Right with you, Jennifer,

Aa a retired WA grain farmer, reckon our families seen it all over the years, dryland wheat farming as well as running particularly sheep has messed up the land not so much by farmers themselves but by outside urgers, especially bank managers and livestock agents, and as well of course govt ag' advisers.

A big problem, of course, is battling families starting in debt, two or three good seasons also making new cockies overconfident, said by some to be the worst thing that could happen to any new chum, especially if the banks and stock companies get overconfident also.

Even in the 1930s with plenty of bush left around after three dry years saw the worst blow and more land gouged out than has happened since. That was because five or six good years made us overconfident, virtually trippling our flocks by buying in, as wool was better than wheat during the Great Depression.

Ask any old cockie if he's still alive and he'll say the same. Further, us oldies have to admit that with sensible use of chemicals to allay overworking the ground back allied with minimum cultivation, even with still the odd run of dry years we've got a future, though we could wish our dear friends the Americans would give us a go and stop dumping cheap subsidised wheat on our markets.

But as far as Jared is concerned, he can go jump', for there will be a time in the future when our money pits run empty of the stuff we're shipping to China et al, and if we can look after the land better, giving certain credit to modern science, not all, along with our politicians gaining a bit more commonsense, Australia might still have a future. In dryland Australia it pays to be cautious, however, and make sure to take lessons from the past, possibly not necessarily from old cockies.

GeorgeC, WA - Bushbred

Jennifer Marohasy says that all Australian farms are operated sustainably and no farming practices have ever contributed any salinity to Australian rivers. Oh sorry, was that a little misinformation and propaganda. I guess I just got caught up in the momentum after reading this article.

When Jennifer Marohasy mentions misinformation and propaganda everybody should stand up and take note, because she is an expert.

Ms Marohasy says that Jared Diamond told his Brisbane audience that Australia should phase out agriculture all together. She doesn’t mention that Diamond does not say anything like that in 'Collapse,' so did he really say that in Brisbane? Is that what you mean by misinformation, Ms Marohasy? Or is it propaganda?

Diamond says SOME Australian farms are being operated unsustainably primarily because they are in areas where the soil is poor and there is inadequate rainfall in most years. When he was on ABC TV talking about 'Collapse,' the farmers on the show agreed with this point. Same as Bushbred above. They said that many farms are too small for the dry conditions and the farm owners can’t afford to rest the land in dry years because they need the income to survive. The farmers said that some, not all, overstocked after good years (again like Bushbred). That is why Ms Marohasy is the propaganda champion. Diamond agrees completely with Bushbred, but she’s got him thinking that they disagree.

Diamond never said all Australian farms should be shut down. He said SOME farms were operating unsustainably and were being supported by government handouts, which was damaging the environment. Is that a statement that you disagree with Ms Marohasy?

On salinity, Diamond says significant areas of the Western Australian wheat belt are severely affected. Marohasy flips this around by saying Diamond gets his information from green groups, and the green groups said the Murray is dying, but it really is better than it was 20 years ago. Not back to its original condition, of course, and part of the “salt interception scheme” is to dam water that runs from the salty areas. That means less flow to the Murray, which is not good, but it helps the salinity concentration for Adelaide, which is good.

The Murray is in no way - all fixed up, as is implied. I’d say that was misinformation.

C’mon Ms Marohasy we can do better than this. I’ll bet that there are a few exaggerations and mistakes in 'Collapse,' but the basic message in Chapter 13 is that Australia will be better off if all the farming and grazing properties are run sustainably, and that there is still time to get it done. Isn’t that a worthwhile goal?

Lets get some solutions and support the farmers, so that Australia’s farms are all being operated sustainably, and farming can continue forever in Australia.

Eric Claus

Ms Marohasy’s comments on land-clearing are truly flabbergasting, and this is supposed to be one of her key research topics, according to the IPA website.

She writes; “Yet the hard data indicates that even during the height of clearing …..there was a net increase in forest cover of 5 million hectares in western Queensland”

My goodness, even with clearing rates of hundreds of thousands of hectares per year, for many years, the increase in the area of forest was greater. What?

Ms Marohasy is presumably referring to some highly dubious stats on thickening and perhaps encroachment, plantations and maturing regrowth. Well, thickening does not lead to increased areas of forest cover. It leads to the thickening of existing forests, woodlands and scrubs! So this shouldn’t be included at all, and it was no doubt the greatest component of her purported rapidly increasing forests. Encroachment of native trees into grassland is a very minor phenomenon, significant to some landholders, but small-scale all-told. Similarly with maturing regrowth. And of course, new forests being planted were also of a very minor extent compared to this massive clearing rate.

Ms Marohasy has surely completely destroyed her credibility with this effort.

Jared Diamond could have researched his chapter on Australia a little better, but his message is rock-solid.

I agree entirely with Ericc’s two postings above.

Ludwig, your ignorance leaves me breathless but not surprised. The additional forest in Qld at the height of the clearing was vast areas that had previously not been classed as forest because the canopy was less than 10%. That is, they were paddocks with a few trees. Most never had a lot of trees while some of this land had been cleared many years ago. And when the number of trees increased, the paddock was then redefined as a forest under the national forest inventory. Ergo, there was an increase in the net forested area.

Diamond was guilty of demonising Australian farmers. And, curiously, discrimination on the basis of occupation or family background was the one part of the international covenants on discrimination etc that did not get enshrined in Australian law like race, religion, sex etc. If he shows his hideous face around here again it will be eggs and tomatoes big time.

Dear Perseus

What you say may be true (from your second sentence on). But this increase in forested area is of very minor extent compared to the enormous clearing rates of the 90s.

You have (quite deliberately I am guessing) avoided the real issue: Do you think that the increase in forest cover, in terms of area, not thickness, had increased during the 90s to an extent greater than the enormous clearing rate? If not, then what’s the point of your posting? You are really nitpicking at one component of thickening.