Ahhh, the debate continues...
Very dangerous I believe to exclude from the arguement people who have a view from the "outside".
Our problems will not be fixed by the same thinking that created the problems in the first place.
I once had a short lived email debate with the head of the AEF regarding the woody weed issue in western NSW after he first became publicly involved. In the early stages I was chuffed that he would respond to a lowly nobody, especially as he disagreed with my basic philosophy. However, after I sent him photo's of country that had grass out competing the scrub to its detriment simply by improved grazing management we somehow lost contact.
Very selective that AEF science based evidence.
Their agenda in my view is to push the cropping line west and promote 'no-till or minimum till'& GM technology as the magical panacea. Just happens to be heavily chemical reliant of course.
And about as long term sustainable as unabated use of fossil fuels.
The answers to the cause of all our issues are to find ways of working in with mother nature and not against her.
She has a much bigger cheque book than us.
Perseus, one cycle of an 'el nino' with blinkers on is equivalent to about 4% I'd say.... no matter how loud you yell.

I’d put it in somewhat stronger terms Bushrat. The approach that Perseus takes is just disgusting. Who is he to say who can and cannot comment on this or any subject? He so strongly alienates everyone that doesn’t totally agree with him. And he skittles his own credibility with his extraordinarily polarized expression.

Perhaps we should all be demanding that he prove his expertise and be seen as more than just an offensive blusterer, by directing us to background information on the vegetation management legislation in NSW and other relevant material. And I don’t just mean to the one-sided AEF / Marohasy-style diatribe.

.
Country Gal, the “weed” species are a variety of native trees and shrubs, including mimosa bush and several other Acacia species, as well as various Eucalyptus species, false sandalwood (Eremophila mitchellii), etc. In fact you could argue that just about any woody native species that has increased in abundance, or in frequency per hectare of uncleared or unthinned country, falls into this category.

It really is stretching the definition of a weed to include these species. We should just be thinking of them as native species, that have been favoured by changed fire and grazing regimes, but which have lost out overall due to massive clearing and dissection of bush areas.

Ludwig, just because a plant (or animal for that matter) is native to some parts of Australia, doesnt mean that it is native to all parts of Australia, or that it can never threaten farming production or indeed other native species.

"Mimosa bush has useful qualities as a food source at different times of the year. However, it is a very invasive and drought-resistant plant and if left unchecked will severely reduces a property’s stock-carrying capacity" - from Northwest Weeds website. http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au/mimosa_bush.htm Have a look at the photos on this website to see just how choked the land can get with this "native".

I still stand by my previous comments about those who are not farmers being prepared to listen more and talk less. Putting a ban on non-farmers discussing the issues is stupid and doesnt get anyone anywhere, but a born and bred city person has as much right to assume that they know how farming works, as I do about how to build a house. I know what goes into it, and a lot of issues that need to be considered, but not how to put it all together to make it work. Whilst farmers often have little formal education, particularly past highschool, remember that most have effectively been apprentices since the time they could walk. As such, they probably get more rigourous training than most professions.

Bushrat, no-till is the only way to farm in some areas, usually due to a combination of annual rainfall, and the soil type and structure. Those advising farm groups are now coming to realise that soil structure and type is paramount in deciding farming technique. Conventional farming works best in some areas, as the soil benefits from being disturbed, but doesnt lose too much moisture in the process, in other areas minimum till works best, and in others still no-till is the way to go. Farming will always use chemical or diesel to prepare the ground - if you are a climate change believer, I would suggest that supporting no-till despite its chemical use, would suit your generally philosophy.

Notwithstanding Perseus' latest intemperate spray, I tend to agree with Bushrat, Ludwig, thirra and Dave here. Although I'm not a farmer, I live west of the Divide and my business is directly affected by the fortunes of agriculturalists.

For some time, I've thought that both the AEF and its pro-land clearing campaign are thinly disguised fronts for pushing unsustainable agricultural practices into ever more marginal country. While Country Gal presents a more reasonable agriculturalists' perspective than her fellow travellers, ultimately her position on the so-called 'woody weeds' is unsustainable.

It's time that the agricultural sector realised that there are extensive areas of Australia that can probably never be sustainably farmed, no matter how much bush is slashed or how many chemicals are dumped into the ground.

"Farming being unsuitable for parts of Australia" is an over generalised comment that dumps all kinds of agriculture together without recognising the benifits of certain systems that can be used to regenerate landscapes.
"Grazing livestock", whatever they may be, are a critical component in the ability to revegetate semi-arid brittle environments.... if managed correctly.
There is fantastic work going on in this regard that show production and conservation do not have to be mutually exclusive. Plenty to be gained by all concerned if we can only get past this "us and them mentality".
Don't just look at a picture of a "weed" choking out an area without also trying to understand why it is happening. Address the cause along with any crisis management needed and the results will be longer lasting, and a whole lot cheaper as well.
I agree that cropping systems should be flexible and suit the area.
However, I would not like to be tied into a regime of total reliance on chemical and diesel with the certainty that input costs have only got one direction to go.
There are alternatives 'Country Gal'.
Industrialised agriculture has run its race and caused immeasurable damage along the way. The 'global warming debate' has at least heightened awareness of the importance of the environment to all people, and as such will serve a positive purpose.
Personally, I think the desertification and degradation of the world's agricultural land is a more pressing issue than the current level of atmospheric co2.
I've read that if we improved the ground cover level by 1% on Australia's rangelands alone it would mean the extra sequestration of around 22 Billion tonnes of co2.
That is a mind bogglingly achievable target that is hindered only by ignorance and misguided agendas.

CJ Morgan, from my standpoint, you have more right to discuss farmers and their practices when your business depends on them and their financial wellbeing - it gives you a vested interest in being reasonable! :)

There are vast tracts of Australia that are not suited to any form of farming. Other large areas are suited only to light grazing. Property sizes and land values generally reflect this, and also reflect the likelihood of drought/flood. Basically there is no point in paying more for something than it can return to you. Where I come from, land is worth $130/ac (and overpriced at that), and you need at least 5 acres per sheep, and 10,000-15000 acres to live off. Most farms in the area are more like 30,000 - 100,000 acres. Contrast this to the Liverpool plains, which can run stock and produce up to two crops a year (thanks to summer rainfall and irrigation). Land values here are more like $2000/ac, and an average family holding more like 2000ac. So there are market mechanisms which demonstrate the productive capacity of land.

One of the problems at the moment is that this market indicator is being thrown out of whack by the tree-changers. I actually believe that tree-changers will be generally of benefit to regional Australia by starting to buck the trend of population exit from rural areas. However, the big bucks that they have behind them from equity in housing in the cities, coupled with cash from high-paying jobs, means that they can afford to pay more for the land than what it is worth in terms of capacity. Whilst the tree-changers might only come just west of the mountains, there is a flow-on effect as those that have sold out, move further west, to buy larger spreads, and to areas that are not as secure in a production sense. Its often a quick way to see a good farmer go broke - move him to an area that he is unfamiliar with. Different rainfall patterns, different soils, different pests, different weather conditions.