Interesting bushbred, especially in regard to the canola.

I'd heard that the canola industry in particular was doing very well, due in part to the Australian moratorium on GM canola, which allowed Australian canola access to GM wary Europe where US canola was denied.

Shonga - seems like we both would like to see a free market operating. Basically, I'm saying I'll jump on the free market bandwagon as long as Australia's competitors do as well. I think in that atmosphere, the Australian farmers who have had to cope with extensive subsidising from overseas, would react like any hardened species introduced to a more forgiving environment... while a cane toad comparison is probably unflattering, I think it would be an apt one.

And if that were to coincide with the drought breaking... well... it's probably too much to hope for, but you can be sure the Australian economy (yes, even the city dwellers) would feel the effects.

TRTL,
We can wish nate, however if we are the onlt country playing by the rules, however I have seen how foe example South- East Asia ticks corruption wise having been there, nothing will change there in the short term.

Australia, in the past decades has relied on working smarter, not harder. With this in mind the time may have arrived when the drought has forced individual farmer to sell some of their assets and install smart technology to lower their operating overheads, i.e. solar powered pumps instead of diesel.

If an indivisual farmer is unable to do this they should, as private/free enterprise dictates sell their business to someone who has the capital to restructure the farm/property with the necessary technology and lower the operating overheads. Perhaps the stage has arrived when the "family" farm is no longer viaable, unless consolodated into a co-op type of arangement, much like workers and employers unions.

Dry land farming and grazing has become smarter however rice and cotton has not. Rice and cotton should be abandoned in Australia. Australians should consider the traditional diets of North and south west Africa, Northern mexico and especially reconsider growing bush tucker most of which is very productive with a little extra irrigation. Linen or linseed is far more drought tolerant than cotton. There are many drought tolerant hibiscus and cacti that lend themselves to fine textiles. CousCous is less water intensive than rice and potatoes and takes less energy to prepare.Camel and kangaroo are better meats than beef. Goats should replace mutton in the drier extremes. Australians should adopt goat fetta and sheep haloumi and abandon irigated dairy cheeses. We can not blame the farmer for failing to farm the land efficiently if we dont adopt a lifestyle that suits and economically support apropriate farming within our climate. We are not Europe , we are not Asia , we are an arid continent which will become drier with greenhouse.

So many conciliatory noises from Ms Staley, but then,"..a profitable and therefore sustainable agricultural sector in this country".

Proving in a sentance that she, like the rest of the amoral economic fundamentalists at the Institute for Public Affairs, still thinks the environment is some subset of the economy, rather than the other way around. Duh.
How can extracting limited soil macro and micro nutrients and petro-chemically replacing some of some of them be sustainable?
How can the highly profitable rice and cotton farming at the head of the now dead Murray River be sustainable?
How much water can the summer fallow 'sustainably' add to groundwater recharge and future salt problems?

Care to answer any of my questions Ms Staley, or are you going to vanish until the next unreferenced press release like Ms Marohasy? I guess OO should be flattered the IPA spams it, but if their flacks wont participate in discussion they should be barred as bad users.

Liam.

The environment is a subset of the economy. Yes we need our environment to make money from it, but the more money that we can make from it, the more resources we are able to dedicate to research and maintenance of that same environment. If you dont believe this then have a look at what is happening to the environments of third world countries who dont make enough money to manage their surrounds.

Usng the soils of this country to graze and grow crops is sustainable, if agriculture is given access to the science required to analyse and manage soil structure and nutrients.It is in a farmers best interest to have healthy soil. Why? Because it will give him/her the best chance at high yields and produce with a good nutrient content (and therefore sought after). More and more farms are being managed on the basis of maintaining and improving soil structure and nutrients and optimising the availability of nutrients to the plants (you can have all the nutrients in the world in your soil, but unless the conditions and chemical balances are correct, some or all of these will not be available to your plants to take up). There is a whole industry springing up around soil science.

Rice and cotton are hardly highly profitable at the moment: there is no water to grow them with. Cotton in particular has extremely high environmental regulations to comply with, including the EPA constantly looking over the shoulder of cotton farmers.

The Murray river is not dead. If you dont believe me, go for a look. I was there only 3 weeks ago.

"How much water can the summer fallow 'sustainably' add to groundwater recharge and future salt problems?" I am not sure what you are asking. Fallow refers to a length of time when no crop is grown. Rice and cotton do not have a summer fallow (unless long fallow is opted for), because they are grown over the summer. If you would like to restate your question I am willing to try to answer it for you.

The Murray is no longer a river but a line of ponds. It has been years since it has flowed out to the sea. The cost of over use is excessive in terms of environmental degredation, keeping the mouth open and the rising salinity of the water itself.

The rice and cotton industry should shoulder the blame for the degredation of the Murray. Both rice and cotton contribute almost nothing to the Australian economy compared with all other agriculture and most other sectors. If the rice and cotton industry disappeared today there would be no negative economic impact on Australia what so ever. Instead many rural economies in the Murray Darling basin would improve as they would no longer have to over subsidise rice and cotton in terms of water.