Yabby,
excuse my ignorance but, re frost damage to certain crops what is the reason for keeping on growing crops susceptible to frost ? I find it very much like the cotton industry. On one hand we scream about lack of water yet on the other hand we grow cotton. Isn't there a degree of senselessness ? I mean we import just about everything else to this country why not do away with stuff that doesn't work here & concentrate on what does. Is it it really so beneficial to Australia to let a handful of businesses ruin it for the masses ? I can't grow certain vegetables where I live due to climatic condition so guess what ? I don't plant stuff that is not suitable for my latitude. We desperately need brains in this country but is anyone focussing on producing them here ? NO !

Individual, if we only grew crops, where there is no risk, you
would frankly starve.

Agriculture is a risky business. From a seedling onward, plants
are at risk from drought, diseases, insects etc.

West Australia grows around half of our wheat, but every year
crops are wiped out for one reason or another, some partly,
some completely.

If you want complete security, do what Pelican does and go and
work for the Govt :)

So we try to minimize risk, by taking calculated risks. We
delay seeding, so that flowering does not occur at a highly frost
prone time. We grow more frost tolerant crops in more frost prone
areas, low lying country etc. But of course nature does not
always cooperate, climatic systems come and go and if nature
throws up a really frosty night in the middle of flowering,
boof, there goes the crop.

My suggestion to you is, don't ever try farming, if you are not
an optimist who is prepared to take a calculated risk. Be thankful
that others do, or you would starve.

Not only that, but you and other Australians still rely on farming
and mining to generate export $. Without those industries, how
would you pay for your imports?

Yabby,
I am highly appreciative of farmers. I am fully aware of the commitment, faith, hardships & perpetual fleecing by the taxman & the interference by those insipid greenies. It's usually those who condemn farming practices who complain bitterly when prices go up or there's a shortage of supplies. I guess I was to vague in my cynicism but what I meant was why are many grops which with a history of failing still being planted. Also, I'm led to believe that many farming products are in over supply & when the prices drops they simply go to waste. Would an australian farmer not be well advised to grow produce that is not so vulnerable to australian condition & if people want them badly enough they can be imported. On the other hand I don't see how GM can do any more harm to Australia than the thousands of hangers on academics & bureaucrats. I mean we're changing everything else when its convenient to the do gooders so why not create flora which is of benefit to many & may even improve the salinity problem in many areas. Again, I'm raving on mainly on ignorance but it seems to me that much of Australia's farming produce is geared for supply & quite often waste rather than plain demand. It appears that many farmers try to emulate the manufacturing industry which we know is at times grossly of a frivolous nature aimed at a frivolous market when times are good.

individual, with all due respect all crops have some susceptibility to frost. Some are more susceptible than others. Very susceptible crops are simply not grown in areas where frost is common. The only choice farmers have to risking frost is to not grow anything.

Crops are also susceptible to drought, hailstorms, floods, to disease and to insects. Farmers manage these threats as best they can, but occasionally suffer damage. Frost is particularly difficult, because by that stage the farmer has committed resources to grow the crop. A failure as a result of frost means all those resources are wasted. At least with a drought, the farmer has the option of not continuing to put resources into growing the crop. Famers who have land in frost-prone areas have to take on the risk more often.

What would you suggest as a produce that is not so vulnerable to Australian conditions? Wheat and barley are well suited to the Australian Mediterranean climate. I can think of few food products that are as well suited.

Yabby,

Absolutely old son, those who risk their money "should" get a reward if the product can compete on a level playing field. But how much, and should they be able to change/pervert the market to suit themselves to the over all detriment of the system (precedents spirit of the law)
I understand the view of some farmers (you) and Agronomist's view that they need to maximize their investment.(if a little self interested)

However, I believe in the principals of capitalism specifically a level playing field. Their behaviour is anything but this.

I have crossed swords with Agronomist before and I understand his and your self-interested position well. I simply disagree that one perversion of the principal of capitalism justifies the creation an intended corporate club.
Likewise, any multinational (vertical marketing or not should be able to dictate to sovereign govt (albeit by proxy). *This end doesn't justify the means*.

Evidence suggests the methods and the oppressive methodologies they use are geared to make an otherwise uneconomic (uncompetitive?)product dominate.e.g. IF I were to invent an obviously better car but to recover its costs It became uncompetitive unless I perverted the level playing field bought up most of the petrol manufacturers, end petrol stations, selling that specific fuel at a premium, forcing all the car owner to only use genuine parts and serviced by my business, would you or would you not regard that as contrary (a perversion) to the base principal of capitalism.

I would suggest that both you and agronomist aren't interested in the wider consequences. You are entitled to be shallow in your reasoning and wrong.....He he He Ho Ho (a joke old boy):-) (don't take the last sentence seriously you both should know me better by now.

Ah Examinator, my reasoning is simply more thought through then
yours :)

Anyone can join the corporate club, if they are prepared to risk
their hundreds of millions. We do have monopoly regulators,which
ensure competition in the marketplace. If they are not doing their
job, that is the fault of Govt, not of corporations.

Now look at it this way. Monsanto spent their mega millions inventing
Roundup, years ago. They sold it at a high price, but one that the
market could bear, otherwise nobody would have bought the stuff.
Now its off patent, made cheap as chips in China.

You/we all benefit, by that, in terms of cheaper food in the marketplace. Had Monsanto never invented Roundup, we would all be
worse off.

So my point is, Monsanto are far more useful to this world then
you are, who has invented absolutaly nothing, taken no risks,
just stockpiled your pennies in a bank. So there :)

.