a proportion of my taxes going toward those less fortunate than myself, it's called humanitarianism, love of one's fellow man.

Sage you're a changed girl, forgive me for thinking you were a selfish, mean and greedy individual who only thought of themselves.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 2:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting how the Democrats pick and choose their policies according to where they perceive political support is to be gained. Farmers are traditionally are a conservative lot, for whom the ideals of the Democrats are repugnant. So it suits the Democrats to treat agriculture in a cut and dry manner: hence the “hard choices”. However, when it comes to our shores being illegally invaded by hordes of economic refugees, who are cultural aliens, offer no skills, possess no money, nor ability in our language, the Democrats are the first to cry foul, lending support to these people, who then appeal against decisions to deport them at our expense in our courts. We resent this far more than temporary drought relief for farmers.
Posted by Robg, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 2:54:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred, I find your comments on the filling of Lake Eyre very interesting. Its a concept that I have heard mentioned before. It would be interesting to see some studies done on what impact this might have on rainfall across inland Australia. Given that the Canal to be cut from the sea is at most 200kms long, it isnt an undertaking that would be prohibitively costly. I'm sure that the greenies would carry on a treat over that though, disturbing the natural state of the lake and all.

"The only reason Australia is on target to meet its Kyoto target is because we have stopped cutting down trees, which we would have to start doing again if farmers moved up north". How about we plant trees in the south for any that are cut down if farmers move north? Wouldnt that solve the problem? Actually young trees soak up a great deal more carbon than old trees, so potentially we will move even faster towards our targets.

Part of the reason for decreasing sustainability is the ongoing increase in land prices. To buy more land now is to invest money that is going to return you next to nothing. To give you some idea, there is an area in southern NSW where land prices have been up to $670/acre. A more realistic price is $350/acre. What is the reason that the prices are out of proportion to the earning capacity? Well a lot comes down to the push west from the cities (or I guess east is you are in WA). Wealthy city-based professional and businessmen are buying large chunks of land, not particularly caring whether they make a profit from it. Those in the affected area either give up or move further west, thereby inflating prices where they have moved to and production capabilities much lower. I dont know how to address this, but it a major cause of some of the difficulties now being faced.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 1:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby is right to talk about appropriate stocking rates and the assessment of risk in deciding whether or not to plant in a given year. The Moonie plains west of Broken Hill are grazing country. There is nothing unsustainable about this. However, the stocking rates need to be appropriate and land holdings large enough to generate sufficient income in good years. The push west again raises its head as an issue. Farmers from the greener areas of the central west for example, will go broke trying to farm land at Condobolin the same way as their land at Cumnock. Its different country and needs to be treated in a different way. Long term family farmers have an intuitive knowledge of their land and how it responds to certain events in the season. This is gained over generations. For example, my father is an ultra-conservative farmer. He destocks at the first hint of a dry coming on. As a result this drought is the first time he has had to feed sheep in 30 years. This is despite the country where he is being classed as marginal, and there being at least 7 droughts in that intervening 30 years. His anger? Not at the current drought or even the current drought assistance. His anger is at govt regulation from 1902 to 1971 that prevented NSW farmers from buying more than a "home maintenance area". He was in a great position in the late 60's to buy additional land, which would mean that he would be that much more viable now, but wasnt allowed to as his 4500acres was classed as enough to support a family. Even when the restriction was lifted in the 70's, he still had to pay a sizeable sum to derestrict his FREEHOLD land. This left many farmers with less than ideal land holdings, and who would have been in a stronger financial position today had they been able to expand at a time when their financial situation was ideal.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 1:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I really do think that there are solutions, they are just
perhaps different to what many are suggesting.

If we look at no-till. ie deep till, hydraulics- the dbs kind
of concept, those people will get crops in dry years where others
simply won't. This year has proven it once again.

With livestock, you are fortunate in the East to have more
competition then we do in the West, in the processing sector.

At the moment here in WA, cattle works are booked solid for
the next couple of months, so they can name their price,
nothing that farmers can do about it, as the labour regulations
for the meat industry are so inflexible.

This year in July-August, when the writing was on the wall in
WA, smart farmers got the gun out and shot their merino lambs.
Sounds draconian, but it was a win-win situation. The ewes
picked up condition immediately, the lambs didn't suffer,
farmers could sell a few mobs immediately, even though processors,
who watch the weather too, had already cut the price by 40%.

Those who hung on regardless have landed up with bare paddocks,
ewes worth 60c instead of 1$ a kg, merino lambs selling for
3$ a head right now. Yet nobody had the guts to stand up at the
time and even suggest that shooting lambs was by far the best option.

What annoys me in WA is that because of our limited processors
here, they know exactly how to screw farmers in drought, yet
Govt won't give us the means to stop it happening. All very frustrating indeed.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 2:54:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wot? Digging a channel to let the sea into Lake Eyre, yet again?
There are two aspects of it that should not be in dispute:
First, the digging job would keep a number of excavators in work for a while.
Second, the removal of evaporated salt accumulating in the new water-hole each year would also provide a lot of work.
Before anyone starts sharpening up their shovels, I would imagine they would have enough interest to do some simple mathematics in relation to the task(adding, multiplying and dividing is the limit of skill needed).
Should such interest be there, then the task is to assess the size of the channel needed, and also the amount of annual salt removal.
Data covering the following would provide a sufficient base for the calculations.

The area of the proposed lake; annual evaporation rate in that region; the percentage of salt in seawater; the slope between the sea and the surface of the new pond; the rate of flow needed through the style of channel chosen; the rate of flow possible for the water in the channel.
The maths would lead to the same result, whether it be a variety of green or red; left or right.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 3:19:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy