Whilst food is cheap, primary industry can meet the needs of the population and combined with the specializations that come with globalization there is no demand to be smarter yet.

Like anything, once a problem is created, a solution will be found.

Why not grow hydroponicically (as you can most) in massive highrise strucutures, saving evaporation, sustaining water and saving land?

The fact is, there is not enough money being spent trying to innovate by private enterprise as the need is not there yet. Sure some govt entities and a small section of business in the world are doing some things, but i would not worry at all as there are many simple solutions, even today.

Water is a problem, but desalination efficiencies will improve, combined with global warming and we will have enough water in the productive places for everything and everyone. Its just the margins who will have to be looked after.

A very good article, David. One point that is not widely understood is the fact that green water can be increased by increasing the velocity of circulation through rain, evaporation/transpiration and back to rain.

For example, the water in the Great Artesian Basin is in a cycle of longer than 100,000 years between infiltration in the Great Dividing Range and bubbling out of a pothole in South Australia. But water from a bore can irrigate a crop and return that water to a faster cycle on the surface. And this is rather ironic in the way many people regard any use of the GAB water as a loss of a resource. But it is a resource that makes no contribution to green water stocks.

At the moment, much of our inland water is locked in a 7 to 15 year cycle and it must be noted that any flow of fresh water into the sea is a loss of green water potential and a reduction in green water cycling frequency.

So evaporation loss from a Dam is still more contributive than fresh water flowing into the sea. An even greater loss of green water is urban storm water, 90% of which once constituted green water in an annual cycle but which now is almost entirely lost into sea water.

Another element would be what could be called "brown water", the water that is 'used' by humans but which remains useful as a green water source. This can be re-used for irrigation and its utility is directly related to the level of nutrients (fertiliser) that humans have added to it. Primary treated sewerage has $9 worth of nitrogen per megalitre and will save a farmer another $9/ML in fertiliser spreading costs. Any disolved soaps (alkalis) will also have a value for reducing the need for lime on acidic soils. Basically the more nutrients left in the water the more valuable the water is to a farmer and the further it can be pumped to a farm user.
[Continued next post]

[Continued]
The need for river environmental flows is not incompatible with farming use and they need not be a loss of green water potential. An intensive irrigation requirement based at a river mouth or tidal point, can allow the entire irrigation allocation to be delivered by the river itself and perform most of the environmental flow role at the same time.

Furthermore, environmental flows are the flows that are most suitable and most economic for recycling because they undergo no transformation in their use. If every megalitre has a value then any environmental flow megalitre can be pumped back up the river for re-release. The distance the water can be pumped back is determined by the price of the water and the cost of pumping. And so long as the pumping cost is lower than the wholesale market price of the water then the recycling of environmental flows is profitable and will pay for itself.

In this way, the existing stock of blue water that flows to the sea can be boosted by shifting a portion of it into a much faster cycle. Indeed, the 160km of Brisbane River environmental flows below the Dams can be economically recycled on a 24 hour cycle instead of an annual one. So an annual environmental flow of 170,000 megalitres (equal to Brisbane City's annual use) could, theoretically, be delivered by only 465 megalitres that are recycled each day. The actual volume would need to be increased to cover leakages like evaporation etc. But the remaining 169,500 megalitres could then be left in the Dams to contribute to green water stocks like irrigation or urban use and conversion to brown water and back to green water.

One thing we can conclude from this is that water capture and storage, and irrigation, are not adverse impacts on climate. Far from it, they increase stocks of green water by improving the frequency of green water cycles.

David, a good overview of water use in agriculture.

The retention of rain where it falls has certainly increased with no till farming and improved pasture management and trend still has a way to go.
This, of course, results in less runoff to the river systems. In your terms, blue water is being converted to green water.

Do you know if this factor has been considered when calculating environmental river flows? As farmers retain more of their rainfall I can see an increasing call on the blue dam water for environmental river flows to compensate for the less runoff.

The net effect will be a shift from irrigated to dry land agricultural production. Will this increase or decrease water productivity?

Perseus, your views on environmental flows are attractive.
However, if you nab all the water at tidal reach for irrigation or recycling I am sure there will be a brackish water ecosystem to consider.
Your idea of pumping back upstream may fall over when you consider that the environmental flow may not be 465Megalitres each and every day. Seasonal flushes and periods of low flow would be necessary to mimic the natural flow.

Goeff-and-Perseus),
Thanks for comments. I wrote to generate discussion by people with special insights and to spread concepts that may not be familiar to others. I don't think I can fully answer your question G at the moment though, lets see what other contributers say. Perhaps we need a colour for deep discharges (ochre?!).

As Perseus says, croppers do several environmental services they should be credited for, recycle rain to the atmosphere (not wasted totally) and capture deep (brown?) discharges for green flow. These should be credits against environmental flows. I suspect a coherant and equitable green water credit to Australian farmers has yet to be developed, but would be interested to see other comments on this as it is not something I have yet researched thoroughly.

John Passioura is very good on this:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/solutions-to-salinity-in-australia.html

"Recently developed options by the Mallee Sustainable Farming Group, of the tactical use of intensive cropping, offer the promise of substantially reducing excessive drainage ( O’Connell MG, O’Leary GJ, Connor DJ (2003) Drainage and change in soil water storage below the root-zone under long fallow and continuous cropping sequences in the Victorian Mallee. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 663–675; Sadras VO, Roget DK (2004) Production and environmental aspects of cropping intensification in a semiarid environment of southeastern Australia. Agronomy Journal 96, 236–246.). It is the traditional long fallow that has been responsible for much of the deep drainage in that region, and replacing it with crops that keep using water into late spring and early summer reduce that drainage considerably. Moreover, the occasional use of lucerne creates a buffer zone that can accumulate several years worth of drainage before the need to empty it ( Dunin FX, Smith CJ, Zegelin SJ, Leuning R, Denmead OT, Poss R (2001) Water balance changes in a crop sequence with lucerne. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 247–261.; Zhang L, Dawes WR, Hatton TJ, Hume IH, O’Connell MG, Mitchell DC, Milthorpe PL, Yee M (1999) Estimating episodic recharge under different crop/pasture rotations in the mallee region. Part 2. Recharge control by agronomic practices. Agricultural Water Management 42, 237–249.)"

David

I appreciate all the good initiatives towards improvements with water usage, but there are three things that bother me:

1. As we can progressively grow crops and reap higher yields from the same or less water, the backup mechanisms will have to be that much greater as well, to get us through drought. By increasing efficiency, we are reducing room to move in tough times, unless we plan very carefully. Ironically, there is some merit in operating inefficiently for as long as we can go to higher efficiency quickly when we need to, ie during drought or price downturns.

2. These improvements in efficiency will facilitate a larger population. If improved efficiencies meant improved quality of life for Australians, and not just the producers themselves but for all of us, then great. But that is not likely to happen. Rather, we are simply playing catch-up in providing food for an ever-larger domestic population.

3. Better efficiency will probably mean more exports and hence more support for needy millions overseas, but this will be partly compromised or perhaps cancelled out completely by the need to supply the growing domestic population. The increased export income probably won’t increase domestic per-capita economic growth, it will simply add a bit to the economic growth that will be necessary to try and maintain the same per-capita economic turnover for ever-more people.

I implore everyone who thinks about and works towards improved efficiencies, in water usage and all sorts of other ways, to be very conscious of the total sustainability picture, and to put a good portion of their energies into the other half of the sustainability equation – population stabilisation

Ludwig, all this population stuff is completely irrelevant to the issue. We export enough beef to support 90 million people, we export enough wheat to feed 200 million people, we export enough wool to clothe 2 Billion people and we export enough cotton for 400 million people. So any increase in domestic population will mean only a minor change in export earnings. And if the cities get their act together they could add fertiliser (sewerage) to their roof runoff and value add before sending it to the farmers for higher yields and improved cycling of brown/green water.

Geoff, the flood surge portion of environmental flows is obviously not suited for recycling but all the other flows are. And the real beauty of environmental flow recycling is that a long river can be broken into segments, a sequence of cycles, so the water is only pumped as far as the price of water will allow the project to remain in profit.

And as for the recycling from a river mouth or tidal point, the needs of a brackish zone is usually performed by tidal movement, and to my knowledge there are no species that depend soley on brackish water. Please correct me if you know better, but most estuarine species pass through the brakish zone from salt to fresh and back again, not hang around in it. But logic would suggest that a partial release (leakage) would still be needed to ensure that salt water would not advance past the lower intake point.

The other aspect of the economics of environmental flow recycling is that the river is usually 2.5 to 3 times longer than the straight line that a returning pump would take. So the return journey can be at much higher speed over a shorter distance.

David, the benefits of grain legumes and canola on wheat crops is more through a disease break than through water conservation. Growing wheat in the same field year after year leads to a buildup of soil diseases that limit root growth and hence ability to access water and nutrients. The break crops allow time for the root diseases to dissipate to small numbers before the next wheat crop. This clearly facilitates water efficiency as rainfall is used by the crop rather than being evaporated or leached. OK, water comes into it, but not in the way you seemed to be suggesting.

In adittion to breeding, herbicides have been another major advance in water use efficiency as they have allowed better weed control, hence less water used by weeds, and earlier crop sowing, allowing more water to be used before the terminal drought at the end of the season.

Some argue that cultivation is important in water conservation by sealing off capillary evaporation from uncovered soil. There is some evidence to support this notion in some soil types, but I think that in most soils cultivation leads to greater water loss through exposure of moist soil and water run-off because of poor soil structure. My no-till friends swear that no-till results in better water harvesting and infiltration for crop use. They also say no-till can improve crop root growth and hence lead to better WUE.

Thanks Agronomist, I definitely didn't express that perfectly did I? Yes, of course, the 25% or so boost from rotations with is a major contributer better water efficiency.

Also in my earlier comment the brown? water colour "tag" should read ochre.

:o(

Perseus, your reply makes sense to me.

It has me wondering how much environmental flow water is released from Warragamba Dam for the relatively short Nepean below the dam and the cost of pumping it back compared to other water saving measures proposed for Sydney.

Can you tell me if the harvesting of water at river mouth is practiced anywhere.

I gather The original purpose of the Barrages at Lake Alexandrina was to supply Adelaide with water. It was originally an estuary and the Murray was tidal right up to the bend at Morgan. But the residual salt from sea tides in the bottom of the lake meant that the water was always brackish and barely fit to drink. So it is not a good example of the theory.

In fact, the conversion of Lake A. from a primarily salt water estuary to a fresh water lake is probably the most ill-concieved and wasteful piece of water works in the country. Where we once had a large expanse of salt water that was recycling sea water into blue water, we now have a large volume of blue water that does nothing but evaporate. It also prevents the Coorong from getting the more thorough tidal flushes that it used to get. As it is only 2 to 3 metres deep, my rough estimate is that Lake A. evaporates almost its entire volume each year (ie, 1,000,000 ML). And all for very marginal supply of green water to the surrounding area. There is no way such a project would ever pass a modern EIS process and, given it performs no real function but to make a the lake a bit more navigable, it should be dismantled immediately.

It is almost as bad as the Menindee Lakes, of similar depth, which evaporate about 400,000 ML each year but supply Broken Hill with only 20,000 ML. Terribly inefficient.

I don't know of any river mouth capture projects but will try a google and let you know.

“Over the coming decades, rises in global demand for food, fibre, feed and fuel are predicted to cause large increases in the amount of water used by agriculture.”

What do you think is driving these “large increases”?

David Tribe’s opening statement makes the clear connection between increased water-use efficiency and continuous population growth. Not only that, but this continuous increase in demand is his primary motivation for being involved in this honourable field.

And then one correspondent writes; “Ludwig, all this population stuff is completely irrelevant to the issue.”

Ugh!

hey realist, i think there is a possible trend towards high rise 'factory farms'. there is one planned for chicago i think.

http://www.verticalfarm.com/essay.htm

the real beefit is both the lower water use as well as the lower production/transportation costs because they are closer to the consumer. i think the one planned for chicago is becoming more viable with every rise in petrol prices, while the price of production is higher per tomato the transport costs is less.

Realist and its not easy being.

Can you tell me what you are going to replace sunlight with in your high rise hydroponic factories.
If your answer is artifical light then factor in the energy costs, greenhouse gases.

Until we invent clean, green, low cost energy I think you will relying on people like David Tribe and the farmers to put food on your tables for a long while yet.

“Over the coming decades...large increases in the amount of water used by agriculture.”
What do you think is driving these “large increases”?

Well Ludvig, it is too simplistic to nominate population growth as the driver, or economic growth for that matter. In China for example, poverty could well be called the driver, but paradoxically, elimination of poverty can trigger demographic transitions which allow populations to stabilise.

So no, David Tribe’s opening statement does not necessarily make a clear, necessary, connection between increased water-use efficiency and continuous population growth, and I'm not sure, Ludvig, you've fully captured my motivation for being involved in this honourable field.

I am very motivated about using technology and wealth to decrease water, land, carbon, nitrogen, and energy "footprints" on the planet. In my view industrial ecology, in the sense pioneered by Jessie Ausubel, is crucial to good planetary stewardship, and as Perseus shows, human imagination, new ideas and optimism help.

And to anticipate other worries about materialist overload of the planet, its really too simplistic also to identify economic growth in any simple way as the driver for excessive overload on resources. Economic development is full of surprises, famously encapsulated by Alan Greenspan's remark "The Weightless Economy". This refers to the fact that the weight of materials in the annual output of the US economy has not increased since 1900. Today the internet and wireless coms are putting copper wire telephones out of business.

David, I think you would be really battling not to call population growth the main driver of continuously increasing agricultural production. Yes, once you start to dig into the issues, it is more complex. In some instances, most notably China, it is poverty-driven. Elsewhere it is driven by economic growth or profit motive. Also, population growth is not a discreet driver, it is itself driven by economic growth, religious and cultural practices, and poverty, oh and greater food production, to list a few.

My fundamental point is that we can no longer put all of our energies into improving efficiencies and increasing production without very carefully considering the ever-growing population, on all different levels, from local to global. If the ‘technofix’ brigade doesn’t consider the other half of the equation, they are just feeding [literally] unsustainability and an ever-more precarious world.

“I am very motivated about using technology and wealth to decrease water….. "footprints" on the planet.”

Good. But if each person’s average ‘footprint’ is decreased while the number of people continues to increase, what do we gain? In Australia, if we can decrease per-person water usage by say 20%, which will be an enormous achievement, and the population increases by 25%, which is due to happen in something less than 20 years, then we will have achieved nothing. David, even your best water conservation and efficiency measures are due to be cancelled out and overwhelmed in a pretty short timeframe. What will we do then? Unless of course we deal with the continuous human expansion factor, head-on.

“In my view industrial ecology,….. is crucial to good planetary stewardship….”

Yes, but not in isolation. In isolation it just feeds this continuous growth spiral, which takes us further away from sustainability and more into peril.

(continued)

What I really object to is the lack of a holistic outlook here. I’ve seen this a million times with well-meaning technological thinkers.

David, your opening sentence expresses the enormity of continuously increasing demand for agricultural produce, but from then on you just pander unquestioningly to that endless increase. I thought that was terrible, but now it seems even worse: You have downplayed the effect of population and economic growth…… and yet you talk about ecological footprints. I think there is a major point of confusion here in your thinking.

Ludvig,
I wouldn't want down play population as a factor or argue against holistic views on problems, what I'm actually asking is more holistic thinking is needed right across the board, in addition to the points your making, which are well known to most people, and to me since the 60s. And remember too, in a word-limited essay one cannot cover everything.

If you think I'm pandering to untrammelled growth, then I suggest that you're missing my point. What I am saying is that economic development is a lot more subtle than the simple anti-growth advocates make it out to be, and that there are many practical realities about growth that simply won't jump to our wishes, even though most of us hope they would. These difficulties have to be part of a holistic view.

One of the chief practical realities is that grand Utopian-versions of visions to remake the world, and single-issue views of the world-and the zero-population movement in my view one of them - are generally worse than the imperfect situation that precedes them, because they often ignore local requirements and special needs. This should also be part of the holistic view.

This problem of Utopian-grand visions, can't be simply dismissed by mockery or hand waving. Treading carefully with bottom up locally proven ways to reform the world is a good strategy. The practically achievable needs to be assessed as well as the desirable. A genuine holistic view has to take in the complications of both industrial ecology and natural ecology, as they are both part on the overall system.

I don't see population growth in prosperous counties as the most important problem though, and that's where this thread started. I think the biggest challenge is to accellerate poor countries through the demographic transition, and see elimination of poverty is a necessary preliminary to achieving a stable global population and a human welfare positive. If India and Africa become richer quicker the population issue will become resolved quicker.

Ludwig clearly implied that an increase in water use or farming productivity would lead to an increase in Australia's population and this has no basis in fact. Indeed, most of the productivity increase has taken place in areas of low population growth. And there is no mechanism within the department of immigration that ties annual intake quotas with agricultural productivity or water availability.

So can we get back to this excellent topic without the blog stalking?

Are we agreed that any process that enables the exchange of water in the biosphere is more ecologically contributive than a process that does not?

Are we agreed that a process that can increase the frequency of water cycling through the biosphere is more ecologiclly contributive than one that decreases the frequency.

For if these two assumptions are valid then the worst place to have a city is at a river mouth because this will increase runoff and deliver it to a point, the river mouth, where its potential contribution is minimal.

Conversely, the best location for a city would be at the top of a catchment where the urban runoff would be delivered to a point where the opportunities to maximise the frequency of water cycling through the biosphere would be greatest.

It would also follow that the best location for water storage would be as far up the catchment as possible as that would enable the multiple use of water so it delivers an environmental flow service at the same time as it is being delivered to a downstream user. In effect, the irrigation water delivers the environmental flow as well.

Any thoughts?

Dhaw,

There is not enough OIL to achieve the immigration led growth UTOPIA that you and the big Mac Banks wish for.

What we the citizens will be left with in 10 years is angry mobs killing each other for tunnel funnelled petrol while you and your special interests are using your quick profits to build fortifications to protect your investments.

Now if the majority can see Peak Oil in its true eventuality then Type A personality special interests will be left high and dry by majority rule and we WILL get a zero population growth for Australia after a slower growth to about 23 million. And note, no more people in Sydney or SEQ till services are up to public expectations. That would kill immigration right there. This is as it should be.

Take a reality pill and don't assume you can ride your fellow citizens like a donkey.

In the meantime, there is only one way to manage water. Bring more RAIN in from precipitation bands over the coasts. You do this by
* patchwork flooding Lake Eyre to lower SA regional temperatures so Sthn coastal rain bands flow more regularly into the Eastern states and not into the Tasman sea to be wasted.
* by creating 100,000 engineered wetlands (EWBs) all over Australia. EWBs retain desert heat energy and moisture at strategic saddle points. This Thermodynamic heat energy is necessary to permanently green Australia. This heat currently reaches the Sth pole as pollution via atmospheric and oceanic circulations to the roaring forties and is a major contributor to ice cap melting.

Proposed water management stategies, green water or otherwise, with existing poor land management practices (particularly in Victoria) is like shuffling deck chairs on Titanic.

Further, intense scrutiny of the dynamics of this catastrophe are making many climate (nee biologist) scientists blind to the important thermodynamic constraints that are placed on regional climate by poor land management in Australia, Sth Africa and Sth America.

Surely this discussion must be from a global perspective.
Discussion about population growth in Australia seems irrelevant against our potential envelopment by the environmental damage and unrest stemming from scarce resources, on a global scale.
I think one approach to alleviate this potential envelopment is described by David Tribe in ‘More crops per drop’.

So sticking to the topic, Preseus, I have been suggesting that Sydney should expand by developing west of the mountains, facilitated by 1st world road and rail links. Orange would then be in comparable proximity to Sydney as Newcastle and Wollongong.
This would be in line with your suggestion that cities should be built in the upper catchments to maximize water recycling and environmental flows.
This is one more reason to halt development of the Sydney basin.

Very good David. Thankyou

I still have some issues with this and I would love to continue this debate, but while it was on-subject to raise it I guess it is a bit far off-subject to continue, in the absence of specific reference to water issues.

Can I ask you for your thoughts on my other two concerns (1 and 3) of my post of 9/2.

Geoff, I think all bets are off once a city gets to 3 or 4 million because, like it or not, it is just there. Sydney is already past the point where problems compound in complexity and cost. Every person in Sydney now has very strong self interest motives to encourage people to go somewhere else. To smaller cities where new approaches can be trialed on greenfield sites.

They can do a lot to help themselves by installing decent size water tanks etc to reduce the call on up catchment blue water. But the big problem is finding space for the collection of grey and storm water for re-sale to farming and other uses. I suspect that given the distances and heights to be pumped over, Sydney waste water would need to be "souped up" with additional fertilisers etc to add additional value to the product to justify the higher pumping expense. And that would invite the question, what other wastes are being disposed of at a cost, which could be added to water to enhance it's value to another user?

Don't know that one.

“Ludwig clearly implied that an increase in water use or farming productivity would lead to an increase in Australia's population.”

No I didn’t.

Increasing primary produce will serve to facilitate increased populations, generally speaking, with a global perspective, as it has done since the dawn of agriculture. But in Australia it won’t, because we already have high population growth, due mostly to high immigration, which is largely [not entirely] independent of domestic food production. Food production in this country is much greater than that needed to feed our population, as Perseus points out.

Increased productivity in Australia is all about export income, broadly speaking. This will contribute to an ever-growing economy, but rather than this leading to an improvement in standard of living / quality of life for Australians, we will simply be continuing to play catch-up in trying to provide the same economic benefits for ever-more people.

Perversely, as our economic growth becomes stronger, there is a push for higher immigration. So to that end, there is some relationship in Australia between better water-use efficiency with agriculture and population growth, but it is not a strong correlation.

I thank Perseus for a reasonably good posting, containing material worthy of careful consideration in this debate…. and no deliberately offensive comments!! [?blog stalking?] I hope he can see that we do actually share a fair bit of common ground here.

I don't want to say too much at the moment except encourage other contributors to continue their excellent contributions.
One of the interesting things I found in irrigation science was that the previous generation of irrigation experts realised that old concepts of "irrigation efficiency" didn't always measure overall water efficiencies well. Some of the "lost" water was not actually lost to useful farming. The green water concept rightly added insights that captured some of this "lost water" (but not really lost) as conceptually useful flows.
Recycling concepts mentioned by Perseus,KAEP add other fresh concepts and I'm very pleased to see them appear hear. Clearly deep percolation and other rainfall losses to ochre flows are real losses and can have bad side effects like salinity. The idea of recycling "ochre" flows to the atmosphere seems very interesting and it would be good to know what atmospheric modelling has to say about their quantitative effect on rainfall. Switching urban development away from Sydney or at least upstream in catchments is another intriguing idea in this context .
It would also be interesting to explore how all of this discussion relates to Andrew Frazer's (spelling,name correct?) fascinating activities as expounded on TV Australian Story recently.

As far as my response to Ludvig's extra questions, I'm a bit unsure of what Ludvig is getting at and whether it fits the theme.

No wonder our water courses scream out in agony.(Murray - Darling) When one square metre of growing cotton consumes 700 litres of water to attain harvest then that to me is obscene!

Add to this equation the run off from pesticides, growth promoters and such and the production of this textile does not seem so environmentally friendly in the overall context.(Blue-Green Algae)

The Nimbin crowd may be "off the planet" more often than not, but suggestions from their camp that Hemp ( a relation to Indian Hemp) be harvested as a textile is not being seriously looked at. It consumes less than a third of the water needed to produce the same amount of cotton fibre.

The 'Trash' that is left after harvest can also be useful in re-nitrogenising the soils.

The governments' collective response: " WE can't do that! [It] is hemp and could be used for illicit purposes...!"

No lateral thinkers, no one prepared to do an honest days research, but many nay sayers of Doom and Collected Gloom, say we need to post- haste dam all the NT rivers and pipe the water down south.

Oh dear, haven't we learned anything from the past 215 years?

The role of cycling in the contribution value of water serves to focus on the wisdom behind the diversion of water back into the snowy river. It may well have been necessary to restore flow to that river but it does not follow that the water must then be wasted by flowing into the sea. It was the river itself that needed restoring but the water should then be captured near the mouth and diverted to additional economic and ecological uses.

Is it within pumping distance to Melbourne? The experience of California, with water for LA pumped from the high rainfall north of the state, and over a 1000m mountain range, suggest it would be viable.

Other options would be to overlap supply. That is, if there is a power station between the Snowy mouth and Melbourne then use the snowy water in the power station and divert the station's existing water allocation to Melbourne. Then add sewrage nutrients to the water as it passes through humans and pump it up to the irrigation areas for further cycling. This classic multiple use of the one water body would end up producing the same amount of crops, or even more, as it did prior to its removal from the Murray catchment.

It really is a fascinating place outside the square, don't you think?

David, I don’t get it.

I would have thought these two points are self-explanatory and highly relevant

Dealing with the first one: Being prepared for drought is essential. Or put a different way; dealing with Australia’s erratic rainfall, which appears to be lower in recent years in many places, is an essential part of the planning process for improving productivity. We simply MUST have a system that will see us through the downturns.

It is true that if we are close to maximum efficiency with water usage in the good times, we are in trouble in the bad times, unless we have built in a backup mechanism whereby we set aside a good part of our water resource which can be tapped into in dry times, or we set aside a good part of the profits to get us by when (not if) the crops fail.

I really worry that improvements in water-usage efficiency will simply lead to much bigger heartache for more people and more Perseus-style chronic disillusionment with the authorities when the rains don’t come.

Albie, your concern about the 700 litres/m2 used by cotton is the product of the political green/left exploiting your lack of knowledge. For the record, my wet schlerophyl forest uses 1700 litres per m2 each year but could use up to 2500 litres, my mangos and macadamias use 2300 litres/m2 and a rainforest could use up to 3000 litres/m2.

More telling is the fact that most cotton is grown in the 500 to 600mm rainfall zone and, lest the maths might boggle your suburban mind, that equates to 500 to 600 litres per square metre. And if the cotton was not being grown on the site then the original forested grassland would still have used 500 to 600 litres/m2. So the additional use of water by the cotton crop is only 100 to 200 litres/m2. Less in a good year and more in a bad one.

Furthermore, most of the extra water that is used by the cotton industry is merely the re-capture of part of the extra runoff that was produced by clearing in the upper catchment.

And Ludwig, how can your suggestion, that "improvements in water-usage efficiency will simply lead to much bigger heartache for more people" be interpreted as anything but, Luddite pessimism? So we'll all just sit here doing continual revisions of Beattie's "missprint for the bush", will we?

David, it is pretty clear we'll get more work done on this topic on another forum. See you there.

Ludvig

The Drysdale wheat is an example of breeding that's specially targeted as water-restricted conditions. It shows that the type of effort I am talking about is relevant to poor seasons. I don't advocate ignoring the ways to cope with bad seasons, quite the reverse, dealing with plants better tailored to water stress is the main game. As I see it, the strategies I have described are actually targeted at your concern, and many aspects of rain-fed agriculture research for drylands are doing exactly that, by their nature: more crops with the few drops we do get.

As for your third point, I still dont know what it is. You need to spell it out.

Well, this one from Precious takes the cake!

I have a very real concern that improvements in water-use efficiency and consequent increases in productivity could lead to a greater level of heartache in the absence of a safety net to protect farmers during poor years and times of low prices.

I actually thought that he would have shared this concern for the well-being of farmers. How silly of me!

Instead he completely belittles it, and of course makes no attempt whatsoever to address it. He suggests that this discussion be taken to some other thread where Ludwig hopefully won’t find it!! What an enormous breadth of thinking he exhibits!

.
David, dealing with plants better tailored to water stress is of course part of overall improved efficiency. It is another factor that goes with the various means for improving the water-in / product-out ratio that you have elucidated, but it doesn’t in itself go any way towards addressing my concerns.

The very notion of increasing this efficiency implies that more water in the overall system gets allocated to productivity and that there is less left in the system that could serve as a backup mechanism. Is this not so? Even if it isn’t, and the resurrection of healthy environmental flows is structured in conjunction with improved efficiencies, the ‘excess’ water is not going to be available when it is desperately needed.

I guess what it boils down to is the need to operate well within the limitations of the system, which means utilising only a small fraction of the water available in ‘normal’ years and not being tempted to overdevelop this resource. But this notion would no doubt be seen by many to be opposed to the notion of increased efficiency.

Anyway, I am pleased that you can see my point and share these concerns.

I’ll spell out my third point next time.

Ludvig,
In the case of much rain fed dryland farming I can't see how your argument makes sense at the field level,in that the outcome you seem to be arguing for, minimising the percentage of seasonal rainfull transpired seems to be the opposite of what is ecologically desirable. The general problems with soil salinity generally seems to result from too LITTLE transpiration, caused by clearance of much eucalyptus woodland since 1800 for farming. Generally hydrologists are worrying that too little green flow to the atmosphere from rain falling on the soil encourages TOO MUCH deep percolation of water- this is a risk that your proposal would encourage, it seems too me.

That's why long fallows are thought to contribute salinity problems. Not enough transpiration green flow to the atmosphere.
Generally it is hoped that increases in green flows may get us back to hydrology more like that of 1700. That's what a lot of tree planting is directed at, I believe, and this thought lies at the back of the ideas I've been expounding.

Thanks David. Yes I basically agree. This whole salinity issue is something would be very keen to discuss further here.

Regarding my third point of 9/2.

This has to do with the motivation for developing better efficiencies and higher production rates. Presumably the motivation is primarily to increase economic growth in the interests of Australian residents. A secondary motivation is to increase income and hence standard of living for farmers. And incidental factors, which we can’t really call motivations at all, are more food supplied to millions of people overseas, and hopefully…maybe…better environmental stewardship as it concerns surface and subsurface hydrology (better river flows and maintenance of natural ecosystems).

But with an ever-rapidly-increasing domestic population, these motivations are highly compromised. Depending on the scale of improved efficiencies and productivity, the domestic population may take most of the market for the increased produce, thus preventing significantly increased export income. Or Perseus might be right; “any increase in domestic population will mean only a minor change in export earnings.”

We also need to be aware that our agricultural lands are becoming ever more degraded, which may be of such magnitude that overall production may not significantly increase despite increased water-usage efficiencies.

Even if productivity is considerably raised and it leads to significant increase in export income, this is still more than likely not going to lead to an increase in average per-capita economic growth, for as long as we have rapid population growth. The big-picture economics are thus very important in this whole issue.

So if we are to view increased water-usage efficiency and productivity in a holistic manner, we very strongly need to consider the overall increasing demand on this resource base and the effects that it will have on the primary motives of increasing efficiency and concomitant economic growth.

What is the point of continually striving to increase productivity if it is isn’t going to lead to average improvements for our populace, but instead just works towards facilitating ever-more human expansion? Wouldn’t it be a much better idea to put our collective energies towards limiting this demand?

Ludvig

I'm listening to your pleas to stop population growth. I take them seriously, but I gave up your viewpoint in 1972 or '73 when I realised it was misguided. I actually remember the time and place I changed my viewpoint, and the person who convinced me in conversation. There was a major environmental conference at Dallas Brooks Hall Melbourne at the time, which I attended.

You are concerned about the number of footprints.
Productivity is concerned with making the footprints smaller.
It can also help stop more footprints occurring. This is what you want.

Land productivity is important because it saves land for wilderness.
Water productivity is important because it saves water for the environment
Labour productivity is important because it releases labour for other goods and "luxuries" like SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT, increases wealth and eliminates poverty.

All these forms of productivity over time increase prosperity, and decrease population growth by enabling a demographic transition. They also make it possible to do all the environmental good works we all want but the poor cannot afford.

We need prosperity to do what you want to achieve. If you were poor you wouldn't even have the internet to make your case. We need drivers like productivity to counteract the increased numbers of ecological footprints we actually get(but don't wont) by decreasing footprint size. Besides that, leaving too many poor people around this world without trying to eliminate their poverty is quite dangerous for future human security, and morally wrong.

I am not alone on this opinion - there is a well developed literature on it, but that's for another OLO day.

Wow, heaps to respond to David.

Firstly, this doesn’t really address the core of my last concern:- big picture economics, or that fact that increasing productivity is simply chasing the tail of an ever-increasing demand for those resources, in Australia with our high level of pop growth.

“I'm listening to your pleas to stop population growth. I take them seriously, but I gave up your viewpoint…..”

I don’t how to interpret this in any other way than a total contradiction!

"You are concerned about the number of footprints.”

No. I am concerned about the overall footprint.

“Productivity is concerned with making the footprints smaller.”

Well I’m glad you think so. But the vast majority of capitalists wouldn’t say that. All they can see is more, more, more – bigger markets and bigger profits…. with the support of governments.

“Land productivity is important because it saves land for wilderness. …Water productivity……Labour productivity….”

This is the first time I have heard the word ‘productivity’ used in this sense. Productivity in itself doesn’t do any of these things. Increased productivity based on the same or less water-usage still doesn’t necessarily help the environment, even if the overall extent of operations remains about the same.... and there is massive pressure to constantly increase the scale of operations.

“All these forms of productivity over time increase prosperity, and decrease population growth by enabling a demographic transition.”

But David, they don’t increase prosperity if population growth is so high that economic growth can’t keep up. This is what has been happening in Australia for many years now!

We have prosperity in Australia and we have experienced a form of demographic transition (although not strongly related to changes in prosperity), from a high birthrate in the 50s to a respectably low fertility rate now. But we don’t have low population growth, due to high immigration and a large age-skew towards young ‘reproductive’ people, which means that while our individual fertility rate is about 1.76, our effective fertility rate is well above 2.

Continued

“Besides that, leaving too many poor people around this world without trying to eliminate their poverty is quite dangerous for future human security, and morally wrong.”

Providing more food for millions of poor people overseas is a totally incidental outcome to increasing agricultural productivity in Australia. Let’s face it, it is being done primarily for the export dollar. If you are concerned about eliminating poverty, the most important thing to tackle is birthrate, via family planning, education for women, provision of contraceptives and all that stuff. The cold hard truth is that with many poorer countries, supplying more food without this sort of aid is only going to take them into greater hardship a generation or two down the line. I am very strongly in favour of Australia increasing its input into international aid programs, but supplying more food isn’t the solution.

It seems to me that your argument is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.

It would be a much better idea for you, me and rest of the rabble, to put most of our efforts into stabilising the demand on our resource base rather forever trying to increase the supply rate

Ludvig,
This is getting more and more off topic, After this post I will continue discussion at GMO PUNdit if you wish but not here.
Some quotes and links that address your points, mainly land productivity (efficiency)oriented discussions :

Plant Physiol, January 2001, Vol. 125, pp. 174-179
The Population/Biodiversity Paradox. Agricultural Efficiency to Save Wilderness
Anthony J. Trewavas
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/125/1/174

Although increasing efficiency as a conscious strategy to reduce environmental impacts is virtually an article of faith for the energy and materials sector, it has received short shrift for agriculture, forestry, and other land-based human activities. Many institutions (e.g. green organizations) and strategies that would conserve species and biodiversity are conspicuously silent on the need to increase the efficiency of farmland use (Goklany, 1999). Either they do not understand the policy, or improving efficiency contradicts their desire to impose some less-efficient, supposedly ecological solution on agriculture. However, the consequence of less-efficient agriculture will be the elimination of wilderness that by any measure of biodiversity far exceeds that of any kind of farming system. It is the fundamental contradiction in current environmental arguments (Huber, 1999).

http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999au.htm

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/SAF_Forest/

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/great_reversal/

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/encroach/

http://www.cnnet.upr.edu/ecologia/articulos/Aide%20and%20Grau%202004.pdf

Economist Indur Goklany has calculated that if we tried to feed today’s six billion people using the mainly organic farming methods of 1961, we would need to cultivate 82 percent of the earth’s land surface instead of the current 38 percent...Norman Borlaug contends that by improving the productivity of existing farmland, the new crop varieties, fertilizers, and farming techniques of the Green Revolution have saved 20 million square miles of wilderness since 1950. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute has pointed out that about 16 million square miles of forest exist today. Forests are the first areas likely to be cultivated when farmland ex- pands (deserts and swamps are not nearly as inviting). “What I’m saying,” Avery told the Atlantic Monthly in 2003, “is that we have saved every square mile of forest on the planet.”

David I will check out GMO Pundit

To finish here then….

It seems that each and every one of your sources has just taken for granted that populations will continue to increase.

This has always totally amazed me more than anything else in my life – this enormous blind-spot with population growth - how people can put their life’s work into more efficient and higher productivity while never putting the slightest bit of effort towards stopping the demand from continuously increasing. I can’t help thinking that they must only be in it for the profit, or because their employers are in it for the profit and will keep employed for as long as they are happy. Thus, when those who are intimately involved with this continuous growth in productivity say that they care about helping the poor or about the environment, it immediately strikes me as highly dubious.

Nothing personal – just a broad overview.

I maintain that it would be an enormously better idea for us to put most of our efforts into stabilising the demand on our resource base rather forever trying to increase the supply rate.

Thanks for taking up the debate with me.

Thanks so much for a decent exchange and your suggestions Ludvig.
But wait, there is more:

The science magazine Nature has just published an article showing a probable link between (microscopic) water productivity in leaves (stomata) and macro-level amount of water that runs-off into rivers and catchments world-wide.

The interesting cause of this observed increased blue water, considered over long time scales of many years duration, is suggested by the authors to be carbon dioxide concentration increases in the atmosphere.

These cause stomata to close more tightly, and consequently allow less green water flow.

More details here.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/higher-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.html

QUOTE
"Measurements of stream flow around the world have documented an increase in the amount of water that runs off the continents and returns to the ocean1. This trend has been occurring since the beginning of the century, yet changes in precipitation over land do not sufficiently account for this increase. On page 835 of this issue, Gedney et al. identify an important contributor to increasing global runoff — decreased evaporation resulting from the influence of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant physiology"

Perseus. Thanks for the 'reality' check Re; my last post 12/02/2006.

Unlike your own 200 odd posts so far to OLO, my paltry responses do indicate a "...corrupted by the loony green left response..."

Tell me though in your considered expert opinion, why is it in my suburban smugness that I have lived in and experienced tropical forests - (PNG & Far Nth Qld) travelled through and stayed extended periods in your wet sclerophyl forests/savannah/dry rainforests/mangrove belts/various intertidal zones - (WA Pilbara, Gascoyne, Qld, 'Brigalow') working and living amongst ancient tribes, seen, worked in and been party to destruction of old growth environments (PNG, Tiwi Islands, NSW Sth Coast)- fragile marine coastal areas (NT, Qld, WA, Jervis Bay ACT) and yet fail to see the timeless logic and infinite wisdom of the economic rationalists/ and or scientists paid off by economic rationalists amongst these web logs etc?

Please do not denigrate my (or others posting) responses based upon your own experiences. Neither base a posters lack of education (specific knowledge)nor draw very long bows to make your own knowledge seem superior. Your responses indicate a familiarity, but you have a long way to go before wisdom hits you on the head my friend.

(Search Google if you must) my track record on some of the 'issues'.

After working for many companies, mining, forestry, over many years, it is only my collective experiences from which I comment. If my experiences indicate a negative context which 'appears' to be loony green left then you too have been sadly deluded by the grass from other side of the ideological fence.

Fortunately in reading your responses though they suggest you do in fact occasionally think outside the box - keep it up - the world needs more like you.
Remembering that 350 word limit blocks do not a discourse maketh!

If Australian science, and its application to agriculture, in this most-parched of inhabited continents can provide examples for other desiccated parts of the world, we should be congratulated. The article notes a number of proven ones, and some that seem optimistic.
Enormous improvements indeed are possible, and much greater application might be made of existing knowledge. But what limits should there be to unbridled optimism?
For instance the joys of "green water" seem to be unconfined. Yet the reality portrayed by Australia's geological history is very daunting. Forty million years ago the whole continent was vegetated, rainforest style. There would have been no shortage of "green water"; yet this did not prevent the development of narrow and edge-to-the-sun-leaved Eucalypt and Acacia vegetation. Id did not prevent sand dunes being swept right across the continent in the great dry around 20,000 years back. "Green water" might be useful, but the experiment being undertaken to quantify it is still running; and geological history demonstrates that it is limited.
The ascribing, to stomata and carbon dioxide effects, of increased river flows in recent years also needs to be viewed with caution. Maybe it is so, maybe not. The locals on the Atherton Tableland would have good reason to view it with skepticism in relation to rate of stream flow out of world heritage rainforest there.
Regarding water, we are currently living beyond our means.We should, as a first priority, establish a balance in water budgets for present population numbers and practices. By pursuing those desirable advances listed by the article, while at the same time doing nothing to help minimise growth in the numbers depending upon them, has a close parallel. That is, lowering the tyre pressure on a four wheel drive to see how much further from the shore it can be driven onto the surface of a salt lake before it founders in the underlying mud.

April 20, 2004 at the 12th meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 12), experts warn that if more is not done to use less water while concurrently producing more food, the international community will face great difficulties in meeting the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of undernourished people...

The report “Water – More Nutrition Per Drop” was initiated by the Swedish Government and was produced through a unique collaboration of leading international water experts...

“Water scarcity is a harsh reality that affects billions of people in many parts of the world,” says Lena Sommestad, Swedish Minister for the Environment. “Attitudes to water development and management must be addressed and changed if we are to reduce the number of malnourished people. We need practical solutions that benefit poor farmers as well as global solutions that address trade barriers and agricultural subsidies”.

...

The recommendations include finding ways to produce more food using less water and ensuring that these new technologies and methods are made widely available to groups that range from farmers to policy makers...With massive urbanisation and increasing wealth, food preferences are changing with significant increases in the demand for meat and dairy products. It takes 550 liters of water to produce enough flour for one loaf of bread. This is a fraction of the up to 7000 liters of water that is used in developed countries to produce 100 grams of beef.

“An overriding challenge today is to identify the path towards sustainable consumption and production patterns and to design incentives and other policy measures that can help us achieve these goals,” “Practical sustainable solutions mean balancing environmental, economic and social concerns”.

Production of food is a highly water-consuming activity. In developing countries agriculture accounts for 70-90% of available freshwater supplies “With prevailing land and water management practices, a balanced diet requires 1,200,000 litres of water per person per year (3287 liters per day) - 70 times more than the 50 liters per day used for an average households domestic needs,” she said.

http://www.siwi.org/press/presrel_04_CSD_Eng.htm

http://www.siwi.org/downloads/More_Nutrition_Per_Drop.pdf

As far as future strategies are concerned, my view is that we shouldn't drive four wheel drives on treacherous salt lakes. Better steer a different route in a car that's designed better for economical travel. A good analogy would be with managing total transport fuel demand by BOTH improving engine performance (hybrid cars),AND encouraging alternatives (public transport) AND being alert to left-field opportunities (internet work instread of travel to meetings) AND realising the challenge is so great no one aspect is the solution.

In the previous post, I linked to reports that advocate this kind of strategy. Attention to efficiency of production AND total demand is all part of the big picture. For brevity (350 words!) I deleted some points that cover several of the concerns previously raised - but they are there in the links. I'll let those Swedish reports, which are very good, speak for themselves.

David Tribe

Thanks, Albie. Any agro in my post was a consequence of yours being too close to Ludwigs and being tainted by association. I suspect you would be aperson with whom it would be far from a chore to be stuck in a small boat with for a day or two.

The problem with Ludwig is that his presence here is not to find any solutions but, rather, as palliative treatment for conditions that are limited to the inside of his head. He is a classic blog stalker who's primary aim is to obscure any contrary view with an overburden of verbage.

Isn’t this Perseus character a wonderful piece of work.

Just pure personal vitriol. No attempt whatsoever to address any of the points of debate that I have raised on this thread. No attempt in this post to be involved in sensible discussion, like David Tribe, or to provide anything at all related to the subject.

“Any agro in my post was a consequence of yours being too close to Ludwigs and being tainted by association”.

Funny!! I hope he is just a tad embarrassed by that.

“….obscure any contrary view with an overburden of verbage.”

Stuff that the poor soul seems to have absolutely no understanding of.

I asked him, on two occasions on a different thread, to indicate that he had any understanding of sustainability. Even that really basic request was too hard for him. He has offered no response whatsoever.

I have tried to entertain debate with him on his very often-repeated ideas of a separate state for farmers, but he won’t or can’t even address the broadest questions. This seems to be his passion in life… but he won’t be drawn into discussion!! Extraordinary.

Sustainability and regional vs centralised governance have everything to do with water policy and increased productivity. It just beats me completely why he so averse to sensible discussion on these issues.

Maybe he should do some self-tutoring on debating skills. A good first step would be to examine how Ludwig and d, who have some quite strongly opposing views, have conducted an amicable discussion on this thread.

Well at least he provides two functions; to mark the end of the spectrum for all OLO correspondents as far as polarised, hateful and deliberately offensive responses go, and to provide ongoing entertainment value.

He writes; “It really is a fascinating place outside the square, don't you think?”

Isn’t it now. So perhaps he might try thinking outside the square more than once in a blue moon.

In the quiet North Shore suburb in which I reside, a month back one environmentalist group had bought up billboard space on a nearby bus stand, lamenting land clearing and asking for support. It dawned on me then how great the divide between country and city truly is. Geography text-books and green/left groups spout a pseudo-religious nonesence when it comes to environmental issues, and most are none the wiser. What makes it even worse is that while most religions would say that the existance of man is good, the Dark Greens (to borrow a phrase I heard from Professor Geoffrey Blainey) have a religion which preaches the evilness of man, agriculture and progress in general.

As a resident of Sydney, I understand how much water is wasted from poor infrastructure. It makes me wonder whenever I observe water exiting bores on the Great Artesian Basin (at about 75 degrees to touch) or look over the irrigation canals around the MIA, whether covering said canals would do much good. I know most water is piped out of rivers, but the many canals we have must surely be leeching water.

The above discussion, especially from David and Perseus - even if he does think I like rural Australian only because they can help defeat Labor in the cities - has been most educational. It's good to have some experts talking on OLO for a change, especially when it comes to water.

On an aside - Perseus you might know something about this - has the movement to consolidate and sure-up the bores in the Great Artesian Basin been finished yet? I heard something about the funding being withheld by the State Government and subsequently the Feds. Could you update?

DFXK, if you want answers doctored and filtered to what would please you, Perseus might be the right one to ask.
With CSIRO, and others, being subjected to such constraints it is getting more difficult to get honestly independent and peer-reviewed scientifically credible answers.
However, if you really do want an independent assessment, perhaps you might like to approach the Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council.
Fred Whitehouse, then of the University of Queensland in 1954, noted that the rate of extraction from the Great Artesian Basin peaked at (either 1911 or 1917. I can't remember which and he is not around to answer).
Rate of recharge is not all that rapid - perhaps three million years by the time it gets to places like Olympic Dam in South Australia.
In 1998 an assessment of about $300 million was estimated, needed over some fifteen years, to lessen outflow from the basin by fifty per cent.
No doubt some progress is being made in minimising waste from the Basin, but I doubt if it is adequate.