You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and you can’t grow food without water – and lots of it. That’s reality. But fashion dictates that farmers pretend otherwise.
Consider the ‘Rice and the Environment’ page at the Ricegrower’s Association of Australia website. It says that the rice industry was “the first to initiate a project to return water to the environment through the Living Murray initiative, delivering more than 12,000 megalitres to the river system.”
Why is an industry that is so totally dependent on the availability of water boasting that its given water back to the environment?
Imagine if West Australian mining giant Ghina Rhinehart, said she was giving back Iron Ore to mother earth? We don’t expert Ms Rhinehard to give back Iron Ore, we expert her to mine it and sell it to China. So, why do we expect farmers to give back water and to a river system that is either in chronic drought or flood?
Unlike Iron Ore, water is a renewable resource that literally falls from the sky. Furthermore its not as though food is a luxury item, it’s a necessity of life.
Instead of Australian farmers boasting about how much food they produce from so little water under either drought or flood conditions, much of their publicity seems an apology for using any water at all.
Rice growers have given back much more than 12 gigalitres over the years. We could argue over the figures. But in reality, in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Adelaide, few would know (or even care) if there was a difference between 1000 megalitres and one gigalitre. And at issues is not how much water is given back, but that farmers take any at all.
Rather than pretending farming is an environmentally friendly activity I reckon farm associations should try some reverse psychology and be less hypocritical.
For example, what about the following slogan:
“The more water a farmer is allocated the more food she will grow. Sorry.”
The sentiment could be extended beyond water issues to, “Wheat doesn’t grow in forests. Sorry.”
I like, “Farming is a dirty business. Sorry.”
Just because it’s currently unfashionable to be a farmer doesn’t mean it has to be. Fashion is subversive. Dirty could be the new black.
****************
This is the unedited version of a column first published in The Land on October 27, 2011, page 12 with the title ‘Time to Stop Apologising’.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jennifer, I think that the problem is that to survive the ignorant environmental onslaught Farming has to pander to the lies. While most people in the country recognise the lies ,they know not to mention this. Not where city people, with preprogramed beliefs may hear in case they just shut us all down.
There is no ‘ right to farm’ legislation even proposed in this country by a major party and as long as mining etc has the current political pull , none will be. The current row on the Liverpool Plains ,shows who pulls strings.
Miners, Greens and all other ‘Back to Nature’ idealists control the game in the city . Yes , the right publicity sure could help, but as any city person can tell you-
We have no water, Australia cannot afford to waste it on ‘low value ‘ things.
Farmers all pollute, they pour pesticides into pristine waterways and ruin the soil- That’s why the dust from Woomera that blew into Sidney was called farmland.
(While all this goes down , the subdividers get treated as heroes.)
We know these are not truths, but they are deeply instilled beliefs in Smogney Smelbourne and Cantborough. The truly frightening thing is that if, through some disaster, the Supermarket God should stop producing food , the drive by shooting mob might turn up out here ravenous.
Excellent article Jennifer and long overdue for some practical, rational exposure of the environmentalists false claims regarding water and our wetlands.
The response from the Ricegrowers Association (RGA) is self serving and trivial in the extreme.
As a now retired irrigation farmer from the Murrumbidgee Valley I would like to know just what the RGA and other industry bodies have been doing for the last 4 years while both sides of Politics went off on an ill-informed crusade to save “the environment.”
From what?
Facts are that every premise used to justify the Commonwealth Water Act was false.
Well done Jennifer and I will comment further on this later.
Pikey.
Great article Jen,
Also an astute comment Ian.
It is completely crazy that Australian farmers particularly irrigation farmers have become so badly demonised.
It is also a bit sad that Australian farmers thought they could argue from an environment angle. The radical and noisy element in the green movement most definitely do not believe in supporting Australian Agriculture.
We need more people like you Jen, who realise that Australian farming and environmental responsibility are in fact NOT mutually exclusive.
We also should stop trying to apologise for growing food for Australia and many other places around the world.
It is also unfortunate that Australian rice farming so often ends up being the political football.
The misconceptions about growing rice in Australia are truly amazing.
Let’s hope that supermarket God doesn’t stop delivering, although. . . . ? ? ? Maybe that would help people to understand where their essential food staples really come from?
I grew up on a farm and realise most of what is prattled on about by the chattering classes is based on ignorance. Farmers are getting a very poor deal from ignorant city people who insist that spaghetti should not be grown in cages. Soon I expect to see free range lettuce and organic tofu for sale. There is a movement to control everything a farmer does and they are thoroughly fed up. Soon we will be buying the majority of our food from overseas.
Jennifer: I know its a cultural thing, as Canucks do the same thing. But, drop the “sorry”. One should not aplogise for the facts.
Incredibly cynical – wouldn’t most rational people want a viable food producing farming sector. If you like to eat you are involved in agriculture.
However is it too much to ask for soil to be kept on the farm along with the applied nutrients and pesticides. And isn’t any leakage off-site really economically inefficient?
And wouldn’t most farmers also enjoy ecological functioning river systems and some representative native biodiversity remaining in the landscape too?
Are there no moderate positions?
OT – but required viewing IMO.
http://www.clrg.info/2011/10/alan-jones-speech-on-coal-seam-gas/
I am delighted and somewhat surprised that you are asking for a moderate position Luke.
You have ,in the past, been scathing of irrigation and particularly rice farming.
I do need to point out that some of the stuff you are referring to here is very last century. Those issues re irrigation farming were solved many years ago. It’s still not perfect mind you.
What none of us could do anything about was the drought and the wild wind events that lifted parched topsoil.
The only way we could have stopped that happening was to wet the soil….and of course there wasn’t any water to do that….no amount of sooking from clueless people was going to stop that from happening.
I also need to point out that actual wetland experts (rather than pseudo city environmentalists) have known for years that rice growing….all over the world….gives the best ‘bang for your buck’ as far as ephemeral wetlands go.
You do understand don’t you that the native fauna and flora couldn’t give a flying rip where they explode into life in a wet season?
They are just as delighted to flourish in the rice growing areas, in the dams and irrigation channels as they are in ‘natural’ wetlands….they seriously don’t care.
You would be amazed if you came out here and looked at what’s happening re ecological functioning and native biodiversity this season.
I have been involved in irrigation farming my whole life and I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS…..EVER!
Those native flora and fauna obviously know something that our ‘oh so superior’ experts don’t.
Jen I think is correct….it’s about time we stopped pretending we can work with ignorant urban environmentalists and just tell the truth without any silly spin.
We do grow food and we grow lots of it….it is essential and water is in fact a renewable resource.
We also have not ‘stolen it’ from anywhere….neither has it been ‘over allocated’. The problem we had was we had a crippling and extended drought….it has now broken.
We also contribute to ‘enhancing’ our natural ephemeral environment while at the same time increasing production.
It is actually a good thing you know.
It is such a pity that we have somehow allowed ourselves to be so badly demonised.
After years of crippling drought….it is the last thing we need.
It’s time to move on…with some common sense.
And of course farmers care about a healthy river system….that is a really strange question.
If you need to ask that…then you perhaps need to read what Jen wrote again.
We use water to grow food….we need good quality water….so your question, if you think about it, is invalid.
Luke the moderate position is where most farmers have been for the last 30 years.
There has been a continual improvement in regards to soil erosion, water use efficiency, chemical applications, and overall environmental health on all Australian farms for at least 30 years now.
Yet if you were to ask the average urban person if environmental health is better or worse now than it was 30 years ago I’m pretty sure that most would say worse. That is the extent to which the debate has been shifted.
It’s like driving a mob of bullocks they will slowly creep you off to one side, and if you are not aware of it eventually you’ll end up heading back the way you’ve just came. (and yes I’ve seen this happen to inexperienced jackaroos). So every so often you have to ride hard into them swing the whip around, and drive them back on course.
That is what Jennifer is talking about, it’s time to push the debate back hard to the right, so the sensible people in the middle have a bit more elbow room to move in.
Great imagery Binny!
The other irony is that while the noisy urban environmentalists (and apparently you as well Luke?) are still claiming that problems of 30 years ago are still prevalent and maybe worse (WRONG!), farmers have been quietly and responsibly becoming more productive.
AND….none of the insane amounts of taxpayer money that has been spent on supposedly saving the MDB from us ‘bad farmers’ has had anything at all to do with the spectacular and cacophonic return of our native ephemeral flora and flora. That criticism is squarely aimed at both sides of politics.
Seriously you really should come and have a look at what is happening out here. Even the red gums and other native trees are having more ‘babies’ than I have ever seen before.
I truly think they all know something that we don’t….they have definitely proved that the urban environmentalists don’t know what they’re talking about at any rate.
You have to watch out for the snakes and other various creepy crawlies though….because they’re back in outstanding numbers as well.
HMMMMM?
Could that mean our pollies have been trying to solve the wrong problem?
Could that be because they have been listening to the wrong people?
Could that be because that Water Act 2007 is woefully impractical and inadequate?
What do you reckon?
There is most definitely a middle ground and those bullocks who suffer from a bad sense of direction need to be whipped back onto the middle ground.
Debbie – I’m not inherently anti-irrigation. You might tell me though how much water something like Cubbie station should be allowed to take?
But come on – improvements in chemical use have only come from environmental pressures. Seen those bad old days fish kills from endosulfan. What drove all those improvements in application technology and genetically engineered cotton.
And in reef catchments it’s only continual pressure to limit off-site impacts that is pushing the technological fixes from better land management. Industry now have stopped whinging and are getting on with it. And in the end it’s better economic sense. Nutrient leakage into river systems is wasted dollars.
Your questions are once again strange Luke.
There is no correct amount of water to take or not take.
Our highly unpredictable climate and highly variable inflows do not respect ‘long term averages’ or rigid rules and licences.
If they did….we wouldn’t be wearing the unadulterated crap we are copping at the moment.
We also wouldn’t have needed to build storages and regulatory systems.
Think about it.
Stop hanging on to outdated, radical and ‘faux outraged’ environmental arguments and look at what’s really happening and has always happened.
What’s missing is practical management that recognises the complete variabilty that occurs from season to season and from valley to valley.
In a season like this one….there is no problem.
In the drought we had a huge problem.
And there is every scenario in between.
Re environmental pressures….I partly agree…it has helped to move us through to more responsible practices….but I think you may find it was happening anyway because it made economic sense and we learned as we go.
You do know don’t you that this season and last season…the Commonwealth Environment Water Holder, while trying to assist bird breeding events (and trust me the birds neiher care about or need their help!) has managed to drown river red gums and suffocate fish?
They have been just as guilty of killing off native species as everyone else.
That is only one example BTW.
Stay in the middle ground Luke….that requires you to recognise that there have been mistakes made by everybody.
NO ONE…is guiltless…. very much including the environmental movement.
The other part of staying in the middle ground is to recognise we are getting better and that we are also very good at correcting mistakes and becoming ever more productive.
Well Debs – lots of landholders downstream of Cubbie in NSW have been incensed about Cubbie’s high levels of extraction? Your mob?
So yes obviously if its running a massive flood you can take a lot but in in-between years surely if upstream grabs a huge amount then downstream won’t flow.
Perhaps you’re too focused on the M in MDB and not the D?
Hi All,
Debate, Debate, but no one working together to resolve the problems we face. I started farming in 1946 just after the war. Where I lived, we had channels that delivered Stock and domestic water and the farming community was relatively satisfied. Then came along the huge storages like the Hume and others. Hmmm! thought the bureaucrats of a centralise government. We have lots of water we can sell to the farmers. We should encourage irrigated pastures. Farmers at that time were not really interested so the government said you will pay for it whether or not you use it. Many old timers took an attitude that if I have to pay then I will open the wheels and let the water run where it likes. Bad mistake. Wasteful and unproductive. Water follows the lowest levels encouraging swampland. Next generation of farmers are more enlightened and think, we have to pay so let us use it more efficiently. Good! Sound reasoning.
Australian farmers get a reputation as being the most efficient and productive farmers in the world and they continue to work towards even more efficiency , despite droughts, fires and floods which is normal in Australia a dry country. However, the Centralised government is still not satisfied with the revenue generated and see water levels of the dams not going down. Thinks to itself, we need to sell more water. There is a worldwide shortage of rice, let us allow limited rice licences, e.g. 10 acres, 20 acres 50 acres. Not too bad, no damage being done to the Murray Valley Rivers system and it produces lots of rice and only uses 4-acre feet of water per ton. For the purpose of this discussion, let say production is around 2 tons per acres and e.g. 20 acres = 2 x 20 x4 = 160 acre-foot of water used. Hmm, still not generating enough revenue for the government. Let’s open the gate for large acreage of rice, perhaps a 1000 acres, e.g 1000 x 4 x 2 = 8000 acre feet. That is better and with enough licences; it will use a good slab of water. Enter multinationals growing many thousands of acres of rice at the expense of the available water. They also tap into artesian basins to add more water to the areas they farm, (rape). Water is being pumped out at a rate that is more than replacement. While we are at it, encourage cotton and other crops that need substantial levels of water and are not really compatible with the Australian environment and Australian conditions with its thin layers of top soil. These multinationals can pump all of the water into large holding dams, leaving little for the farmers downstream, leaving insufficient water to keep a healthy river system, which is important to the survival of the environment. Problems with salt and high water tables, especially in the irrigated areas where the government did not plan a drainage system to go with the irrigation systems. Hmm not so good. Let us blame the farmers and take back the water we have encouraged them to use, after all we live in the cities and can use as much water as we need for manufacturing swimming pools, etc. Through droughts, we can ration water to the farmers while we can grow lavish and unproductive gardens, waste water washing our beautiful cars, allow industry no restriction on the water they use. We work in the manufacturing, commercial, hospitality industries, so water is not a problem for us. Hmm, government policy developers are told we should enter the world, look at the global economy, and create a level playing field to help the third world countries improve their standard of living. A real con job. Reality is that a few make the money while the majority still live in poverty. However, Industry in Australia, sees an opportunity to go off shore to produce the goods cheaply and bring them back to be sold against the products of companies that remain. We now have a disappearing manufacturing industry. Oh well, we now have a world interested in mining our resources and we can sell them off cheaply and in the short term generate more revenue.
Ok, I am being a bit simplistic in this document but the question is who is to blame. Just the farmers or bureacracy, a culture of them and us (city against the rural population). Governments without an ability to plan long term, nor able to realise that if we value added to our resources we could still generate ample employment and achieve the population levels aspired by government.
Forgive me for being cynical. I have live through all of those decades in reality; through the droughts, floods and fires.
Luke, Government has repeatedly chosen not to buy Cubbie. Perhaps because in the scheme of things the water that it would deliver is insignificant and unreliable in the scheme of things?
Instead government wants water from the Murrumbidgee – Debbie’s water – because it is more reliable and relatively speaking there is a lot more of it?
John Wilson, Repeated studies, particularly economic, suggest that cotton is an idea crop particularly for northern Australia. Crop statistics would suggest it can be sustainably produced and with the move to GM, the wildlife has come back to the cotton farms. I suggest you have a prejudice against the growing of cotton?
PS Another advantage with cotton is that it is an annual crop… so doesn’t need to be planted/doesn’t need water during drought unlike grapes, almonds and a lot of those crops grown in SA.
Jen – The issue is Cubbie taking vast amounts of water in lower rainfall years creating much acrimony with landholders (croppers and graziers) downstream. So what’s a fair amount – should they be allowed to take ALL of it? And if not how would one work the issue out? Surely not an allocation among competing interests? Based on what principles?
So the Murray-Darling is a big and diverse place. And not all the issues are about the lower end of the system.
Anyway the very interesting issue for LNP and Katter in Qld at least is its the Asian century. Good money to be made exporting food and fibre to a growing hungry world (now 7B!). Be very interesting to ponder how a greenfields irrigation scheme on the Flinders would divvy up water resources between production and the “environment”. But what about “Wild Rivers”?
Hi All, Hi Jennifer,
If I give an impression of prejudice then I apologise. My comments are a cynical summary of events as I saw when I was farming on the irrigation.
What do emphasise is that in many instances there has been insufficient research before the introduction of crops, only a consideration of short-term gains when we also need to examine the long-term impact on i.e. The impact on the soils from the use of unbalanced fertilisers, the heavy use of pesticides and weedicides down through the food chain.
There is ample evidence of what happens when sufficient concerns and or controls are not put in place. Initially when I first commenced farming, I followed what others were doing because I did not know differently. As I gained experience, knowledge, and through observation, I began to question some of the established methods. I have always had a deep interest in the environment and quickly learnt the need to work with it and not against it.
Using tree and shrub shelterbelts, water conservation, drainage controls, etc. and changing farming methods that used a system of crop rotation, which allowed the soil to recover and build up. I saw some farmer’s land fertility being depleted; problems with salting, increased swampland due to poor drainage controls or were putting the same crops in several years in a row.
Crops may be suitable in one area but may not be suitable in another area and that is where we need to be careful.
However I digress,
In short, the object of my article was to pose the question “who is at fault”. Trying to put the blame on one party is not productive and certainly makes no friends. Looking at all aspects of issues and discussing them with an open mind with everyone will usually provide a better solution.
Not any one person has all of the knowledge or ideas. People have gained different experiences, skills and knowledge and sharing them can help provide the answer.
I have seen occasions when a solution was put forward, only to have it howled down, and derided. This is bad because those that might have a contribution will not speak for fear of derision.
However, closer examination may point to how the idea could be useful and work by coming at it from a different perspective. The solution was there, but hidden, until looked at from every angle and despite initially appearing impractical or appropriate.
If put in the “melting pot”, examined by others who may approach it from a different angle and suddenly one comes up with yes we can make it work if we do it that way”.
During my long life I have seen so much blinkered decisions that look at the issue from a narrow perspective; lacking any ability to look outside of the square; without being interested in new technology, etc. Their approach is “this is the way I have always done it so I am not willing to change”. It is always more productive to keep an open mind.
I have been taught much from those with little education, yet who had great practical life knowledge and skills. Children have also taught me a lot over my life. They have an approach life with innocence and without being constrained by regimented views.
We see these constraints in politics, where power groups try to force their ideas on others. In bureaucracy where different ideas proposed by juniors or those in lower positions that might threaten the individual supervisor or manager’s position. It is the same in industry for the same reasons and so on.
Later, when working as a business consultant, I saw reports/information deleted, amended at each level of management, if it was seen to threaten others, so that when the final report got to senior management it no longer accurately reflected the original report.
Hey! I do not intend to a lecture 🙂 Just a different point of view and I again apologise if I gave a wrong impression. I am still a “young” old guy (nearly 79) always willing to learn:)
As I have said before. Although allegedly retired I work in the community as a volunteer community advocate. I would be useless in that role if I was not prepared to listen to differing points of view or consider my view was the only one. One has to remain unbiased.
Cheers.
Jen’s right Luke,
I think you need to check the claims you are making here especially re your ‘low flow years’ argument.
Cubbie takes ‘excess inflows’ and stores those. I guess there may be some grey areas about what is ‘excess’ but that is the way their licence operates.
That does mean that they have access to that stored water when inflows are low in later seasons.
If they didn’t take that water in excess years, it would make no difference in the low inflow years to the downstream farmers…..Think about that one….I hope I have explained it clearly?
I guess it must look infuriating to the downstream irrigators when it is in fact a low flow season and they see all that ‘stored’ water on Cubbie.
You also do need to question why the Govt has not taken the opportunity to purchase that licence if you believe it would make a significant difference to downstream. What do they know that you don’t know?
They are most definitely focusing on the southern connected basin and my area….which is a perfectly sustainable and highly productive area…..has the biggest target of all on its back.
You need to question why that would be the case as well.
I agree that opportunities abound to increase food production because of growing markets.
It is a very sticky question isn’t it?
Wild Rivers?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
It is not highlighted in the article that Jen has posted.
Also John,
You have made some excellent common sense points here.
I agree that we won’t solve a thing if we keep blaming the wrong culprit, keep trying to solve the wrong problem and then use the wrong resources to do it.
As Jen points out….Irrigation farming and environmental resposibility are NOT mutually exclusive. We also should stop allowing people to make us feel guilty for doing what we were all encouraged to do….interestingly by exactly the same Govt authorities who are now claiming they have to fix up OUR mistakes…
‘Jen – The issue is Cubbie taking vast amounts of water in lower rainfall years’
And that is exactly what I’m talking about Luke.
Cubby Station didn’t take any water in the lower rainfall years – that is why it went bankrupt.
Whole forests have been cut down to write about the size of the Cubby Station storages. What we don’t hear about, is that for most of the last 12 years those fabled storages have been full of nothing but hot dry air.
Well Binny just explained that way better than I did.
Well said Binny.
I must have imagined the furore !
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/farmers-fume-over-cubbie-gift/story-e6frg6o6-1111116871990
Luke, I haven’t read your link… but I have visited some of the graziers downstream of Cubbie and heard them out. I’ve also looked at data provided by them and it looked to me from that data that they were blaming Cubbie for the drought. And they wanted water down the river to “flood irrigate” sheep pasture… at no cost. I suspect Cubbie has been providing them with some flood mitigation these last couple of summers.
Hi All,
just a follow-up on this thread with a little on the side. However, I believe it is part of the whole problem.
Consider this. Australia is a dry country, yet when the Hume was built, it was for the use of the Snowy River Hydro scheme. Why are we driving generators with precious water??
Cynically, I guess the fact is that if it was proposed for farming it would not have got off the ground had it been for farming. Not enough return in the short term.
In the drought of ’66, if I remember correctly, farmers were told they would not get any more water. Nearly got some people lynched when we had a dam nearly full to the brim. The government said it was for the hydro scheme. Eventually some farmers received a small allocation but most lost stock.
This is the poor sort of planning I speak of. In a drought and a dry country, water should not be used for generating electricity unless it can be recovered and used for irrigation.
We have alternatives. Coal is still being used and these dirty plants will continue to pollute for many years. There are wind turbines, solar energy, etc., nuclear (although I definitely do not support that option. Look at what has happened and is still happening, despite assurances of so-called experts.
As we have a very long coastline, we could set up a network of Wave generators feeding into the system. There is no reason why some could not be on the irrigation and river network.
I was asked to respond to the government water strategy and wrote a document several years ago for the Victorian government Brumby/Bracks outlining a wide range of options.
The amusing outcome was I was contacted to say thank you for my submission and then told my document was too technical and we did not have the technology. If it was too technical then the department needs to sack their engineers and employ qualified and educated ones with experience 🙂
One engineer even told me that wave generators were not consistent in their output. I agreed with him but said that it was strange how our tides did not reach high or low at the same time. Placed strategically along the coast they would then be able to deliver some consistency.
Another said our coastline was unfriendly. There are many structures built around the world that coped with an unfriendly environment, so I do not accept that.
I cannot understand what Australia has come to. We used to be a nation of inventors, entrepreneurs, facing and overcoming adversity in all of its forms. We found ways, but now it seems we have settled for excuses or wait until someone else does it and while those who develop ideas, etc. have to sell and market them in other countries.
It effects all from high levels of government down to the least person in our society. Where is our ability for lateral thinking?
There are many options and while not one will provide a single solution let us examine them.
There were other options and if the government would involve itself in research and development the answers would be so much quicker than if we wait until other countries do the development. Paris I believe get a very large percentage of its electricity from wave or tidal generators so the technology is there and proven. There are places in Australia where smaller units are working soooooooo??????????
Now for those who may wonder, what is my background. I grew up in an orphanage at a time when children were just objectives with no protection from abuse. Yet I managed to educate myself.
I built a farm, studied , engineering, was an inventor, was involved in building and construction, trouble solving, Industrial relations, Industry training, business consultant both in the private sector and with the government, manufacturer and community advocate with a special interest in issues relating to the disabled and the support of the parents and finally fighting for a Child Protection system that needs to be changed as it is failing the children.
Sounds big noting but remember some of the projects were together and I have lived a long life so have had the opportunity to develop.
My late wife and I, even when we were in business, had a very large extended family made up of children from broken homes, with drug and alcohol issues and sometimes just having difficulties growing up. They stayed with us until they were able to move on. One day I will write that story but at the moment I have little time:)
Cheers:)
Maybe you would do better to check how their licence works Luke.
Hi John – I understand where you are coming from.
It’s pretty simple really – do we accept the scare tactics of the environmentalists or do we continue as usual ignoring their prophecies of gloom and doom.
We should continue as usual with our coal burning power and our farmers providing food and sustenance. Pretty simple really but we have a whole new team of protagonists like Luke who have a different idea.
The new protagonists are hell bent on the idea that man is a scourge on the planet, we are not natural, we are a rampant biology going mad, we are destroying the earth, we are plundering it’s resources and we will eventually destroy the planet.
I just reckon we continue what humans do.
BTW Luke,
that link won’t open.
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/11/02/401931_latest-news.html
Oh good grief!
In response to various comments regarding Cubbie Station.
The Station comprises three properties, Cubbie, Anchorage and Aspen, all with some water rights.
The total allocation of water from the St. George Irrigation scheme to Cubbie is only 3,768 megalitres.
However the Station has extraction rights under the Condamine-Balonne Water Resource Plan to extract water from the Baloone and Culgoa rivers when flows are above normal.
This is done by both pumps and in the case of the Culgoa, a weir on that river.
The total storage capacity on the Station is just over 500,000 megalitres.
Most of this storage is filled by harvested from the flood plain during major floods.
The total amount harvested in a flood year is 0.28 of 1% of the MDB flows and most this water would never reach the lower MDB anyway.
As Jennifer has said above, this water does not return to the river system but does water the flood plain for graziers downstream during flood events and it does provide for a limited time some habitat for aquatic species.
Claims by graziers that Cubbie was restricting their flooding during the drought were always false, but of course were taken seriously by some journalists and a certain very loud Federal Politician.
The water harvesting of Cubbie Station has near no impact on river flow in the lower MDB.
The facts are that the flood plain water does some good for garziers, but when harvested and used on Cubbies 22,000 hectares of world class irrigated crops it returns a Station gate income of nearly $200,000,000 per year.
It needs to also be noted that it is the water storages on Cubbie that provide far more secure and permanent habitat for aquatic critters than the haphazard regime of the flood plains provided by nature, which still exist under the present plans anyway.
I strongly suggest for those who are genuinly interested in seeing modern man using our most abundant natural resource (water) to the advantage of mankind by producing food and fibre and at the same time enhancing the environment; a trip to Cubbie would be enlightening.
It is something of which we should be proud and certainly not an environmental disaster as is often claimed.
Pikey.
Debbie , that link is frightening.
Is there a possibility that we will have a chance to have a true community protest about this ?
I am not joking, flag waving on a Wednesday ,when most people are working ,is a joke.
As are week long jaunts to Canberra on buses.
Is there someone out there who has any real clues about how to do it ?
Only full community participation has any hope.
Ian,
you should see the complete spread sheet.
It is truly scary.
I think it will need a focused community campaign. We also need support from the urban areas.
My area is geared up for battle, but we have to have the whole picture and ALL their figures before it happens.
The new SA premier is already chucking a tantrum without a real clue. Parochialism abounds!
After looking at how they have rejigged the figures I think it’s going to get ugly.
As Pikey says, the whole debacle is based on a completely false assumption.
Common sense has gone missing altogether.
Debbie – try the Australian link again – it worked just now for me.
The point is that downstream graziers are accusing Cubbie of reducing regenerating floods that periodically cover their pastures.
I am not saying that we don’t need cotton fibre and export income. Cubbie is indeed an impressive efficient outfit with good agronomy and engineering. But there are impacts and to a large extent they are mindful of them.
Merely pointing out that the grazier neighbours there aren’t happy and has NOTHING to do with greens.
As for Pikey trying to talk up the pseudo-ecology – “water storages on Cubbie that provide far more secure and permanent habitat for aquatic critters than the haphazard regime of the flood plains provided by nature” – oh do bung it on – great until they dry up, are emptied or get a good whiff of organophosphate pesticide when all the critters go leg up. How much time did you spend there Pikey – till morning tea and in the Toyota I’ll bet.
You should give a lecture to the ecologists studying permanent water hole refugia – you can show them where they’ve gone wrong. LOL !
The natural water holes-wetlands dry up faster and stay dryer for longer, for obvious reasons.
Don’t be such a Hanrahan Luke!
Pikey.
That is a rather naive viewpoint Luke,
The ‘greens’ most definitely use the Cubbie Station misconceptions and the down stream graziers to throw petrol on that ‘mutually exclusive’ argument.
Maybe not in that particular link but it is rather naive to think they haven’t.
Pikey is also correct about the fact that sensible summer cropping and associated storages give the ‘best bang for your buck’ as far as our ephemeral environment is concerned.
Seriously, the birds etc really don’t care whether it is a natural wetland or a man made one.
Rice fields in particular , all over the world, create massive explosions of life.
The other summer crops also deliver.
The critters actually have more habitat because we have created it. They most definitely don’t particularly care WHERE that is..
Your chemical argument is once again very last century
Go back to Binny’s comments re improvements over the last 30 years.
And we’re still improving! Its not perfect but most of the story is positive.
Hi John Wilson,
How the hell do they get the water from the Hume up to the Snowy ?
I am beside the Murrumbidgee , east of Hay and I may be able to make a contribution to the Snowy River, if I pee. I just need the reliable engineering co-ordinates.
Not having you on – The Hume was initially built to stop Shepparton to Booroorban turning into a lake.
BUY A MAP
Debbie – come on a waft of OP drift for early season mirids and its cactus for aquatic life in the cotton storages. Seen fish kills before Debs? Very smelly.
As for Pikey and waterholes – hmmm I wonder how any Cod have survived over the centuries. How do the big river runs repopulate I wonder?
Ian,
I totally agree with the physical argument you advance here.
However the Hume is part of the Snowy/Hydro scheme and the vision of irrigating inland Australia and producing hydro power.
I am still however trying to get my head around how we on the Murrumbidgee were able to give water back to the Snowy on the ‘Water for Rivers’ project.
That does defy the law of gravity 🙂
It works on paper (computer models) but turned into a monster problem during the drought. It has recently turned into the opposite problem when they recently ‘flushed’ the snowy.
This same mindset saw NOW and SHL dump water from Eucumbene into the flooded Tumut, Murrumbidgee & Murray Rivers over the last 12 months. You would be forgiven for thinking that these people believe that water runs uphill!
Luke,
you’re wandering off the middle ground again.
Did you notice the fish kills from the ‘environmental watering’? They were cod too 🙂 While they were at it they successfully drowned red gums. Very ugly and very smelly.
Look at the big picture. We have all made mistakes, including the ‘environmentalits’.
We’re better off building on the successes and fixing the mistakes.
You also seem to be confusing the rivers with ephemeral wetlands and where we can gain both productive and environmental gains. Sniping from an inflexible position that assumes some type of ‘moral high ground’
is not a ‘moderate ‘ position.
The cod’s biggest enemy is the invasion of carp. They nonetheless still thrive and populate in our system, including the man made waterholes and channels.
Aquatic organisms + pesticides = dead = far from a natural system. Now it doesn’t worry me as it’s a farming storage for agriculture but lets not bulldust that it’s a lovely aquatic wonderland. These artificial bulldozer-made storages are also sometimes totally drained for something called “irrigation”. Isn’t that amazing.
You lot will do anything to avoid a debate as to how to divide a finite water resource among competing interests i.e. irrigators, towns, upstream users, downstream users, graziers, and a river system with some semblance of ecological function
All we get is the mantra that nobody except irrigators know anything and that you have turned the place into a ecological wonderland.
Luke,
Water is not a finite resource.
It is in fact our most abundant renewable resource.
We have had this argument before.
You are talking tripe as usual.
Go back and read the article “From Uninhabitable to Unimagineable” and you may begin to understand that mans conservation and use of water has in fact improved the environment for all species including man.
You should also get a copy of a book on the ecology of water storages on cotton farms.
Facts are that your constant negative take on agriculture and irrigated agriculture in particular are far from fact.
Pikey.
Luke,
You obviously believe that irrigation farming and the environment are in some sort of trench warfare.
That is not true.
Our environment is largely ephemeral.
Dont you understand what that means?
The fact that irrigation storages go up and down is actually not a bad thing.
I agree we need to get better with chemical.
But it is nowhere near as catastrophic as you are insinuating.
Those days are long gone.
It is not perfect but its rapidly improving.
We need to build on the successes and do more of what works well and the ‘ green element’ needs to stop being so stubbornly negative about irrigation farming.
There is the moderate ground.
We could gain some great outcomes from that position.
BTW Pikey is right you know. Water is in fact a renewable resource, it is not finite like perhaps coal or oil etc
For those who may be interested the book I refered to above is:
BIRDS ON COTTON FARMS.
By Greg Ford and Nicci Thompson.
It is available online and details what everyone who has worked or lived in irrigated areas has known from observation for decades.
Pikey.
Water is indeed a finite resource within seasons/years.
Debs – I don’t think any empty Cubbie water storage with no ephemeral water holes would be a great long term habitat – do you? But don’t get me wrong – I support irrigated agriculture – but yes it does use water. However if you like to eat and wear cotton clothes one has a vested interest.
However more reliable rice areas in the southern MDB may be different.
But especially for my good friends Debs and Pikey
Defending the Social Licence of Farming
Issues, Challenges and New Directions for Agriculture
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/6651.htm
Luke,
that was a classic case of diversionary tactics and completely missing the point if I ever saw one.
How finite has the resource been this season and last season?
Also, the Cubbie srorages dried up because there was a drought. I guarantee you they lasted longer than the ‘natural’ waterholes did.
You have tried to qualify your statement about finite resource by using Pikey’s argument about variability.
So does that mean you agree or disagree?
The resource is most definitely renewable but its availability varies from year to year, valley to valley and even month to month.
That’s why we built the storages and the management infrastructure. That’s why Cubbie built theirs.
The drought has just taught us that we haven’t done enough of that. Pity our urban environmentalists haven’t learnt that lesson. They’re STILL blaming irrigation farmers and ‘bad management’ by un named evil enemies of ‘mother nature’.
I will read the book, but at the moment we’re busily growing food with that renewable resource.
We’re also busily trying to fend off the MDBA & the Fed Govt who also have missed the point and believe that our water resources are finite AND that they know how to manage nature better than even nature can!
Maybe I will get to the book after that 🙂
Oh what utter rubbish Debs –
Ephemeral waterholes restock western river systems with many species of aquatic biota. e.g. http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/riverinelab/FFFRR%20presentations/Marshall.Water%20management,persistance,distribution%20and%20quality%20of%20waterhole%20refugia%20in%20dryland%20rivers.pdf You have no idea how long Cubbie’s storages last – would you like them to leave the resource there to evaporate or grow cotton.
Pikey’s appeal to finite as in water is cycled in the big global scheme of things is a ruse argument. Allocations for cotton catchments are based on water that is available in storage in a season. If the amount is less than for everyone to get 100%, irrigators get a percentage of their allocation all the way down to zero. Sounds finite to me !
Supplementation with ground water and siphoning out high flow events into on-farm storage in good seasons are classic ways of supplementing one’s allocation.
While water may be renewable in the very long term – whole decades can elapse with less than full allocations.
Now if you’d like to spends zillions on dams to give you 10000% reliability – well that’s economically far from optimal and I suggest your pockets, not mine, pay for it.
The simple point is that Cubbie as a major irrigator was not always there. Downstream users feel in a number of seasons that their traditional rights have been infringed. Do they have an argument?
ROFL,
As well as totally leaving ‘planet moderate’ you just landed on ‘planet bi polar’.
If you go back and read your comments from the beginning of this post, you may understand that if you want to eat and clothe yourself and perhaps want the supermarket god to keep supplying safe, locally produced fresh produce, one way or the other you will be paying.
What on earth are you trying to say Luke?
It now looks like you are arguing that although you want Australians to be personally invested in Australian ariculture because we all eat, somehow that doesn’t include your personal pocket?
Who are you kidding?
And when do you think that farmers don’t pay for access? They even paid when they had no access. And dont even bother with your ‘socialism in agriculture’ that includes you arguing that you paid billions to support people like me through the drought.
Remember I was one of those who managed to barely survive it. There were way too many who didn’t.
Where did your plea for a moderate approach go?
After being delighted that you may have understood that there is a middle ground and that that Agriculture and The Environment are not mutually exclusive, I am now surprised and a little disappointed how quickly you reverted back to the behaviour of Binny’s bullocks.
Well Debs – we don’t have to buy from yourself. There are other market players.
Efficient agriculture does not imply 100% water allocation reliability.
And what’s that – I thought you guys were the Masters of Climate – in climate La Mode Au – Naturale – Drought Surfers – you guys know it all – and now you’re saying you need big bailouts periodically?
That is mostly correct Luke,
so your actual point is?
I dont want to assume too much but it appears you are having trouble meshing some goals and desired outcomes because of some idealogical theories. You have also confused the concepts of availability and finite. They are not the same thing. Our politicians and our water bureaucracies are suffering from the same problem.
We have always pointed out that we are NOT masters of climate. We have also always pointed out that no one is. Especially a bunch of self important bureaucrats in Canberra.
You must be projecting to make that statement?
It is most definitely the AGW crowd & many of our current politicians who claim they are the masters and mitigators of the climate.
Re ‘periodical bailing out’: I would offer the idea that economically that is a far more practical and workable option than a carbon tax, social re engineering of inland Australia & a profligate waste of productive water in years of plenty or years of managing
Oops. Sorry.
Rest of sentence: years of managing limited availabilty.
The idea that we can adjust to, or indeed mitigate climate change by shutting down areas that have proven they are mostly perfectly sustainable and productive will see you paying way more than you claim you do now.
Count up lost production and the govt resources that will be required to re adjust inland communities and also the costs incurred when those ‘other markets’ are unable to deiver.
Then compare that to periodic bail outs.
Then compare that to the long term advantages of increasing storage capabilities and upgrading tired infrastructure.
It is not rocket science Luke.
Must cook some Basmati rice from Pakistan tonight. You can get a big bag of the stuff for very little.
Well Debs – why would private enterprise enter a business that needs billions of government support (drought aid) to keep going? And you guys tell me you know it all on climate and nothing is new under the Sun.
Anyway – as I said – I’m not anti-irrigation nor anti-agriculture. Just seeing what your thoughts on sharing resources are … at this stage you haven’t told me much. So I conclude gimme gimme gimme
And there in lies the problem Luke.
You seem to like proving your stance by assuming you sit on some moral high ground that sees you stating absolutes that leave no room for the middle ground.
As far as I’m concerned you have every right to buy cheap Basmati Ricefrom Pakistan.
My question to you was about what you would like to see in place when Pakistan cant supply you? Also would question whether cheap is actually a good argument.
I would suggest that the cheap product should go to those who really need it
Cheap is not the same as smart economic policy.
Just because people like me try to point out that a Bureaucracy in Canberra has no more hope of predicting climate or managing it on computer generated long term averagesthan I do does not mean that I possess a crystal ball or am the master of climate.
Also what would you call the water bureaucracies that have insisted farmers pay full charges for access to a product that do not get for years? I would say that GIMME GIMME GIMME would cover that fairly well..
My thoughts? I have never tried to be obtuse or circumspect. It amuses me that you think I have.
I think similarlyto Jen. We need to be clear about our goals for irrigated agriculture and the environment. Both political fringes of these groups need to stop telling lies.
Ifwe wanted to
! ! ! Sorry again! Technical hitch.
If we wanted to, and we had the political will, we could easily improve our productive resources and do so with what we have learned about being environmentally responsible.
Once again its not rocket science Luke 🙂
So when are you inviting me round for dinner?
HUH? ? ?
People are always welcome at our place.
This season it is worth visiting this area.
Maybe it could teach many about our ephemeral environment and what rice fields produce in both production and native species.
But what did that have to do with this discussion?
Luke,
Every Kilo of Pakistani rice eaten by an affluent Australian is a kilo that can’t eaten by a poor starving Asian family,isn’t it ?
Does a gigalitre of fresh water entering the Southern Ocean from the Murray have greater moral value than a gigalitre used to feed or clothe human beings ?
You’re obviously a very smart chap and I know you love an argument but I sometimes wonder if your moral compass needs a bit of a tap.
Dave
Ah come on – you wish to deny Pakistan any export income?
The point was valid Luke.
Your moral compass does need a tap.
You avoid the pertinent questions by using diversionary tactics or stating inflammatory absolutes.
Deny Pakistan export income?
That was not even close to the point Dave was makiing, nor did it answer the questions he asked.
You didn’t answer mine either 🙂
BTW, has it occured to you yet that there is a rather large hole in your $billions of drought aid argument?
Got it figured out yet or would you like me to spell it out for you?
Hint: If I was paying for access to a product that was not delivered…who was supporting whom?
Hi All,
Hi Greg Thompson:)
You are right. I did not explain myself clearly while trying to fit as much as possible into the comment.
The Murray Valley areas include the Murrumbidgee, Darling, Yalakool, Edwards aand so many other rivers, /creeks, etc, hence my comment including the snowy and the Hume. the Hume does not only support irrigation on the Victoria side but also on the NSW side. It may be hard to imagine the Murray Valley as a valley but it is somewhat. Many past floods demonstrate this with flood water spreading over hudreds of square miles (excuse the imperail measurement) blame it on age:) I was told when I was young that you could row a boat (if you had the energy) from Deniliquin to Hay in the 1917 flood, (76 miles). The hume and the snowy were planned I understand for the use of the Hydro electricity authority and the farming community (irrigations, towns, etc) were the least priority.
Cheers.
Debs – “Your moral compass does need a tap.” – oh of course
But do you really want to deny Pakistanis export income on a small high quality niche product? You would like to deny Pakistanis income from working in this small sector?
“It is grown over 10% of the total cropped area. Rice is highly valued cash crop and is also major export item. It accounts for 6.7% in value added in agriculture and 1.6% in GDP. Pakistan grows enough high quality rice to meet both domestic demand and allow for exports of around one million ton per annum.”
Debs my drought aid argument is simple. If you guys are at home in your variable climate MDB environment au naturale le mode ; that you’ve seen it all before; and that the Millennium drought wasn’t that special – then why does the region need billions of dollars in drought aid over decades. Wouldn’t you be ready for such things?
Now I don’t personally begrudge you the money – Treasury does/did as they thought it might be endless – but logically it does mean that you are not able to withstand the climate variation unassisted.
No one was Luke,
The cities did not have enough either.
The knock on effect of NOT supporting Agriculture through a crippling drought was a greater long term cost.
We are in the process of paying back for that support.
Your answer involves all of us faithfully accepting that things are just going to get worse and we should just accept what the Browns and Gores and the Flannerys of this world claim is the best action to take.
That is far more expensive and less likely to achieve anything more than larger bureaucracies that spend most of their time justifying why we all have to pay more.
Your Pakistan argument and answer is invalid if you actually look at the questions that you were asked.
That is known as diversionary tactics 🙂
The post and the questions were related to Australian agriculture and whether farmers are really that bad. You included Pakistan and my question and Dave’s had nothing to do with Pakistan’s export market. The questions were definitely related to the morals of importing cheap Pakistani rice at the expense of our own market and at the expense of other Asian markets who would definitely need access to the cheaper products.
It also involved why-in a country as affluent as ours- we would use ‘cheap’ as a good basis for Australian Agricultural economic policy.
Although my opinion would suffer from some bias because I am a food producer, I would argue that food safety and food security and best practice are more important than cheap. We can produce some of the best in Australia. That comes at a premium price.
The cheapere stuff really should be available to the markets that do not have our advantages. It is one of my major annoyances with ‘urban environmentalists’. They want unlimited access to good quality, sustainable and even organic produce but they don’t want to pay for it. That sees them trudging off to supermarket shelves to buy cheap imports that are not produced to Australia’s or indeed their high standards.
They do unlimited amounts of talk but no walk. That moral compass definitely needs a tap.
Dunno – just quite liked the flavour and texture myself. And it came in in an nice cotton bag with zipper and carry handles. Feel bad now. And very upset. Sniff.
I dont believe you feel bad Luke,
Like I said, if you want cheap, you have every right to do that.
If you want morals and to dictate standards and farming practises then I would think about putting your money where your mouth is.
It is not possible to have high standards, best practises AND cheap.
Takes us back to the middle ground again doesn’t it?
There is one, but going for cheap is not part of it.
We can do it cheap too but that would involve practices that our urban environmentalists could not cope with.
It would also take us back to last century somwhere. That’s not a good outcome.
The road we’re on re best practises is the right road but it does not come cheap Luke.
I didn’t buy it coz it was cheap. I bought it as it was Pakistani Basmati rice.
As I said,
No problem with that.
I actually like basmatti rice for its flavour and texture too. It does not grow well in this area. We grow other varieties…which I also like….particularly long grain.
However….that is not what you said 🙂
‘Must cook some Basmati rice from Pakistan tonight. You can get a big bag of the stuff for very little.’
But that’s not why I made my purchase. I merely noted how cheaply the Pakis could land such an excellent product for my selfish delectation.
Whatever,
Pakistan and their basmati rice have just about diddly squat to do with this post.
Diversion also has diddly squat to do with a moderate approach.
If you want to continue the discussion that’s fine.
Otherwise you go ahead and enjoy your cheap basmati rice from Pakistan.
Well it has everything to do with the post – an uncharitable observer might conclude we don’t need our local water guzzling rice industry. No need to be bad farmers?
Hi all,
Our farmers are among the most efficient in the world and our production per person employed in the rural industry is among the highest per “man”. Perhaps if those farmers in Pakistan were paid proportionately better and kept some of the product back it would not suffer from the droughts, etc.
Yes, we buy it because it can be delivered cheaply because of how its farmers are exploited.
When droughts and famines attack these poor countries, we donate/send thousands of tonnes of wheat, rice, etc. to assist them. Therefore, there is an imbalance to some of these arguments. A country is entitled to sell cheaply but why does it have to be at the expense of the most vulnerable in the country.
Our governments are not interested in governing for the people. The politicians’ interests are only self-interest. I have attended court hearing as an advocate and watched as some members of the legal profession, even some magistrates act completely bored when a member of the community attempt to present their side and use legal precedent to deny justice to them. Thankfully, we still have some who are responsible. One thing I learnt years ago was that the law is not about justice it is about creating legal precedent. It takes a long time to social justice and it is usually when the issue may affect the political powers that change will occur. I have lobbied for years on changes to the so-called “Child Protection laws” which have failed to protect and so many children have been injured or even killed before anything is done. Justice is often not done. However, I digress from the farming questions. Vested interests have lobbied government to allow products to come more easily into this country and make it easier to bring in exotic diseases. We did have one of the best quarantine systems in the world and its powers have been gradually eroded away. The day is not far off when we will not have just fire ants, toads, timber wasps, but Blue Tongue, Wooden Tongue, Wild cow disease, various crops and other horticultural disease. These are examples and no doubts others can add to the list. Companies like Monsanto have become hug monopolies controlling food production all over the world, including forcing GM modified crops that are designed to produce more but require weedicides and pesticides to allow them to produce. Many are not as healthy as the naturally evolved crops and this has been proved in areas in Africa where the farmers have returned to growing the native crops. The heavy chemical fertilisers, weedicides and pesticides have been responsible for destroying the soil ecology and eventually they have become infertile and the farmers starve. We need to use these products with care and consider the long-term effects, not the short-term gains.
I had better stop otherwise I stand to be accused as taking over the thread:)
Bye, Have a good day.
Luke,
So you really weren’t interested in a ‘moderate approach’ after all?
What happened to the spirit of your original comment at this post that claimed that if we eat and clothe ourselves we should be invested in Australia’s agriculture industry.
What happened to your plea for a ‘moderate line’?
As John has pointed out, you are right, it is entirely possible to import all our food cheaply. We have the money in Australia to attract those markets and to a certain extent, as John points out, we have already put our high Australian standards at unnecessary risk by doing that.
We even have the Prof Kingstons of the world who seem to think that he is far superior to everyone else because he is ‘a global citizen with global culinary tastes’ and that somehow Australia has the supreme power to impose its high standards on countries we import food from. His arguments about only eating food that is ‘sustainably grown’ are an absolute hilarity and display supreme ignorance about Australian Agriculture and also agricultural practices in other parts of the world.
That argument would rapidly lead to starvation in places that are already struggling and need the help of the more affluent nations….not the exploitation!
When people are struggling to find the next meal for their tables they care not a second about HOW it is grown or what natural resources they used to obtain it….who is he and his ilk kidding with their academically ‘oh so superior’ moral judgement?. I wonder if he and even people like you Luke realise that the majority of your 21st century Australian farmers….who are in fact very well educated and extremely capable business people…..just fall down laughing at the absolute absurdity of comments like that.
Although high ideals and grand and noble theories are admirable, somewhere along the line they need to recognise hard core realities.
People need to eat, people need to clothe and shelter themselves, countries need to protect their borders AND MOST IMPORTANTLY we need to access natural resources to do that.
The more we become aware of best practices in obtaining those necessities of life, then the better off we all are.
HOWEVER!!!! that comes at a price. We are lucky in Australia, we actually have the room, the resources and the wealth to do it. Isn’t that the best outcome? Isn’t that the moderate and sensible approach?
The question and the discussion since you involved Pakistan is at what price and at what risk to Australia’s food security?
Are Australians really prepared to allow the mistreatment of agricultural workers overseas and the threatening of its own food production capacities all in the name of cheap?
What happens to Australia when countries like Pakistan are not able to supply the cheap stuff because it’s their turn to be hit by devastating floods or droughts or even political strife?
What happens to the Australian Farmers who are no longer supported by their own government which imports ‘cheap’ and ‘dangerous’ competition to assuage the selfish delectation of people like you?
Your comment here:
an uncharitable observer might conclude we don’t need our local water guzzling rice industry. No need to be bad farmers?
Is just an attempt to be inflammatory.
It is also repeating misconceptions about how water usage really works in Australia and misconceptions about 21st century Australian farmers.
If you’re prepared to have a proper discussion about those 2 misconceptions …which were in fact the pooint of Jen’s post….I am willing to play and offer my hard won perspective born of personal experience and education.
However, if you’re just interested in throwing in inflammatory remarks, diversionary tactics and mouthing unsubstantiated platitudes, then you have completely lost my interest.
Bravo Debbie.
And so say all of us.
John,
you are totally wrong regarding GM crops.
They are being developed and widely used because in many cases they do not need pesticides or herbicides.
That is their attraction.
They are a plus for the environment and off course as in most things environmental- the Greens have got it wrong.
Pikey.
Herbicides aren’t needed sez Pikey ? Do tell …
Debs – problems with supply in Pakistan – perhaps Thailand or India then ? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/uk-rice-exporters-idUKTRE70R1LY20110128
and other nations
And your point is?
Since when did anyone say that rice was not exported from other places?
You have just widened your original invalid answer by posting this.
Since when did anyone say we couldn’t get it from elsewhere if that’s what we want to do?
Is that what you want Luke?
I thought we were talking about Australian agriculture….in this case it’s Australian rice growing.
Where have you gone?
Maybe you’re off being that ‘global citizen with global culinary tastes’ and pretending that makes you a special friend of the environment somehow?
I really have no idea what your point is.
Re: Pikey’s herbicide point….that is actually a benefit of GM crops.
Come and look at the way cotton is grown now as well as cereal crops like oats and canola and corn.
Because of the way they have been developed via GM and also selective breeding, there is much less reliance on chemicals.
That is actually a good thing you know.
Once again…no one is arguing that it is all perfect….but it is definitely a move in the right direction and for the right reasons.
Luke,
“WE don’t need our local water guzzling rice industry”
We’re told there are seven billion of us on the planet with one billion malnourished.
So even if WE don’t need it maybe THEY do. Or is feeding THEM less important than sending fresh water to the Southern Ocean to you ?
Sigh – Debs I think the crops are actually herbicide resistant for weeds can be better controlled. i.e. unlike Pikey’ comment you do “need” herbicides – simply the crop plants will not be killed so it’s a benefit. You’re soooo quick to think that I would have an anti-GM stance. And yes cotton has had transgenic modification to produce B.t. toxin as a biological insecticide. Good stuff.
David my quote was “an uncharitable observer might conclude we don’t need our local water guzzling rice industry. ”
So there are other agricultural uses that water could be put – i.e. opportunity cost. And Australia is not comprehensively establishing its food security by having its own rice industry.
Agriculture is increasingly global – there are competitors and markets.
And it is the Asian century – good opportunities for smart cost efficient agriculture producing food and fibre for Asian markets. Is this to be from rust belt eco-compromised southern Australia or developing frontiers in northern Australia?
Luke,
what’s wrong with doing both?
I agree that huge opportunities exist in the Asian markets.
Why do we have to choose between the north and the south?
Also, you seriously need to qualify that ‘eco-compromised’ comment.
Maybe you need to come and visit the southern MDB and assess the veracity of that one for yourself?
It’s an eco-cacophony this season.
Remember that the natural environment is largely ephemeral.
I seriously think you’re mixing your metaphors and also just throwing in perceived obstacles that justify doing nothing to cater for the opportunities that you have highlighted.
We can be environmentally responsible AND take advantage of opportunities can’t we?
It bothers me that your position appears to be that we can’t do more because we’ve messed up so badly.
While far from perfect, we are definitely moving in a good direction. We should be building on the strengths and repairing the mistakes.
Luke,
Well good-oh then,if there is something better than rice I’m sure they’ll grow it as they are not stupid.Need to be careful though.Remember a few years ago dear old Peter Cullen saying how good grapes were. Within six months grapes that had nine megs per hectare poured into them were left to rot on the vine.
I agree with Debbie regarding “eco-compromised”.That is somewhere between a self serving myth and a public mischief.
As for the “uncharitable observer”,they should give their moral compass a tap too.
Dave
Good point Dave,
What’s also rather distressing for a lot of us is that the MDBA, the Federal Govt and the Conservation groups are still making claims about high value vs low value commodities based on some highly questionable economic modelling that still has many permanent plantings (like grapes but not only grapes) valued at 2007 prices. They have also used the over inflated 2007 water market prices to further this argument. 2007 was not an average year by any stretch of the imagination. In fact those sets of circumstances have NEVER occured before and will likely NEVER occur again.
Current commodity prices and current water prices are vastly different and there are many permanent planting commodities that are in very serious trouble.
Unlike us, they still have to use the water even though they can’t get a decent return on it at the moment. Their only other choice is to let their vines or trees die.
So Luke….you are correct that we all have choices about what to grow…..what makes you think we wouldn’t know that?
I don’t think you understand the real difference between water usage/ water economics/water wastage. You seem to be repeating academic arguments and quoting from outdated economic modelling that do not reflect the volatility of commodity markets or the variability of water supply.
We would not be using water to grow rice if we didn’t believe it was economically viable and a good return per ML. We completely understand the value of water and have no intention of ‘wasting’ it. The concept that we’re merrily wasting water at the expense of something that is ‘worth more’ is truly ludicrous. If we thought like that we all would have gone broke a long time ago.
I wonder if you know that we ‘double crop’ on that water? After we have harvested our rice crops we immediately plant high value winter cereal crops on the same moisture. SO…we get an excellent bang for our buck per megalitre.
I wonder if you know that it actually requires more water to produce a kilo of beef or chicken than it does to produce a kilo of rice? When you convert that into nutritional value and the number of mouths a kilo of rice can feed as compared to a kilo of beef, the perceived value can be looked at very differently.
I wonder if you actually realise that the soils here are perfect for growing particular varieties of rice (not basmati) and that in the areas where we STILL grow rice THE SOILS DON’T LEAK!!
There were places where it shouldn’t have been grown AND GUESS WHAT????? It is not grown there anymore because IT WAS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE!!!!
The fact that you can see the water in the rice fields means it is not being wasted. It’s when you can’t see it and the water is still gushing into the paddocks that you would have a problem….do you understand the difference?
The same goes for those so called ‘leaky channels’…if you can see the leaks on the surface, there is not really a problem….it’s when water disappears out of the channels and you can’t see where it went that is the problem.
Also…the evaporation argument is a bit of a conundrum. Water evaporates….that’s part of its cycle. If we want to use it before it evaporates then we need to manage that part, but it is a ridiculous and expensive argument to use ‘evaporation losses’ as a good reason to ignore the valuable resource of gravity. Water even evaporates off you and me…that’s part of the reason why it is a ‘renewable but variable’ resource as opposed to the popular misconception that it is a ‘finite resource’.
I think the best way to say it is….it is ‘infintely variable’ 🙂
I know Jen had a dig at the RGA website for their ‘environmental stance’ (and it was a valid argument because the issue is not that we have already reduced our water usage dramatically but that we take any water at all) but it is nonetheless a great site to visit to learn some actual facts about rice farming and the value of this industry to Australia.
It may help you to understand that there is more to this than you originally thought?
Hi All, Hi Luke,
I will keep this one simple.
You are wrong in your statement and it indicates you need to do more research. As I said, GM crops are designed to produce quantity in most areas. They do need weedicides and pesticides and some are designed that the farmer must use Monsanto’s Roundup or similar Monsanto products.
As a farmer I have been following the GM debate for nearly 50 odd years and while some crops are improvements others are not. Why do you think Monsanto and other chemical companies have been buying out the see producers and wholesalers. It is my believe that if they can control the food production of the world it will be done by replacing seed that has evolved through hundreds, perhaps thousands of years and replace them with their own GM modified crops. Owning the seed, they will sell to farmers where the contracts force them to buy Monsanto products. This is already happening to farmers in Canada and America, possibly in Europe as well. Monsanto has attempted to sue farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GM for illegally growing their product. Farmers who have spoken with me complained of this and my advice is to sue the company for allowing their product to escape contaminates their product.
I could speak more on this but said I will keep it short (for a change)
Bye all, I am going to have an early night for a change. I am usually working till 2- 2-30 am but I suffered from heat stroke and it has left me feeling poorly, so an early night many be the answer
Bye all, Sleep tight.
Regards
Hi All and Luke.
My apolgies my comment should have refered to Pikey but I isread the name. Should know better “less haste, more speed” So Pikey the comment was for you when you state In many cases they are dessigned not to need weedicides or pesticides. To some extent you are correct. However the product has inmcorpated a poison, etc within the plant that is how it has been bio engineered. Some thoughts for you. If it is a food crop then humans are also ingesting that poison. What are the long term effects on us or our children. Early days it was stated that marijuana had no side or long lasting effect. However, it has now been proven to among other thing to have a mutational effect on genes, etc. while it may not effect the use , the children can bee effected. So we need to be very care of any bio engineered products. they need to be researched thoroughly before being put out into the market place.
Good night all
Hi John,
In my original commment I was refering to the fact that GM cotton has been developed that results in the use of much less insecticide.
In the case of canola the GM product allows the crop to be grown without the use of Treflan which must be incorporated into trash free soil. The result is that canola can now be grown in a fashion that is beneficial to soil health and at lower costs.
I did not and do not wish to go into further detail as my family are involved in the business.
All the best
Pikey.
Hi Pikey,
Thanks for your comment. You have added further to my knowledge and appreciation to debates. My comments were intended for a general and broader viewing, although as I said earlier, in some instances there are exceptions to the rule.
Personally, I am not convinced that the introduction into Australia of GM products was the wisest move. With the trend towards organically grown products that do not accept GM. I believe Australia could have been a world’s foremost producer and generate greater revenue. Ít may have proven to be more economical viable than the GM crops. We will never know now.
However, there is no use looking back and we need to look forward but I believe with greater care into the long-term impact rather than the short term, than has been exercised in the past.
In my experience confrontational arguments, do not lead to resolving any issues. It is important we listen to all sides of an argument, examine and fully research, but just as importantly be prepared to look at the whole picture.
Confrontation just usually proves who is the strongest bully, where control is the object.
We have good examples where the Mining and cold seam gas interests believe they can just move in and do what they wish. Governments of every colour can longer be trusted, having been bought out by the vested interests and approving conditions that in many instances are a breach of our Commonwealth Constitution.
People have been kept ignorant of their rights. One time a University professor asked of his class of legal students how many knew we had a constitution. Most were vague about it, only about 20% studying law knew about it, and even their knowledge was limited.
I have had personal experience of this resulting in having to take on the government. Initially, they tried to argue that their advice was correct because the department said it was so. It took me nearly six years to prove them wrong.
I would argue that there are probably thousands of similar instances that could be quoted. The culture of some government departments and even politicians who take the view that if they say so, then it can’t be wrong and will not listen.
However, not everyone is as pigheaded and stubborn as I (ancestry Irish/Scottish) plus having grown up in an orphanage that treated children as objects that could be abused as they will. No one put a silver spoon in my mouth. Good training in teaching you to stand up for yourself.
Sadly, some of those I grew up with could not fight for their rights because there was no one interested or no support. Some suicided, others turned to drugs and alcohol.
It has also influenced me into advocacy work for those who cannot or do not have the knowledge to fight for their rights.
Farmers have been given short-shift by vested interests for many years and the newer more powerful vested interests in the form of multi nationals and internationals are quite prepared to destroy our prime agricultural lands jst to achieve their interests.
I am proud to align myself with the farming community, although no longer working in this field. To be a farmer you have to be the world’s great optimist. Despite flood, fire, drought, market down turns this year will be better. If not this year, then the next. If they were not then they would not survive the adversity they face. In addition, there often is a cultural divide between the city and the rural people.
Years ago a young vetinarian came to set up business in our town. He was keen and thought he would teach the farmers. He held field days to promote this and that.
We had become friends and one day we were talking and he said I don’t know why I bother. I hold these field days but don’t seem to get anywhere.
I replied, “Well the farmers are coming aren’t they? So they are listening. Give them time.
Where you are going wrong is that you expect them to accept whatever you say.
It doesn’t work that way”. When you were studying, the university received funding to research and study a particular project. If it was successful, that was fine. However, when it failed, you just moved on to another funded project.
You are asking farmers to invest in your ideas from hard earned income. They will come to your field days and look and listen. If they think there is merit they will consider it and if the money is available they will invest.
Anyway, some eight year or so later, we were talking and he said, “You know farmers on the irrigation are such highly intelligent people. They have to know something about so many things that their city counterparts do not in order to survive.
For example, knowledge and study of weather and weather patterns and seasons, land surveying, planning water flow and building channel systems, animal husbandry, keeping records of stock breeding, analysis of stock markets, budget over many years and trying to make provision for adversity and so on.
I laughed at him and reminded him of his earlier perception of the farming community as being ignorant and not prepared to accept new ideas.
He acknowledged that, saying I must have been naive in those days. It was a wonder I was not laughed out of town.