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